141–150 of 188 posts
For instance, I search for recipes a lot. And Yummly "wrappers" seem to come up a lot on DuckDuckGo, often barely acknowledged as being Yummly. I don't know what Yummly is but it just seems scummy...it seems to wrap pages that I know are clearly recipes on other web sites, yet they're made to appear like Yummly pages. Why? There's no reason for this kind of middle-man stuff.
Has anyone considered that the slightly longer and forgettable name DuckDuckGo might have something to do with the low mainstream presence? I think they should rebrand and market with duckgo or maybe just duck.com if at all practically possible.
We recently commented about this on a Reddit thread too ( https://www.reddit.com/comments/3vtxib/duckduckgo_search_lik... ) We do have a short domain " http://ddg.gg" although it is worth noting that duck.com is owned by Google and points to their main search engine. So it's not really an option for us.
It's not necessarily nefarious, the domain came from some unrelated acquisition, but they didn't have to make duck.com point to Google.
I do have 2 complaints, and together, they made me switch back to Google.
1) Results aren't as relevant, especially when I'm searching for very new or specific things.
2) Speed. I'm not sure why, but DDG seems to stumble on some searches, which end up taking 2-3x the time they're supposed to.
One thing I would love to see as a feature is the ability to add under settings a list of sites I'd prefer not to see any results from.
For example experts-exchange where they want you to sign up to see the answer. There's also a bunch of scraping websites that don't have actual answers which just pollute the results. Being able to suppress that kind of site would be wonderful.
I'm aware you can use an option on the search itself, problem is that the list of sites I like to remove from the search is too long to type each time.
I really like how their instant answers are open source, and they're really nice. (e.g. npm, GitHub, regex/vim cheatsheet) I do have 2 complaints, and together, they made me switch back to Google. 1) Results aren't as relevant, especially when I'm searching for very new or specific things. 2) Speed. I'm not sure why, but DDG seems to stumble on some searches, which end up taking 2-3x the time they're supposed to.
Most of the comments here are complaining that, while people like the idea of DDG, the search results are poor. Two comments regarding that: 1) the only way DDG is going to improve search results is by you using it regularly. Using it regularly drives not only revenue, allowing them to hire additional developers, but it also drives feedback to help DDG improve search results. 2) I suspect that the difference in searc…
> the only way DDG is going to improve search results is by you using it regularly. For what company or product is that not the case? Unfortunately, most people (myself included) aren't interested in integrating inferior products into our lives with the hope that "one day" they might be as good. I decided to default to DDG last year to see how it was, and because my online privacy is worth something. I found the resu…
The big question for DDG, is can that product grow up, clean up their offering to users other than early adopters, and move into mainstream use? That's the question posed in the original article, and also the big challenge facing DDG for the future.
To your point about not being interested in integrating an inferior product into your life, hoping that it improves in the future, have you ever been an early adopter for another product, or participated in a Kickstarter campaign? If so, you're helping that company improve and refine their future offerings to customers. You don't have to do it for DDG if it doesn't meet your needs, but consider this point of view when commenting on its inferiority.
DDG has been my search engine of choice for the past few years and in my experience it is pretty rare that I have to use google for better results. In general I'm quite happy with it. One thing I would love to see as a feature is the ability to add under settings a list of sites I'd prefer not to see any results from. For example experts-exchange where they want you to sign up to see the answer. There's also a bunch…
DDG has been my search engine of choice for the past few years and in my experience it is pretty rare that I have to use google for better results. In general I'm quite happy with it. One thing I would love to see as a feature is the ability to add under settings a list of sites I'd prefer not to see any results from. For example experts-exchange where they want you to sign up to see the answer. There's also a bunch…
DDG has been my search engine of choice for the past few years and in my experience it is pretty rare that I have to use google for better results. In general I'm quite happy with it. One thing I would love to see as a feature is the ability to add under settings a list of sites I'd prefer not to see any results from. For example experts-exchange where they want you to sign up to see the answer. There's also a bunch…
I'd love there to be a "I'm a developer" mode: I know it goes against the point of not tracking people but there are so many tech words that are common nouns etc, and providing a bit of context would prevent a lot of g! searches from me (see example: https://twitter.com/mrspeaker/status/672115832772784128/phot... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think an unavoidable conclusion is that while people may like privacy or some other benefit/function, they are rarely willing to take a hit on the main benefit/function (search results) to get it. It think this is an important thing to learn here as it applies in many cases. Maybe everyone complains about bad behaviour of their insurance company, but that does not mean they'll take a higher premium. Some people car…
>Maybe everyone complains about bad behaviour of their insurance company, but that does not mean they'll take a higher premium Exactly. >There's something here about "consumer" psychology and choices that is hard to capture in the concrete terms economists like to formalize using. That some/most economists like to use. There is a huge field in economics (and econophysics and stuff) that focused on actual irrational b…
I find myself surprisingly often having to remind people that a world in which 64GB of RAM, 16 cores, a dozen terabytes of storage, and programming environments that let people harness all of these things, can all come out to a budget within reach of a middle-class individual who really wants it, is a VERY recent development, one still sinking in to the rest of the world. Rational agents have really always been known to be false, but good luck in 1980 getting an economist to write any sort of simulation of 100 million agents doing something slightly irrational to see what happens. They're going to face some pretty stiff competition for the supercomputer time that would represent... and the supercomputer in question would still be grossly underpowered compared to modern systems, so it would take some clever programming too.
Even as clock speeds may have frozen, even in the last 5 years there has been a noticeable drop in the price of computing power.
Beating up past economists for using the rational agent model is like getting beaten by people 50 years in our future for not just using AIs to solve problems, just because the phone in their pocket is populated by a couple dozen human-intelligent entities running locally, to say nothing of the civilization in "the cloud".