51–60 of 198 posts
I find duckduckgos results quite bad though, i've given it many shots over the past year but often have to keep switching back to Google.
> I'm getting a feeling that some day in future, DDG is going to become as big as Google, if not supersede it. Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. > a search engine's results are only as accurate as the number of users who search and contribute to it That makes no sense. Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty.
> Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. Really? I've never heard this, do you have anymore information about it?
https://duck.co/forum/comment/27893
Edit, that's about 5 years old. The current page on Wikipedia provides a more recent explanation.
"DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "about 50" sources,[42] including Yahoo! Search BOSS; Wikipedia; Wolfram Alpha; Bing; its own Web crawler, the DuckDuckBot; and others."
It's much nicer about disambiguation than google, and can be incredibly helpful. e.g. Search for Zen - you get a wide selection of possibles in probable order. Sadly there's far too many missing. Crowdsourcing needed.
It's horrible at localisation. eg set Filter by region to UK and search any global multinational. Chances are the UK site is WAY down the list and the .com and US options hard at top. on google UK the local branch is always first.
There's too many instant answers that presume a US only view of the world.
The instant answers when they have adequate data and ! searches are brilliant.
Lyric and video searches are orders of magnitude better than Google.
Maybe 5% of searches go to Google as I'm not quickly finding what I need.
Every time I try to use DDG I ended using !g which kills its purpose, I just use Startpage[0] [0]: https://www.startpage.com/
> I'm getting a feeling that some day in future, DDG is going to become as big as Google, if not supersede it. Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. > a search engine's results are only as accurate as the number of users who search and contribute to it That makes no sense. Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. Really? I've never heard this, do you have anymore information about it?
It's sort of a meta search engine that utilizes other search indexes. Here's a post from the founder. https://duck.co/forum/comment/27893 Edit, that's about 5 years old. The current page on Wikipedia provides a more recent explanation. "DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "about 50" sources,[42] including Yahoo! Search BOSS; Wikipedia; Wolfram Alpha; Bing; its own Web crawler, the DuckDuckBot; and others." http…
> I'm getting a feeling that some day in future, DDG is going to become as big as Google, if not supersede it. Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. > a search engine's results are only as accurate as the number of users who search and contribute to it That makes no sense. Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>* the fact that Google is not anonymous does give them a big advantage.* What if DDG allowed us to manually tell them information about our demographic in a way that wasn't stored on their servers and could be changed at will? If you want convenience, maybe there could be an optional client-side preference detector script that only offered possible configurations.
What a drag. So now I have to set up a profile of my ever changing interests on all of my devices just so I can get an approximation of what Google offers out of the box? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of not using Google, but this seems like a very user hostile way to do it.
I would prefer conscious filtering to this automated (and obscure) filtering that Google et al. utilise. I understand it's not for everyone, but it would suit me far better.