Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DuckDuckGo vs Google

fourweekmba.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 558 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#431

Post by kuschku »

dx034 wrote: post #183
SCHiM wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Maybe he/she wants to bypass data collection in his/her country. Or desires more privacy, or something else. How? ssh -D 8080 digital-ocean-vm-here.tld Now port 8080 on your local machine is a socks proxy for your vm. Google is really tor/proxy/anonymous user unfriendly. Requiring users to solve as many as four or five CAPTCHAs (seriously fuck you google).

> Google is really tor/proxy/anonymous user unfriendly. Requiring users to solve as many as four or five CAPTCHAs (seriously fuck you google). They're like this for a reason. They didn't implement complex detection of proxies to annoy users. Just to keep everyone out who's not supposed to use their search.

Which is funny, because those people can easily circumvent these measures, and crawl Google anyway.

The only one hurt are the users.

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#433

Post by visarga »

runeb wrote: post #349
visarga wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea doesn't go far enough. What good are a couple of stale indexes of Wikipedia and Stackoverflow going to be? Instead, I am wondering why there isnt a federated open source search engine. It would be a cloud of nodes, each node spidering and indexing a small hash bucket of urls. With a million such nodes we could have a live updated, distributed search engine to replace Google. We could run millions of queries…

In the same vein, what good is an index of the web going to be? Googles value isn't their index, its how they translate your search terms into good results from that index. Anyone can index the web, not everyone can make sense of it from human questions.

There has been a lot of research in search engines since AltaVista collapsed and Google won. Much of it is in public domain.

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#434

Post by briandear »

romo5 wrote: post #89

People are conditioned to think Search has to work online. This was true when Google was created. No one had the processing or memory available on their desktop to search an entire index of the "useful" web. Not anymore. How large is a "useful" index of the web today? And can it fit on your laptop? The answer is yes. Can the entire thing be queried fast? The answer is yes. As an example take the entire stackexchange…

So when there’s a new blog post on a topic of interest, how does that work? The internet isn’t an encyclopedia of a finite size.

Offline search is the equivalent of the Internet Yellow Pages from back in the day. New, relevant information is being added continuously. The search index 10 minutes ago is different than it is right now.

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#435

Post by superasn »

jnmandal wrote: post #409
Kluny wrote: post #337

What's with this person's writing style? I've never seen so many literary tics in one place. "In short", 14 usages. Almost every sentence starts with a prepositional phrase like "In fact...", "Yet...", "However..." Confusing sentence structure like "How would have the net looked like?" It's so irritating to read.

He also used the word "Solopreneur"

Am I missing something regarding not using this word?

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#436

Post by alexasmyths »

jameskegel wrote: post #204
alexasmyths wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was one of the most HN comments I've ever read. Hey, it's just a metaphor. Scales and ratios not needed. edit: Wasn't meant to be negative ... as I could see myself writing something like that and my GF giggling at me for a week ...

But if there ever a place to be correct in what you say both factually and mathematically and then not be ridiculed for it, it's here. I support the parent argument.

"But if there ever a place to be correct in what you say both factually and mathematically"

It's a metaphor. Not a fact.

English != Math :)

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#437

Post by briandear »

kllrnohj wrote: post #321
romo5 wrote: post #89

People are conditioned to think Search has to work online. This was true when Google was created. No one had the processing or memory available on their desktop to search an entire index of the "useful" web. Not anymore. How large is a "useful" index of the web today? And can it fit on your laptop? The answer is yes. Can the entire thing be queried fast? The answer is yes. As an example take the entire stackexchange…

According to https://www.noppanit.com/how-to-index-all-wikipedia-english-... a search index for wikipedia's english site comes in at around 40GB. Laptops generally come in 128GB or 256GB capacities. So we're talking roughly 20-50% of an average laptop's storage just to hold the search index for wikipedia alone. Meaning it is not feasible to store a useful index of the web today on a laptop unless you want to dedicate…

That’s also assuming Wikipedia is worth having an offline index for. Wikipedia, for Bonn controversial, general knowledge has its value, but something gets lost with 1000 chefs in the kitchen. The beauty of the internet is that it isn’t Encarta.

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#438

Post by bhuga »

grimgrin wrote: post #348

Those who use DDG, do you miss dates in results? Having a date present definitely helps me think about the results: https://www.google.com/search?q=dcss+branch+order https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dcss+branch+order This isn't a case where I _know_ I only want 2017 results, and so I do the syntax to filter it down automatically. I want all results, but I want to be aware of the timeline of whatever I'm going to click. But…

I've tried the DDG switch twice and not being able to select results from the past year has always been what sent me back to Google. But it looks like they let you scope it to the past month, now, so maybe soon!

Re: DuckDuckGo vs Google

#440

Post by captainmuon »

Animats wrote: post #428

The useful insight about DuckDuckGo, which the author misses, is that even with 0.1% market share, a search engine can be profitable. Search ads are valuable, because they appear when someone is actually looking for something and likely to buy. Almost all other ads are merely annoying interruptions. DuckDuckGo isn't even a full search engine. They don't crawl the whole Web. The heavy lifting is done by Bing and Yande…

The article also sort of answers my question how a third party gets access to Bing and Yandex's indexes. I know they offer access, but how is it paid for? By using the founder's money from an exit, and then some VC money until profitable.
Post reply on HN