91–100 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you call them proper owners when all the research is funded by public money?
So change the law or whatever, but as it is, they own the copyright, whether you like it or not. Saying otherwise is at the same level of discourse as using the word "Micro$oft" and similar puerile rubbish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I'd like that to be true, I end up having to use !g in half my searches. It does okay at keyword matching, but can't infer what I'm actually looking for, falls short at finding obscure/niche topics and its pageload speeds are frustrating compared to Google.
Weird things that DDG does: - No geo prioritization. If I'm searching for things in (city I'm current in) I don't care for sites from companies located in (city in the US/Canada with the same name). - You write "X in Y" (generic example) and autocomplete tries to "fix it with "Z in Y" thanks but I really mean "X in Y". Or sometimes it tries to fix it with even more unrelated things (though sometimes it makes sense).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish that if they’re gonna downrank “good” pirate content then they should do the same (or worse) for the bad/malicious ones. I'm pretty confident they'd like to but it's a tricky problem. Based on this article, they're downranking based on number of legit DMCA requests - the good sites will generate a lot of signal on that front. The bad/malicious sites won't. The malicious/scam sites usually come and go quickly…
A real solution would be to employ competent humans rather than build and rely on incompetent algorithms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish that if they’re gonna downrank “good” pirate content then they should do the same (or worse) for the bad/malicious ones. I'm pretty confident they'd like to but it's a tricky problem. Based on this article, they're downranking based on number of legit DMCA requests - the good sites will generate a lot of signal on that front. The bad/malicious sites won't. The malicious/scam sites usually come and go quickly…
A real solution would be to employ competent humans rather than build and rely on incompetent algorithms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I'd like that to be true, I end up having to use !g in half my searches. It does okay at keyword matching, but can't infer what I'm actually looking for, falls short at finding obscure/niche topics and its pageload speeds are frustrating compared to Google.
I had the same problem with an almost automatic !g. A while back i decided to put more effort and try to survive with !so, !gh, !hn, !r, !w, and a couple more depending on the context. DDG may not give exact results in less than a second, but i believe that blindly giving priority to the fastest result is a critical issue, in many areas. For the very niche topics, i basically maintain myself lists of sites. I still u…
I have a Google CSE for the sites I have subscribed in RSS reader. It provides results that I could never get with straight Google search. Curious to know what your sources are like if you don't mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish that if they’re gonna downrank “good” pirate content then they should do the same (or worse) for the bad/malicious ones. I'm pretty confident they'd like to but it's a tricky problem. Based on this article, they're downranking based on number of legit DMCA requests - the good sites will generate a lot of signal on that front. The bad/malicious sites won't. The malicious/scam sites usually come and go quickly…
A real solution would be to employ competent humans rather than build and rely on incompetent algorithms.
In all seriousness, curation is one of the most valuable skills a human can provide; I do sometimes wish it was easier to find curated content on the internet, but that isn't really what a search engine does. It is something that eg HN and Reddit provide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I'd like that to be true, I end up having to use !g in half my searches. It does okay at keyword matching, but can't infer what I'm actually looking for, falls short at finding obscure/niche topics and its pageload speeds are frustrating compared to Google.
I love ddg exactly because of the bangs! I make queries like !wiki (wikipedia), !gm (maps), !gi (images), !imdb, !yt, !gsc (scholar) directly from the address bar all day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google does the same. Search for Warsaw while in Poland, yet use english search words. Most results will come up for things in Warsaw, Indiana. Including pages which google has tagged with "Warsaw, Indiana" so they clearly know that's where the results are coming from.
Same in Sweden. If you want to know what channels football matches are airing on here the following searches yield entirely different results: Fotbolls vm Football World Cup The former gives you the correct site with the channels listed as the first answer but the second one doesn’t even have the channels on the first page.
On any new device I normally do the same thing each time: 1) Install Firefox Nightly 2) Install uBlock Origin add-on 3) Enable Duck Duck Go as default search engine 4) Enjoy I am still looking for a good replacement for Gmail.
gmail has been easy for me. Do you absolutely need the (nice I admit) web ui? I thought I did until I completely switch to using mails clients (mail on macOS and iPhone). I don't miss gmail at all! I realise how long it took to check my email before. I'm using Mailbox.org btw. Cheap, lots of aliases, exchange server etc ... I switched 10 months ago and I don't regret.
And they were at least working on a VPN service too, last time I checked.