61–70 of 549 posts
This seems like a pretty blatant advertisement for their company's "Cliqz Browser". You should at least acknowledge your bias by being transparent enough to show you have a vested interest. It's really disingenuous otherwise, and makes it hard to take what you have to say at face value.
>And empires must fall Why?
It is impressive what they built. The results are quite good! The UI shows innovative elements like trackers used on the page. I see two problems with their approach: 1. The product is not built with the 'grandma test' mindset. More sliders and widgets is not what your grandma wants in a search engine. This is why building a search engine is hard. You have to guess with very little information what the user wants and…
> One could rightfully counter that Google has a good product. They even offer it for free.
But Google Ads are not free. If Search is the product, then advertisers are the customers, not users.
It is impressive what they built. The results are quite good! The UI shows innovative elements like trackers used on the page. I see two problems with their approach: 1. The product is not built with the 'grandma test' mindset. More sliders and widgets is not what your grandma wants in a search engine. This is why building a search engine is hard. You have to guess with very little information what the user wants and…
When a Wikipedia/encyclopedia article is what I'm looking for, why is Google showing articles?
Wikipedia used to be the top result.
Also,
> With 93% of the search market, Google’s algorithms decide what becomes truth. Can you think of a TV channel with a 93% audience? Would you find it acceptable if there were only one TV channel?
Seems to me like Google is more analogous to the TV remote.
How did such blatant advertisement make it to the top of HN? The article quality here has really been going downhill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
making a search engine is not that hard or expensive, getting users to switch to it after decades of relying on and trusting google is
I would actually argue that making a good search engine with quality and responsiveness worldwide rivaling Google web search turns out to be an architecturally hard problem. A basic web crawler is not. A semantic web crawler and associated search engine capable of mapping real human input to useful information and dealing with the heterogeneous structure of data on the web, with low millisecond latency? Bing has been…
But then again, there are also a lot of other problems Microsoft haven't been able to solve...
I'm more than happy with DuckDuckGo. I would love more specialized search engines. Back in the day I've used several search engines depending the task i needed to perform, from Altavista to Yahoo to Google.
Beat me to it! Very happy here as well. I also love the bang short cuts. I am actually at the point where google is clearly inferior. I will grant that Google has a more intelligent indexing and ranking of Stack Overflow. However, DDG is making major progress there, and I rarely need to add !g Pro tip: with the bang shortcuts, you can add them anywhere in your query, it does not need to be in the beginning of your qu…
“This result isn’t that great. I’m going to !g just this once”
Then, one week later I’m adding !g to literally every singe search so I switch back to google because what’s the point?
I really do hope to one day get off of google though.
Nah, two or more search engines all being the product of US big techs won't solve the problem. EU should have its own search engine. They should subsidize this effort and have Google pay for it.
It will also help insofar as site owners will be less inclined to block "EUROPEAN SEARCH INDEX CRAWLER", just as they're less inclined to block google, despite being inclined to block "small time search index".
The creative, non-capital intensive part where having a diverse ecosystem will help the most is building a layer on top of the index to actually find stuff - e.g. a bit like how duckduckgo is built atop bing's index.