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

The world needs more search engines

0x65.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–549 of 549 posts

Re: The world needs more search engines

#541

Post by tschakkaMarc »

garaetjjte wrote: post #528
tschakkaMarc wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I’m defending it, because again: We took drastic steps to never send anything private (like checking within the browser whether the URL is unique or different if logged in or out and then never sending it, not to mention that there of course was no identifier and we made record linkage impossible, so no click profile, and much more). If in doubt we drop and don’t send. And again – there were tons of (pen) tests…

I didn't say it is absolutely inappropriate to collect any user data, it could be ok after obtaining explicit user permission. Firefox experiment installed data collection add-on to random users without opt-in, and I still cannot understand why you thought that was good idea. >That is impossible - to us, each single URL comes as a detached datapoint IPs could be used to aggregate those datapoints, and you obviously c…

There were extensive tests with opt-in before (Testpilot), but these are super biased towards techies/enthusiasts (by definition if you read HN or use Testpilot you’re not representative ...). At some point you need to both test and get data from more mass market and that would never work with opt-in. Hence the scrutiny about not even technically be able to do record linkage etc. And some of the measures you mentioned are/were applied (we post about this in the next days).

I also stick to my original point: those users who had cliqz had significantly more privacy than those without.

Having said that: I don’t think, you and me are that far away from each other. But: If we, who care about privacy constantly criticize or even shout at those who also care about privacy, those who build better products, but maybe don’t follow an idealistic “no data at all paradigm”, then we will always end with the worst data collectors, because non of the alternatives will ever have a chance (or people get frustrated and decide they can make more money at Google or ad tech).

By the way, we have a post about data and how we collect it in our blog today: https://www.0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-02/is-data-collection-evil... - you might find it interesting).

In any case thanks for challenging us. I don’t believe we’re perfect. But we’re trying!

Re: The world needs more search engines

#543

Post by theamk »

solso wrote: post #540
theamk wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic is only valid if you assume Apple cares a lot about their users getting the best search results. I don't think this is the case. Instead, Apple has a thing to sell -- "position of default search engine" -- and it is selling it to highest bidder. I bet if Bing would offer 10 Billion, they'd make Bing default instead. Hey, if DDG could offer them 10 Billion, I am sure they would set it as default, easily ign…

Forget about Apple for a second, they will sell whatever to anyone, for sure. But please focus on Google, which is the one putting the money! Why Google pays so much money if they already have the best product and what the users want? Are they just giving B10$ as charity? There are many reasons for doing that, but none of them is aligned with the make-believe statement that "build a better product and people will com…

Let’s say that 90% of users don’t care about search engine at all, and other 10% do care (for the sake of argument, I am sure the real numbers are quite different)

Google pays billions to get those 90% of don’t care users. They already have the users who care, but more users = more money, so presumably it is worth it.

Cliqz, DDG, and others have no chance for those 90%, but they fight for the rest. It’s a hard fight because google is so good. If one spends a hour searching for stuff on alternative engine, then goes to google and finds the results in a few minutes, they will be unliketo visit other engines again.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#544

Post by close04 »

jefftk wrote: post #452
close04 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> external study demonstrating that I hope you understand the reticence of taking any statement coming from a Google employee defending Google with a grain of salt. You have defended Google in the past only to fall silent when presented with the actual study contradicting you. [0] It not that you aren't/can't be right, just that the "source" suggests some bias and Google's track record does not work in their favor. […

> You have defended Google in the past only to fall silent when presented with the actual study contradicting you. That's not how I see that conversation: * reaperducer was asking why it was useful for the browser to show that the page was one that usually loaded quickly/slowly * As someone who had worked on an effort to speed up the web I replied with why I thought it was useful * jfoster gave a good response descri…

> I don't see how the study you linked contradicted anything I was saying.

Jeff, you defended Google once saying that their decisions are motivated by wanting to help users make informed choices. The study was just to show that they have a track record of doing the exact opposite. Your characterization of Google was misinformed at least on that occasion. I made an educated guess that if you were willing to defend one stance that was proven wrong (that Google has any vested interest in helping users make informed choices) then it's possible you may make the same mistake again.

But dang is right, in the spirit of collegiality I should have found a better way to point out this mistake or even not do it at all.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#545

Post by tschakkaMarc »

tschakkaMarc wrote: post #541
garaetjjte wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it is absolutely inappropriate to collect any user data, it could be ok after obtaining explicit user permission. Firefox experiment installed data collection add-on to random users without opt-in, and I still cannot understand why you thought that was good idea. >That is impossible - to us, each single URL comes as a detached datapoint IPs could be used to aggregate those datapoints, and you obviously c…

There were extensive tests with opt-in before (Testpilot), but these are super biased towards techies/enthusiasts (by definition if you read HN or use Testpilot you’re not representative ...). At some point you need to both test and get data from more mass market and that would never work with opt-in. Hence the scrutiny about not even technically be able to do record linkage etc. And some of the measures you mentione…

And here are all details how we remove all personal information with a technology we call Human Web: https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-03/human-web-collecting-data-i...

We love to get scrutinized and get feedback on this - we’re very serious about privacy.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#546

Post by lamkhanhsong »

Aeolun wrote: post #203
__ka wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many thanks for the feedback. We'll add the language autodetection for the interface and results this week. There is no profiling taking place. The country is just to select what index you would like results from - we'll try to make the UI better. This is still beta, so please keep on using it and we'd love to hear more feedback [beta@cliqz.com].

I second the need to do some form of detection for language. My browser tells webpages I want results in english (Accept-language header), and this can be safely used to detect what is most appropriate initially. If not that, then at least IP, considering I’m sitting in the US.

Thank you for your feedback. We have just implemented auto language detection for the UI based on your browser language.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#547

Post by lamkhanhsong »

neltnerb wrote: post #81
meerita wrote: post #5

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.

This new search engine doesn't even function without javascript enabled, unlike DDG which works just fine.

We have just released a new version which allows you to use the SERP with Javascript disabled. Enjoy!

Re: The world needs more search engines

#548

Post by pmontra »

__ka wrote: post #200
pmontra wrote: post #174

Some feedbacks about the product. I made some typical searches I do in my job. They returned reasonable results. Impossible to know if they are better or worse than Google. I need some days of usage. I'll do my best to keep using it this week. Maybe autodecting the language would help. It gave me a German page without any obvious way to change to English. I went to the settings, changed the language and discovered th…

Many thanks for the feedback. We'll add the language autodetection for the interface and results this week. There is no profiling taking place. The country is just to select what index you would like results from - we'll try to make the UI better. This is still beta, so please keep on using it and we'd love to hear more feedback [beta@cliqz.com].

beta@cliqz.com bounces mail. It seems it's a closed list and accepts mail only from addresses already included in the list.

You should create a contact form for the search engines. Everything reachable from the Contacts link at the bottom of the page is about other products.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#549

Post by smartasspolice »

weberc2 wrote: post #417
mrweasel wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When DDG doesn't yield the results I'm looking for, I will frequently try Google, but more and more I find that if DuckDuckGo can't find the results that I want, then neither can Google. What Google can do however, is annoy me with results that it knows to be wrong, because it is excluded the most specific part of my query. Google will remove the bit that absolutely had to be in the query, to get more hits on the maj…

I’ve found the opposite. For the last year, I have to resort to Google more and more often. DDG was on par with Google when I started using it a couple years ago, but it has managed to get worse and worse over time. Note that I’m specifically claiming DDG’s performance has degraded; not just that it has remained the same while Google’s has improved.

try startpage
Post reply on HN