51–60 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have a point. I use DDG. I never say "Duck Duck Go it" But I also avoid saying "Google it" cause I don't want to promote bad behavior. I'm going to try saying/typing "DDG it". It's an acronym driven world. Perhaps that'll work? Im
Quack it
This gets harder and harder as time goes on since there's brand recognition attached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's interesting to see that many things are not censored away in comparison to Bing and Google (political correctness, copyright, nsfw etc. etc.). I am not aware that there is a censorship of things that are deemed 'politically incorrect' by either bing or google, and Yandex does comply with European copyright law and other EU legislation like the right-to-be-forgotten.
As an illusory example only, and definitely not as an endorsement, and chosen only because it is the extremes of acceptable speach that are most likely to be censured; consider these search results for "Daily Stormer" https://www.google.com/search?q=daily+stormer&oq=daily+storm... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=daily+stormer DDG provides the link to the site as their first result; Google provides links to information abou…
If Google weighs links to a certain page, it's not a stretch to imagine that fewer websites would directly link to that particular website, and refer to its name instead. But maybe Bing has some rule that gives priority to the domain name.
Same thing happened to Microsoft with browser selection. This does not really change anything. Google search results are just better.
I'm actually interested in this, do you have any data to back that claim up or is it just your personal impression? It's not that I don't share it, but I am curious if indeed it did "not really change anything". By the way, it's not like a marriage where you bind yourself to one party exclusively. I use DDG as default but fall back (for any queries that do not yield good results and are non-sensitive) to Google when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A stark difference. Is Google on the record about what their view is on this sort of thing? I suppose the two scenarios that leap to mind are (1) Google is social engineering or (2) they have good reason to believe that nobody searching for the Daily Stormer actually wants to see the website. It'd be interesting to know if there is a 3rd.
I wonder if the rank is based on which options are clicked the most... I wouldn't put it past google to keep track of which link is clicked the most for each search and use that to 'improve the links' OR It could be a massive conspiracy to keep people from seeing some third rate website.
Honestly, I've been using ddg daily and I find I'm having to hit !g more than I'd like. Google in particular seems better at finding matches that come related to the ordering of the words, whereas ddg I have to quote them (and risk getting no results because I misremembered one word) when searching for a specific phrase.
My experience is that google gives me results assuming all of the words I searched aren’t the words I’m looking for, and it uses tangentially related words in place of everything. Even quotes are useless now. Ddg is useless when I’m searching for local things like restaurants and whatnot, but for general searches, it gives me what I’m actually looking for at least 75% of the time. With google, I’m barely hitting 25%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an illusory example only, and definitely not as an endorsement, and chosen only because it is the extremes of acceptable speach that are most likely to be censured; consider these search results for "Daily Stormer" https://www.google.com/search?q=daily+stormer&oq=daily+storm... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=daily+stormer DDG provides the link to the site as their first result; Google provides links to information abou…
Google knows that when I type 'rails' into their search box I mean Ruby on Rails and gives me relevant results, instead of railroad tracks or hand rails. It's not a big leap to think they'd do that globally for extreme results like DS where most people want to know about them and not actually visit the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an illusory example only, and definitely not as an endorsement, and chosen only because it is the extremes of acceptable speach that are most likely to be censured; consider these search results for "Daily Stormer" https://www.google.com/search?q=daily+stormer&oq=daily+storm... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=daily+stormer DDG provides the link to the site as their first result; Google provides links to information abou…
Google knows that when I type 'rails' into their search box I mean Ruby on Rails and gives me relevant results, instead of railroad tracks or hand rails. It's not a big leap to think they'd do that globally for extreme results like DS where most people want to know about them and not actually visit the site.
I don’t think anyone on here will admit if it’s happening to them, but if the answer is never then that means Google is suppressing the “best” search results due to political reasons.
For a less charged example, Google won’t show pornography as the first result for a fetish term, ever. It will always show a clean page with Wikipedia as the first result regardless of safe search.
How do you even get it to show non safe for work results?
How is Apple getting away with iOS? Unlike Android, you cannot cannot change the default browser, maps, messaging apps or anything.
You always had the choice with Android, it just had a default. That didn't smell good to regulators in the EU, and they saw an easy option out of that. Telling Apple to open up their walled garden is a lot harder, compared to Android where the garden's already much more open.
IMO, sad that the better approach is getting hit by the regulation stick. Not that I personally think it's needed in either scenario, but it is frustrating to see Apple skate by.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the rank is based on which options are clicked the most... I wouldn't put it past google to keep track of which link is clicked the most for each search and use that to 'improve the links' OR It could be a massive conspiracy to keep people from seeing some third rate website.
You notice that the results aren't direct links, but redirects through Google first? That seems to support your first alternative.