Search answers in Google and everywhere else. You won't find yahoo answers anywhere on Google. I checked until 10 pages.
That was my turning point
DuckDuckGo Traffic
141–150 of 251 posts
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#1423.5 billion queries for google daily, 54 mil daily record for DDG. That means that google achieves the daily record for DDG for slightly more than 14 minutes. It is incredibly hard / nearly impossible to compete against a tech monopoly in its core business grounds. I would like to switch to DDG, but for me the google results are definitely more relevant than the DDG results. I wish it was otherwise.
Duck Duck Go Traffic Daily Average Dec 2019: 47,942,069 Duck Duck Go Traffic Daily Average Dec 2018: 31,037,684 =LN(3500000000)/(LN(47,942,069)-LN(31,037,684)) = 4.72 Years to catch up. Assuming steady percentage rate of growth and Google doesn't grow.
I think the answer is closer to 10 years, as ln( 3500 / 48 ) / ln( 48 / 31 ) = 9.8
In 4.72 years, they would be at 48 * ( 48 / 31 )^4.72 = 378 millions / day.
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#143I just tried DDG for the first time, and I'm blown away how good it is! Since I'm mostly using search engines for programming, I searched for "clojure filter" on DDG out of curiosity. It gave me all the relevant documentation pages BUT here is the "blown away" part - it showed me a small Clojure code snippet on the right side of the screen, explaining the usages of the "filter" with a short and concise docstring. It…
That's not all. DDG has cheat sheets for common Unix commands. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=grep+cheat+sheet
I really like this. Reminds me of one of my favourite command-line tools, https://tldr.sh/
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is deprecating OpenSearch support in Firefox[1] at some point. The OpenSearch standard is what provides this functionality. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/15/search-engine-add...
That article is only about OpenSearch addons from addons.mozilla.org. While I don't see a good reason to remove them, I also don't see a good reason to keep them. The OpenSearch discovery feature is staying and I haven't heard of any efforts to remove it. Or am I missing something?
That article is about add-ons from AMO that use the OpenSearch provider API, but it mentions eventually deprecating OpenSearch from Firefox, too. It's been touched upon on HN in the past[1].
However, I was wrong about OpenSearch providing the functionality that the "Add keyword for this search" bookmark feature implements. That feature is completely independent from OpenSearch and isn't going anyway.
"Add keyword for this search" via bookmarks are not going anywhere in Firefox as far as I can tell. This was a false alarm on my part.
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is deprecating OpenSearch support in Firefox[1] at some point. The OpenSearch standard is what provides this functionality. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/15/search-engine-add...
What the fuck.. Mozilla is really hell bent in this war on their own users aren't they? Does this mean I'll have to install an extension to replace each search keyword I have? That would be dozens of extensions, many of them for obscure niche websites.
Take a look at my response to my original post, I was wrong about keyword searches via bookmarks being deprecated. OpenSearch doesn't provide that functionality.
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#146Funny, I just started using DDG on my phone recently and found it extremely responsive and the UI very nice.
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#147i love ddg
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#148Over the past 5 years I’ve tried DDG several times. Each time except the last I wanted to stick with it but the results simply didn’t stand up to what I’d see on Google. About 6 months ago (a year? I can’t remember) I switched and haven’t looked back. Now, when I look at google, the results actually look less relevant. As well, the ads on Google have become very obnoxious. I don’t feel like I’m being served the best…
I had the exact same experience. Several attempts, never took, and then the last time it just clicked.
Now I almost never even use the bang commands, just pure DDG.
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#149Bang commands[0] really sealed DDG for me. I know Firefox had install-your-own search plugins forever, but the total lack of friction of typing “!yt badgerbadgerbadger” to get specifically YouTube results was fantastic. !g (search on Google) also makes it far easier to switch. Don’t like the results? Prefix !g and try again. My other favorites: !sr [name of subreddit] - much faster than “reddit.com/r/[name]” !r - Red…
chrome let's you type the first few characters of a page, and then press tab to enter a search term for that page..
e.g. y tab will let you search youtube, which is even a little faster than the DDG bangs for some sites.., but certainly acccompanied by unwanted privacy defaults.. not sure how much of it you can turn off and still use the feature..
Re: DuckDuckGo Traffic
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any mention of favicons in this thread other than the one I responded to, and I don't know what thread from yesterday you're talking about. But since both DDG and Google have favicons on the results page, I find it hard to believe this is really a matter that has people moving to DDG. This hypothesis basically amounts to "people are blind idiots who notice favicons on one page but not the other" , and I d…
> I don't know what thread from yesterday you're talking about. It's got >2600 upvotes and has been high on the front page for 18 hours now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22107823 > people are blind idiots Hm...you may be onto something there :-)
Favicons are mentioned once in the first page of that discussion. I think attributing all that outrage to the favicons, not the fact that they made ads look like results, is a massive mischaracterization of that discussion. Bordering on bad faith...
I maintain that favicons are VERY low on the list of reasons people are switching from Google to DDG. DDG having favicons too should be proof enough of that.