101–110 of 145 posts
Numbers on the left (11, 12, 13) are shortcuts to open a thread (for example, pressing 14 opens the "Userscripts are fun..." thread).
Numbers after that (e.g. 65,20) are karma and number of comments, respectively.
Much more compact than the default layout and shows better which topics are hot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why use a userscript when you can use a search engine that is not from a spyware company? Like Startpage, Qwant, Duckduckgo or Searx? Alleluia, direct links out of the box. For youtube, why not give Invidious a try (ok, it has its downs)? Sometimes, the best solution to "hostile websites" is to not use them in the first place (or use their proxified versions).
I wanted to love DDG. It promises a lot. And it delivers a lot. I love the shortcut codes. But after a few months I had to go back to Google. Two main reasons: 1. Image searches could often return literally zero results for simple terms. 2. I'd look up a term and get non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones, which often wouldn't even show up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox supports this, go into Settings -> Search and set a keyword for the search engine. For example, if you set the keyword for DuckDuckGo to "ddg" and Google to "go", then typing "ddg " into the topbar will search DuckDuckGo, and typing "go " will search Google.
DuckDuckGo itself supports this. Just start a query with !g to have it routed to Google. For example, "!g search on Google" would bring you to the Google search results page for "search on Google." DuckDuckGo supports several other commands like this, which they refer to as "bangs." https://duckduckgo.com/bang
... what? The web is rapidly becoming more and more unusable. Often, sites only work well when I fully disable JavaScript, and the associated autoplay ads, trackers, custom half broken and CPU intensive navigation behavior overrides, and similar sources of misbehavior.
The modern web is more user hostile than ever before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why use a userscript when you can use a search engine that is not from a spyware company? Like Startpage, Qwant, Duckduckgo or Searx? Alleluia, direct links out of the box. For youtube, why not give Invidious a try (ok, it has its downs)? Sometimes, the best solution to "hostile websites" is to not use them in the first place (or use their proxified versions).
I tried my best to switch to DDG this year. The results just aren't as good as Google.
Google will often replace or ignore words in my query and return garbage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why use a userscript when you can use a search engine that is not from a spyware company? Like Startpage, Qwant, Duckduckgo or Searx? Alleluia, direct links out of the box. For youtube, why not give Invidious a try (ok, it has its downs)? Sometimes, the best solution to "hostile websites" is to not use them in the first place (or use their proxified versions).
I wanted to love DDG. It promises a lot. And it delivers a lot. I love the shortcut codes. But after a few months I had to go back to Google. Two main reasons: 1. Image searches could often return literally zero results for simple terms. 2. I'd look up a term and get non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones, which often wouldn't even show up.
It was only recently that I discovered that each language’s version of Wikipedia is independently edited, rather than being a translated reflection of a canonical source material; and, therefore, that inevitably there will be “better” or “worse” versions of a page (i.e. more/less content, more/less fact-checking, etc.) depending on the language.
This gulf sometimes turns out to be so large, that it’s sometimes more informative to read a foreign-language Wikipedia article through machine-translation, rather than reading the one in your own language!
(I recall, in the recent HN discussion that linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musth, people were pointing out that the German-language article carried a lot more information than the English-language article. That specific discrepancy has probably been since fixed up care of HN readers themselves, but it was eye-opening, especially since the English-language version of the article was phrased in decisive terms like “scientists don’t know X” where the German article instead says “X is caused by Y” citing enough [German-language] studies to thoroughly prove its point.)
I wonder if DDG has just caught onto this trend, and is prioritizing the language of the article that has the most editorial activity. (It would actually be more work to do the opposite, now that I think about it—in raw PageRank terms, there’s always going to be a most-linked-to language-version of a Wikipedia article, and doing nothing means that that version simply floats to the top. Google et al must be doing extra work to group the “same” articles of different language-versions together, assigning them the PageRank of the highest-ranked one in the grouping, while rendering out the link+summary as that of the group-member corresponding to your own language.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox supports this, go into Settings -> Search and set a keyword for the search engine. For example, if you set the keyword for DuckDuckGo to "ddg" and Google to "go", then typing "ddg " into the topbar will search DuckDuckGo, and typing "go " will search Google.
DuckDuckGo itself supports this. Just start a query with !g to have it routed to Google. For example, "!g search on Google" would bring you to the Google search results page for "search on Google." DuckDuckGo supports several other commands like this, which they refer to as "bangs." https://duckduckgo.com/bang
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted to love DDG. It promises a lot. And it delivers a lot. I love the shortcut codes. But after a few months I had to go back to Google. Two main reasons: 1. Image searches could often return literally zero results for simple terms. 2. I'd look up a term and get non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones, which often wouldn't even show up.
> Non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones It was only recently that I discovered that each language’s version of Wikipedia is independently edited, rather than being a translated reflection of a canonical source material; and, therefore, that inevitably there will be “better” or “worse” versions of a page (i.e. more/less content, more/less fact-checking, etc.) depending on the language. This gulf somet…
It should prioritize the language of the query. I'm supposing the commenter above searched for something in English and got a non-English result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones It was only recently that I discovered that each language’s version of Wikipedia is independently edited, rather than being a translated reflection of a canonical source material; and, therefore, that inevitably there will be “better” or “worse” versions of a page (i.e. more/less content, more/less fact-checking, etc.) depending on the language. This gulf somet…
> I wonder if DDG has just caught onto this trend, and is prioritizing the language of the article that has the most editorial activity. It should prioritize the language of the query. I'm supposing the commenter above searched for something in English and got a non-English result?
