Can you please add a dark theme like your JS-based site? Just cause you don't use JS doesn't mean they can't use CSS.
You can achieve it without CSS actually (in chrome)
Just put to
It will also make vanilla scrollbar into dark theme
DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
21–30 of 99 posts
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#22the 'html' version is nice. the 'lite' version is so barebones, I can't imagine anyone actually using it. It almost seems like it's meant for scraping
[deleted]
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#23The HTML version seems to not redirect to a URL specific to your search (i.e. it doesn't include a ?s= ... parameter). Anyone an idea how I can configure this search engine in Firefox Mobile? As far as I can see, there is no way I can teach FF Mobile to make a POST request instead.
The parameter is q
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#24The html version always returns results from a Russian POV. Russian dictionary sites, etc, etc.
Turning on javascript returns sites from a USA POV. I'm in the USA.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#25The html version always returns results from a Russian POV. Russian dictionary sites, etc, etc. Turning on javascript returns sites from a USA POV. I'm in the USA.
I agree that you do appear to see much more Russian language content if you use the DuckDuckGo html version (I am also an American).
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#26Holy shit the lite version is fast. Comparing to google search it's not even close...wow.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#27The html version always returns results from a Russian POV. Russian dictionary sites, etc, etc. Turning on javascript returns sites from a USA POV. I'm in the USA.
They're probably using the Yandex API https://yandex.com/dev/xml/doc/dg/concepts/about.html
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#28the 'html' version is nice. the 'lite' version is so barebones, I can't imagine anyone actually using it. It almost seems like it's meant for scraping
I use it day-to-day. No problem.
As a rule, when JS is not mandatory I block it.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#29As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…
These are great, and I’m glad to be able to use them without direct contact with “Big Tech” and the tracking bloat that entails, but as I understand it DuckDuckGo is more or less a glorified — albeit relatively glorious and pleasant — proxy to Big Tech’s Bing (well, more, not less, because it does add some great conveniences like the IIUC formerly open source Instant Answers¹ and !bangs, and some fraction of results from its own crawler, and likely some from Yandex. But still, the largest fraction of its core service seems dependent on Bing. Not that that’s its fault or there are attractive alternatives).
1: (Edit) https://duckduckhack.com/
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#30As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…
DDG lite works great in Lynx! I hope it never goes away.