Live data from Hacker News

The curious case of DuckDuckGo

hacksandthoughts.posterous.com

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#51
post #10

Point one I can’t understand. Google is optimized for the common case. It’s not that often that I want to search for something not in Google’s (excellent) dictionary.

Please see my burrito example in another response in this thread. Let me know if you think differently about search.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#52
post #20

This is really an example of taking Google's strengths and making them out to be weaknesses. Google's search algorithm is tuned to what actually works for most people. Does anyone search for Java and click on coffee links? Or links for Java the island in Indonesia? Based on these results I would bet not. The thousands if not millions of people that typed Java before you didn't want coffee or islands. They wanted the…

Sorry, but Google's results are not defensible in these two cases. A search engine that spends a fraction of real estate to suggest specificity on rather generic term is performing better. It would be difficult to test but I suspect on a search for "java" that coffee or geography would fare better in relevance than the second half of Google's results.

Likewise, it doesn't even make any sense to search for "college or college" without quotes. It makes even less sense when the internet includes an exact match on "college or uncollege". Oddly, a search for "college and uncollege" (without quotes) finds the article in the #1 position. Again, is it too much to ask that Google include a few exact match results even when it strongly suspects a miss-spelling?

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#53

re: "Google over does search" (and "autocorrects" your search). This "feature" has been getting steadily more annoying, particularly with more obscure words, or words where there is a similar word that's in more widespread use. Thinking about it now, I was wishing there was a way to turn off this feature; but alas, a dive into http://www.google.com/preferences doesn't seem to have "turn off that dang autocorrect" as…

Surround the uncommon term in quotes and it won't be autocorrected.

Sadly this has not been reliable for quite a while. Much of the time such a search will only suggest the autocorrection, but for words that are rare enough instead of getting a tiny list of matches google will _still_ assume that it's a typo on your part. Its notorious weakness with words that have uncommon punctuation or embedded letters also kicks in for double-quoted phrases under some circumstances and worse, it'll come up with truly asinine substitutions - searches for "prominent female open source developers" used to drop the double-quotes since they were returning no hits and then ignore the "female" part. Net effect? Until you got to the bottom of the page you might be a bit confused by why there were no women mentioned in the first page of results. That example was fixed, possibly by shifts in their index, but I still run across problems google trying to outguess me on exact phrases from a text I'm trying to locate every day or two.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#55
post #20

This is really an example of taking Google's strengths and making them out to be weaknesses. Google's search algorithm is tuned to what actually works for most people. Does anyone search for Java and click on coffee links? Or links for Java the island in Indonesia? Based on these results I would bet not. The thousands if not millions of people that typed Java before you didn't want coffee or islands. They wanted the…

Google's search algorithm is tuned to what actually works for most people. Yes. And that is where I think it goes wrong. The fact that a lot of people misspell should not be used to correct a person's right search to a wrong one. That's not the right thing to do. It should suggest a different search, but not change my search altogether. As an example, if I place an order for a Chicken Burrito but am served a Beef Bur…

I think Google should definitely be over-careful when deciding to vacate the searcher's terms due to suspected miss-spelling but I don't agree that it should vacate the feature altogether. I'm sure Google has evidence to support a net increase in searcher satisfaction with the behavior. Perhaps there's a middle ground when the algorithm is less certain there's been a miss-spelling and includes some results satisfying the original query.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#56
post #20

This is really an example of taking Google's strengths and making them out to be weaknesses. Google's search algorithm is tuned to what actually works for most people. Does anyone search for Java and click on coffee links? Or links for Java the island in Indonesia? Based on these results I would bet not. The thousands if not millions of people that typed Java before you didn't want coffee or islands. They wanted the…

Google's search algorithm is tuned to what actually works for most people. Yes. And that is where I think it goes wrong. The fact that a lot of people misspell should not be used to correct a person's right search to a wrong one. That's not the right thing to do. It should suggest a different search, but not change my search altogether. As an example, if I place an order for a Chicken Burrito but am served a Beef Bur…

I think the burrito analogy is flawed... searching for a word Google doesn't know about is more akin to ordering something that wasn't on the burrito menu at all, or say... if the cashier misheard your order and thought it could have been either chicken or beef so they made an educated guess and served you a Beef Burrito at the same time asking if that was what you meant, giving you an option to receive your correct order if it wasn't.

Obviously in that situation they would just ask you to clarify your order before making a burrito, but if they had the ability to serve burritos as fast as Google serves results, then for the majority of cases (assuming the beef burrito is most popular) the outcome is satisfactory and it isn't worth the time or effort to ask and wait for an answer.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#57

I use DDG as my main search engine mostly because of the convenience of !bangs. Also, search results on other engines seem to be going down in quality lately. Too many spam sites are reaching the top of Google, and I'm finding real answers to questions I ask on page 2 or 3. The nice thing about DDG is that if you can't find what you're looking for you can just add !w, !so, etc. to try a more targeted search.

I am impressed by bangs. I am still exploring it's full potential. The reason I did not mention bangs in my write-up was because it was not related to the basic search comparison I found interesting.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#58

re: "Google over does search" (and "autocorrects" your search). This "feature" has been getting steadily more annoying, particularly with more obscure words, or words where there is a similar word that's in more widespread use. Thinking about it now, I was wishing there was a way to turn off this feature; but alas, a dive into http://www.google.com/preferences doesn't seem to have "turn off that dang autocorrect" as…

Append &nfpr=1 (short for "no full page replacement") to all your google queries: For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=college+or+uncollege&nfpr... I am sure it's not that hard to write a greasemonkey script to do that for you automatically, but I tend to like the feature, especially when I fat finger queries with my cell phone.

In firefox (and others) you can create a bookmark and give it a keyword.

Two different ways to do it: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/keymarks-explained.html http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Smart%20keywords

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's search algorithm is tuned to what actually works for most people. Yes. And that is where I think it goes wrong. The fact that a lot of people misspell should not be used to correct a person's right search to a wrong one. That's not the right thing to do. It should suggest a different search, but not change my search altogether. As an example, if I place an order for a Chicken Burrito but am served a Beef Bur…

I think the burrito analogy is flawed... searching for a word Google doesn't know about is more akin to ordering something that wasn't on the burrito menu at all, or say... if the cashier misheard your order and thought it could have been either chicken or beef so they made an educated guess and served you a Beef Burrito at the same time asking if that was what you meant, giving you an option to receive your correct…

But Google did show the correct results when I clicked on the link suggesting I was searching for the actual string. So it was on their menu all the time. I also communicated my request correctly to the other end; the other end deliberately changed my order!

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#60
post #47

I've been using DDG almost exclusively for about a year now. Every once in a while I'll do a google search because I can't find what I'm looking for on DDG. This is usually when I'm looking for something local/in a non-english language, or when I'm doing a search for a long string (say a couple of lines from a song lyric). One of google's biggest advantages -- for me at least -- is its localized URLs. google.co.uk, g…

Somehow, I still don't get Google's logic behind it. Too often I get thrown back to google.nl from .com. When I am certain that I need an American/English/Int result, I want to use google.com immediately, not .nl, but it takes me two or three times correcting the url before I get where I want to go.

My solution for this is !g in duckduckgo: This brings me to the international Google.com, no matter what locales in the browser, what computer and what google-account is active. For local searches I just type in google.com and somehow 90% of the time end up with the .nl version. Works for me.

Post reply on HN