Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The curious case of DuckDuckGo

hacksandthoughts.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#81

Post by jcstauffer »

ansy wrote: 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…

So try a different example.

Scala also has multiple meanings. As of 3 months ago, it was almost impossible to find relevant pages about "Scala" or Lift through Google without knowing including more relevant information ("Scala Language" or "Lift Scala").

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#82

Post by vacri »

sbashyal wrote: post #49
ansy wrote: 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 analogy is flawed, but for a different reason - if you're given the wrong dish in a restaraunt, you can't correct it in less than two seconds.

I would rather have a search that corrected typos and aimed for the best result which I could rapidly correct than a search which slavishly returned "No results for 'hgihway', did you mean 'highway'?" (as a simple example).

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#83

Post by vacri »

IsaacL wrote: post #72
fbuilesv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Google we never Altavista'd or Yahoo'd anything, I don't see why this has to be a problem. Also, please stop abusing the word "pivot" :(

I agree. Google became a verb because the search engine was successful, not the other way around. Furthermore: - Microsoft spent pots of cash trying to verbify their search engine with their "bing and decide" commercials. As far as I know, this hasn't worked for them. - IIRC Google themselves tend to use the form "do a Google search" - or they risk losing their trademark. - Duck Duck Go is a catchy name - three punch…

Or 'impact' when they mean 'affect', though sadly the battle is lost on that one...

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#84

Post by vacri »

systems wrote: post #64
puredemo wrote: post #19

I've said this for a long time, but I think the biggest thing holding back DDG from truly widespread adoption is the name and branding. No one is ever going to 'dukgo' someone. Searching is a verb, the naming conventions used with DDG in its current form just don't fly. I'd love to talk shop with Gabriel about the identity decisions, and whether he is open to pivoting the brand identity now that the service is gettin…

Well, in general I like the Duck Logo and brand Now checking possible duck domains Duck.com redirect to google! Duck.co points to a DDG community site! Goduck.com is for sales Duck.net is blocked from work so I guess its a porn thing What do you think will work as a good brand?

duck.net is owned by a squatter.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#85

Post by vacri »

jcstauffer wrote: post #81
ansy wrote: 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…

So try a different example. Scala also has multiple meanings. As of 3 months ago, it was almost impossible to find relevant pages about "Scala" or Lift through Google without knowing including more relevant information ("Scala Language" or "Lift Scala").

I'm able to easily type in a second word when I search. In the case of Java, I'm able to get the language, island, or coffee on the first search in google - for this 'princely' cost of searching correctly in the first place, I don't have to do the (apparently wonderful) ddg process:

1) visually skip the sizable disambiguation list

2) parse the main results, find they don't match (DDG is all about java language just like google on 'java')

3) go back and parse the disambiguation list

4) click the category to expand

5) parse the newly expanded list

6) click the relevant entry

7) wait for a new search

8) parse the main results again

I mean, seriously, a second word in your search is hardly cognitively onerous. Are we really so spoiled as to demand perfect results on short, ambigiuous topics?

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#86

Post by zck »

vacri wrote: post #82
sbashyal wrote: post #49

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 analogy is flawed, but for a different reason - if you're given the wrong dish in a restaraunt, you can't correct it in less than two seconds. I would rather have a search that corrected typos and aimed for the best result which I could rapidly correct than a search which slavishly returned "No results for 'hgihway', did you mean 'highway'?" (as a simple example).

DuckDuckGo corrects typos: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hgihway

If you actually want to search for "hgihway", search for "+hgihway": https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%2Bhgihway

Of course, Google has results for "hgihway": https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&ei=mV...

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#87

Post by imperialWicket »

CamperBob wrote: post #65
puredemo wrote: post #19

I've said this for a long time, but I think the biggest thing holding back DDG from truly widespread adoption is the name and branding. No one is ever going to 'dukgo' someone. Searching is a verb, the naming conventions used with DDG in its current form just don't fly. I'd love to talk shop with Gabriel about the identity decisions, and whether he is open to pivoting the brand identity now that the service is gettin…

Why not just say "Duck it"?

What's with the name? It is derived from Duck Duck Goose, but it's not a metaphor—really. If you're wondering how you would turn that into a verb...Duck it!

From the ddg faq page: http://duckduckgo.com/faq.html

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#88

Post by ZoFreX »

ugh wrote: 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.

Personally, I frequently fall into the uncommon cases. I realise that that makes me uncommon, and don't blame Google for doing what works for 90% of their users. However, for me personally it's not a great experience anymore, I am irritated by auto-correct far more often than I am helped by it. As someone who knew how to use the synonym operator, I never felt that I wanted Google to do this for me automatically. Now it does, frequently, and in some cases using the exact match operator is overriden by Google deciding to match synonymns anyway. At this point, I can't even control what I'm searching for.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#89

Post by ceejayoz »

sbashyal wrote: post #50
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

> I did the same search in DuckDuckGo and I got results as expected. Simple. For this unusual case. In most situations I've encountered, Google's auto correction is quite helpful. > What if I was searching for place Java of Java Coffee fame. I would need to scan through the search results, spanning multi-pages (second page in this), until I came across the one that related to Java, the place. Or, you revise your quer…

In most situations I've encountered, Google's auto correction is quite helpful. If I place an order for a Chicken Burrito but am served a Beef Burrito (auto correction) because that's the most popular dish, it would not be okay. Same applies to search. (Sorry, I repeated this example I used in another response in this same thread.)

> If I place an order for a Chicken Burrito but am served a Beef Burrito (auto correction) because that's the most popular dish, it would not be okay.

If I were immediately - i.e. within a second or two - served a chicken burrito when I say "sorry, I ordered the chicken", I don't think I'd mind that much.

Re: The curious case of DuckDuckGo

#90

Post by ecounysis »

nl wrote: post #29
ecounysis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does a good job of highlighting certain instances where using Google is a pain in the ass. I personally don't like the spell-correct feature. For me, it is only correct in its conclusion that I mistyped a word about 10% of the time. The other 90% is a nuisance because I have to go back and explicitly tell it that I meant to tell it what I told it.

it is only correct in its conclusion that I mistyped a word about 10% of the time I'd love to see your statistics on that - you must use a lot of very unusual words. Google has published a paper about the algorithm they use. There are two cases: If Google thinks you might be wrong it will display "Did you mean..." with the possible correction. If Google is pretty sure you are wrong, it will search for what it thinks…

you must use a lot of very unusual words

No. I just type more accurately than the average Google user, so when I do type an unusual word it is more likely that I intended to type it.

Google could fix this (with logged in users) by using some type of Bayesian classification algorithm. They could track how often a user subsequently clicks "Showing results for _____" compared to "Search instead for ______". That would give them a self-rated user typing accuracy score they could use to adjust which results to display when they detect a potential misspelling.

For all I know they already do this. However, based on anecdotal evidence from my own experience (admittedly non-scientific), it does not appear that they do.

Post reply on HN