31–40 of 146 posts
duckduckgo.com
I use duck duck go as my default in my search bar, but I rarely actually use it to search the web directly. Instead, I use the !bang features to get where I need to go faster without taking my hands off the keyboard. Some examples: ctrl-t !w cyclocross ctrl-t !g site:ohio.gov filetype:pdf economic development ctrl-t !image sad reaction gif
>1. Google is making arbitrary rules on how sites should behave, because they have a monopoly. How are rules against paid linking scams or procedure generated content farms considered arbitrary? It's clearly trying to game the system, and the rules are explicitly laid out to tell you NOT to do it. >2. Google needs these rules, because Google’s rankings are apparently trivial to game. If this were true, you can make m…
The whole case with the delisting/penalization and subsequent(and extremely speedy) re-listing of RapGenius is a great example of Google's current arbitrary practices. I covered this is some details on another thread[0] in a couple of replies[1][2][3][4].
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7010997
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7011063
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7011111
Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it. I say this as a thoroughly-disappointed user who's tried nearly all the alternatives to Google in the various segments that it operates in. I've managed to stop using nearly all Google services except Android (running CM) and Search.
As others have pointed out in the thread, DDG is nowhere near as good, especially if you're not in the US (I'm in India). After having forced myself to use DDG for a month, I've now resigned myself to Google searches with a couple of extra steps: - all searches performed while logged out of all Google services - browser plugins to rewrite all Google tracking URLs from search results
So sure, we need viable search engine competition. But don't wait up for it either.
Perfectly valid expectation with near impossible odds of coming true. Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it. I say this as a thoroughly-disappointed user who's tried nearly all the alternatives to Google in the various segments that it operates in. I've managed to stop using nearly all Google services except Android (running CM) and Search. As others have pointed ou…
Isn't this the definition of a monopoly? And if so, isn't that reason enough to consider search as a public good or a publicly regulated means of accessing information?
Perfectly valid expectation with near impossible odds of coming true. Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it. I say this as a thoroughly-disappointed user who's tried nearly all the alternatives to Google in the various segments that it operates in. I've managed to stop using nearly all Google services except Android (running CM) and Search. As others have pointed ou…
"Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it." Isn't this the definition of a monopoly? And if so, isn't that reason enough to consider search as a public good or a publicly regulated means of accessing information?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it but for many queries it still isn't good enough.
Funny. I use DDG as my default. Frankly, I think it's results are way better than Google's. Yes, they are more simple-minded and less "intelligent", but then they are much more predictable as well. As such, it took some getting used to, but now I feel like I search more precisely than I ever would with Google. Way too often, Google will try to be "smart", and search for some "intelligent" interpretation of my search,…
Wow, so it's not just me then - I was describing my exact same feeling to someone (perhaps less eloquently than you!) just three days ago!
Even when I go and set it to 'Verbatim' search (which is well hidden), it still often gives me useless results for these kinds of technical queries...
The problem isn't even one that responds to market forces -- the "victims" (sites that should rank highly in organic results) are no one's customers. If you want to flip the script, they're the product. They have no leverage, and having more search engines leaves them with still no leverage. Only the users of the search engine have leverage because they can switch to another search engine -- but they can do that today. The problem is the alternatives are no better.
What we need is a cost-effective accurate way to identify spammers and exclude them from high rankings in search results. Someone who could do that more effectively could challenge Google, because there is a market for spam-free search results. But if that was an easy problem to solve then why hasn't Google solved it? They have the right incentives. It's just not easy, because spammers adapt. Whenever a search engine does something to thwart spammers, the spammers do something different.
Having more search engines doesn't make it easier, it makes it harder because each search engine has less resources to dedicate to it and they have to duplicate each other's work, and the cost to sites of legitimate optimization for a larger number of search engines increases which creates an even larger advantage for major institutions over small timers who can't afford the higher cost.
It's silly to say "why doesn't Google do X" and list some abstract thing you think would solve it which they've already considered and declined to do. There is probably a reason. Maybe manually curating every website is too expensive. Maybe arbitration proceedings would be overrun with spammers trying to challenge legitimate removals of their spam. And if they're wrong, don't speculate about it on a blog, prove it by building a better search engine. So far no one has been able to do it.