201–210 of 245 posts
I'm impressed, it works quite well. However, just to put DuckDuckGo's 4 Mqpd into a broader context: Google 2013: 5.9 Gqpd Bing 2012: 3.1 Gqpd Not to put DuckDuckGo down or anything, but it's important to understand what a >1000x difference in scale means, in terms of operating costs and scalability issues. For example, for a single person is very easy to get hold of $10k but it's extremely difficult to get $10M. (I'…
How does DuckDuckGo make money to support itself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't consider w3schools a good search result, ever: http://www.w3fools.com/
Why do you say that? (and please don't say you read it on w3fools) In my own experience, w3schools is the quickest way of getting the information I want, which I guess is why it is at the top of google. I know it isn't cool to like w3schools, but then I'm not a cool programmer.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't fight the SEO feedback cycle. W3 schools was linked to by some people, so it shows up on Google, so it gets linked to by more people...
Some people? By internet standards, w3schools is ancient , and has been linked by many people over the years. Here[1], I present you their main page from close to 14 years ago. The copyright notice says 1999-2000, and I think I first visited it in 1999, but I could be mistaken. That's a long time for links to accrue. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20000815210025/http://www.w3schoo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The Google result page for "flowers" also includes the wikipedia page for "Flower", btw." Yeah, but it is farther down the list. I have to search for it.
Father? It's the second item on the list for me (and I use incognito)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would expect a glorified redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower That is what I expect for any search that is vague or generic. The results for "RTG" are pretty much my idea of what a set of results should look like. (Note that while DDG's results page for 'flowers' is cleaner, the actual results are similarly shit.)
>>I would expect a glorified redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower That is what I expect for any search that is vague or generic. If they wanted the wikipedia page, they would have performed the search directly on wikipedia. The question you have to ask is: what is the most likely thing they are looking to do? Is it to learn more about flowers (wikipedia) or is it to buy flowers (regular results with ads +…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using DDG as my primary search from desktop for several years now, and I find its results to be equivalent to or better than Google's most of the time. When I can't find something, I'll try a !g, but only rarely does that help any more.
I totally agree. In the beginning, I was !g a lot. These days, I mostly !g for more natural language kind of questions. For more technical searches, Google has become next to useless for me. "lupdate.exe not working Qt" transforms to "did you mean 'Update not working'?" (lupdate.exe is part of the Qt translation toolchain and Windows forces it to run as admin only because there is "update" in its file name. The Googl…
For more technical searches, Google has become next to useless for me.
Just this morning I tried searching for this:
µC/gui button detach
Which is odd, because googling this:
button detach
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google supports AND, OR, NOT and NEAR. There is an AROUND operator that is similar to NEAR. I think the way DDG can gain more traction is motivating top sites to enhance their local search pagerank. It's incredible how Google search restricted to Stack Overflow works better than the Stack Overflow local search engine. I wrote a rant about this at Challenging Google’s Search Engine [1]. [1] http://blog.databigbang.com…
If double up votes were possible... This isn't uncommon though. Try search "yllow submarine" on Spotify. Is there any other thing this could refer to? Not only do they not have the Beatles, but the search is awful. Nearly as awful as Apple mail. I suspect the real problem isn't that others are bad - Google has spoilt us with how good it is.
Duck duck is barely usable ... but they don't spy on you. The !g and !b commands make it my first choice. If the results aren't getting what you want, try the search on google or bing. IF you don't mind Sergy Brin or Bill Gates tracking you. I still think there's room for a search engine that supports boolean(ish?) operations like AND, OR , NOT and NEAR. Providing links directly to the source and not a redirect to th…
> Duck duck is barely usable ... but they don't spy on you. 1. You don't know that. 2. No search engine ever spied on you when they started.
Have they been audited? That could help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say that? (and please don't say you read it on w3fools) In my own experience, w3schools is the quickest way of getting the information I want, which I guess is why it is at the top of google. I know it isn't cool to like w3schools, but then I'm not a cool programmer.
Lots of people complain about W3Schools. Some of those people say the Mozilla pages are a bit clunky. Seems like a nice passive income project - man pages for HTML / CSS aimed at beginners but with advanced information too. I'm surprised it hasn't already been done. Perhaps it has and I just don't know the URL.