I couldn't figure it out from the docs, do the plugins get approved by DuckDuckGo? Or does the user have to install them for their own account? I'm a bit confused at how you would mediate between different plugins trying to provide an answer for the same query, etc.
Introducing DuckDuckHack
11–20 of 76 posts
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#12This seems to me to be a great example of hour DDG can gain an edge on Google. I don't think you'll ever see Google offering something like this; they're too big. A smaller option like DDG has more room to grow, and can take advantage of the crowd like this in ways that Google can't.
Google offered something very similar to this a few years ago: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/10/google-search-add-o... Sadly it seems to no longer be supported.
Your link also mentions that Google has a patent on this (patent no. 20070239716). Interesting.
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#13This seems to me to be a great example of hour DDG can gain an edge on Google. I don't think you'll ever see Google offering something like this; they're too big. A smaller option like DDG has more room to grow, and can take advantage of the crowd like this in ways that Google can't.
Google offered something very similar to this a few years ago: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/10/google-search-add-o... Sadly it seems to no longer be supported.
Thanks for the link! I had no idea this ever existed.
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, you'll notice hackhackgo.com redirects to the same place :). We had a large internal debate about the name and it came down to these two, with hacksear.ch in third.
You compared this to Firefox Add-ons. Does that mean that these won't be integrated into DDG natively? Will that only be at your discretion?
No, they will be native.
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#15I couldn't figure it out from the docs, do the plugins get approved by DuckDuckGo? Or does the user have to install them for their own account? I'm a bit confused at how you would mediate between different plugins trying to provide an answer for the same query, etc.
The plugins get approved by DuckDuckGo, and generally we work with people to make them good or round them out ourselves. In the future there may be a way to install them in addition (for say, the ones we aren't using for the whole site).
We have a bit of an answer for conflicts on this in the FAQ: http://duckduckhack.com/#faq
"What if there are plugin conflicts? The ultimate arbiter is the user, and that's the perspective we take, i.e. what is best for the user experience? That said, often times it makes sense to combine ideas into one, better plugin."
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#16Google had something like this back in 2007.
Matt Cutts: "An easy way to add new features to Google" http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/adding-new-features-to-google/
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#17I couldn't figure it out from the docs, do the plugins get approved by DuckDuckGo? Or does the user have to install them for their own account? I'm a bit confused at how you would mediate between different plugins trying to provide an answer for the same query, etc.
[deleted]
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#18Crowd sourcing better search results through content plugins. Genius - great job ddg/h guys!
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#19DDG is getting better all the time. These days, I use it almost exclusively. I love the !bang syntax.
What advantage do bangs have over Chrome's ability to detect and add search engines to the Omnibox?
Re: Introducing DuckDuckHack
#20DDG is getting better all the time. These days, I use it almost exclusively. I love the !bang syntax.
i use it by default too (i guess it's largely cosmetic, but since something now displays quickly it doesn't feel so slow, even though the results still lag a little), but for non-trivial searches i regularly use !google because it simply returns better results. i don't see how they can fix that (they delegate to bing?) but i wish they could. it's just depressing how much better google results can be when the answer "isn't obvious".
sorry, i guess this reads really negative. it's not my intent - as i said i use it. i just wish it could be better.