171–180 of 320 posts
I wonder how this made it past testing?
at least not for firefox mobile
they probably test for chrome (desktop+mobile), safari (desktop+mobile), edge(desktop) and maybe Firefox (desktop) but probably no other browser
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily everywhere, or at least not quite as bad as you're suggesting, in my experience. I used to advocate for DDG, but they've gone so far downhill that I rarely waste my time with it. They've decided to go PG-rated everywhere even if you have safe search turned off. This is a problem because, even if they just want to block porn or illegal things, this can have an impact on legitimate academic research. An…
>Bing DDG works well enough for me to be my daily driver, but it's absolute garbage for any kind of news search. Bing prioritizes MSN repost spam from dubious sources, so I'm better off going just directly to news sites I trust.
I think the only time I search for news (usually on Google) is to find a reliable article about a celebrity death.
Another reason to stop using Google. Don't waste the opportunity! Switched to DDG ages ago, and even though it's not amazing, it's already better than Google. Although, if we're honest, searching these days is absolutely atrocious everywhere. Any keyword search will only net you ads or "top X" articles full of SEO garbage most likely written by AI at this point...
9 minutes ago: > Since this has now been posted to HN, I'll be locking this thread. This bugtracker is a work place, not a discussion forum. We have a bad fame.
This reminds me of a blog post a former exec of Mozilla put out saying Google had been intentionally breaking things to get users to jump ship to Chrome. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38349357
Another reason to stop using Google. Don't waste the opportunity! Switched to DDG ages ago, and even though it's not amazing, it's already better than Google. Although, if we're honest, searching these days is absolutely atrocious everywhere. Any keyword search will only net you ads or "top X" articles full of SEO garbage most likely written by AI at this point...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of the time you use <0.1% of the bangs, so setting those up isn't a significant investment. Then there are also the downsides mentioned above (less convenient, no preview, not portable across search engines), so no, it's not a strict win, but an inferior alternative which is superior only in those cases where you can't setup something better
If I went that route, I’d have to set them up on my phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, etc, all of which have different operating systems/web browsers. I guess I could implement them as a web server, and point all my devices at it.
There is no point in making 100% of your experience worse just because you can't make 100% of your experience better
Given Google's size and market share, they should be fined whenever they break access to a competitor's website (e.g. Chrome update breaks access to DDG) or if their websites break in competitor's browser (e.g Google breaks on Firefox). They have more than enough resources to run automated checks on this, so it's hard to not see malice instead of incompetence in this case.
It's fascinating how people clamor for more government regulation and control at the first sign of trouble, without reasoning about the implications of those things, despite a history replete with examples of power abuse from the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I work on WebCompat at Mozilla) There are various people whose job involves triaging issues filed on that repo, and communicating with the issue authors where necessary e.g. to figure out additional steps required to reproduce the reported problem. The point of that effort is exactly because we value reports of site breakage so highly, and want to ensure that people reporting them have a good experience. Unfortunate…
"There are various people whose job involves triaging issues filed on that repo, and communicating with the issue authors where necessary e.g. to figure out additional steps required to reproduce the reported problem." And exactly where are the various QUALITY CONTROL testers that should've caught such a dead-simple problem like "This won't work with Google Search" before it ever happened in the first place?
This reminds me of a blog post a former exec of Mozilla put out saying Google had been intentionally breaking things to get users to jump ship to Chrome. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38349357
Is that what you think happened here? Google made the search page blank for Firefox users to get them on Chrome? Or perhaps it's the work of Hanlon's razor.
> "Over and over. Oops. Another accident. We'll fix it soon. We want the same things. We're on the same team. There were dozens of oopses. Hundreds maybe?"
> "I'm all for 'don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence' but I don't believe Google is that incompetent. I think they were running out the clock. We lost users during every oops. And we spent effort and frustration every clock tick on that instead of improving our product. We got outfoxed for a while and by the time we started calling it what it was, a lot of damage had been done," Nightingale said.
I tend to believe him