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

DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 341 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#291

Post by TobyTheDog123 »

freeAgent wrote: post #98
TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #23

I'm not entirely sure what market DuckDuckGo is trying to serve. - Non-privacy-conscious people are just going to use Google. - Privacy-conscious people know enough to realize that DuckDuckGo isn't really protecting your privacy, and that it's akin to using ExpressVPN or NordVPN to "hide your IP address". Didn't they also have some kind of censorship uproar back in the day?

> Didn't they also have some kind of censorship uproar back in the day? They recently down-ranked Russian propaganda-linked sites (like RT). I can't remember if that change has remained in place or they reversed it.

Oh right I remember now - I guess the point I'd make about that is I'd think there's a large overlap between those that are privacy-conscious and those that are conscious to those kinds of algorithmic manipulations.

I don't think toeing the line is a viable business strategy when your competition blows your search result quality out of the water. There's no benefit in that case.

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#292

Post by stakhanov »

jeppester wrote: post #278
AnonCoward42 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least BingAI does provide its sources and ChatGPT/BingAI are made to be conversational, so you get the opportunity to ask actual questions and get an answer. As with everything on the internet take the answers with a couple of grains of salt. You can also directly ask for the sources btw. In the end LLMs with access to the internet can be an abstraction to search engines. If it is good can only be assessed once yo…

If you ask for the source, don't you just get the most likely source?

The other thing I'm wondering, even though this is veering quite far off the original topic, but: I don't just want all the sources that the AI used in responding to my question, I also want all the other sources that seemed relevant to my question but were for some reason not used.

I want completeness (i.e. if source material is being skipped, I want to be the one to make the decision that it can safely be skipped), and I want consistency (i.e. I want to be able to double-check that the same set of sources wouldn't also support drawing conclusions that contradict those drawn by the AI).

In other words: I'd still want to use search as a product, and I'd still want someone to solve the search problem for me, even if question answering were a solved problem.

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#293

Post by jdironman »

makeitdouble wrote: post #148
jdironman wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just have a payment method that isn't linked to you?

How do you realistically do that online, short of getting into crypto ? I wonder if they'd even accept crypto, but their FAQ has nothing on their accepted payment and so it seems it needs an account even to just see that.

Well, they could do it like Mulvad VPN and allow cash payments + whatever your account number is. (Account number isn't tied to you)

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#295

Post by yesco »

Dalewyn wrote: post #260
ColinHayhurst wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. I say this based on direct research, with users of our no-tracking search engine.

Non-techies use Microsoft, Apple, and Google accounts. Non-techies use Chrome over Firefox. Non-techies use Windows and MacOS over Linux. Non-techies use smartphones over phones. Non-techies use smart TVs over TVs. Non-techies use social media and have accounts using their real names. I reiterate: Non-techies don't give a damn about privacy.

You're wrong, they do care about privacy, just at a superficial level. This means that advertising a service as "privacy-oriented" is a positive feature for the normies, but only if it's convenient.

It's kinda like the cruelty-free labels on shampoo.

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#296

Post by ezekg »

viraptor wrote: post #159
xlii wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been using Kagi for multiple months and due to advocacy I made few people pay for it too, but I’m completely disheartened by their business model. The whole explanation of the recent “we want to stay afloat” was weird, unexpected (price doubling with my usage, to 20$/mo) and felt untrue (ordinary user doing 30 searches per day?). I felt like it was written by Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler - made sense but also very…

> ordinary user doing 30 searches per day? I suspect there's a big difference between an ordinary user and an ordinary Kagi user.

I've been using Kagi for the last year or so. I average about 20 searches per day, including on my mobile after work. Well under my 1k monthly limit.

I guess I don't search nearly as much as I thought I did. Still worth the $10/mo to me.

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#298

Post by ezekg »

xlii wrote: post #111
DanHulton wrote: post #70

I debated bringing up Kagi at the top level here, since I already commented on it in a reply, but honestly I really want them to succeed and shit like this is why. It's a paid search service, and I'm honestly really happy with that distinction and what it entails. Being paid means that they can deliver on and support features that users can use to get the best results for them, without worrying how those features may…

I’ve been using Kagi for multiple months and due to advocacy I made few people pay for it too, but I’m completely disheartened by their business model. The whole explanation of the recent “we want to stay afloat” was weird, unexpected (price doubling with my usage, to 20$/mo) and felt untrue (ordinary user doing 30 searches per day?). I felt like it was written by Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler - made sense but also very…

> I make 200-500 searches per day

That's a lot compared to my modest 20 searches a day on average. So I'd guess you're an outlier, since I do sit within their "30 searches a day" claim. I use Kagi on desktop while working, and on mobile outside of work. I've never hit my 1k searches/mo limit, but was honestly worried I would (and set hard limits to not exceed my limits). I guess I don't search as much as I thought I did. I really like Kagi and think it's well worth the $10/mo.

(I'd really like to hear how you're hitting that search volume, if you're open to share? I can't imagine hitting a search engine that many times a day, so I'm quite curious.)

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#299

Post by timbit42 »

rsch wrote: post #73

There are good reasons why the next generation just looks up videos. The idea of a web search engine is disappearing into the mist of time. Text search engines worked well 10 years ago, but they are now completely overwhelmed by content farms.

YouTube's search is now so bad I've been using DDG's video search to find videos on YouTube. I'll have to keep an eye on whether DDG's video search goes south as well.

Re: DuckDuckGo removed the ability to filter search results

#300

Post by timbit42 »

ParetoOptimal wrote: post #297

Why couldn't DuckDuckGo just offer an "advanced mode" in settings where operators are still active? They could default to the simple one and achieve their goal.

They could. Perhaps they will, but they may need to charge for it if Bing is charging them for those fancy features.
Post reply on HN