It's hard to take their "privacy by design" seriously. It is the same Cliqz that partnered before with Mozilla to run "experiment" exfiltrating browsing history (!) of 1% of new installs in Germany: https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i... I thought Mozilla would loss all their credibility after this, but somehow they still market as privacy-focused..
The world needs more search engines
431–440 of 549 posts
Re: The world needs more search engines
#432There needs to be a new search engine focused on the niche of people who hate the current ad spam/SEO results that Google currently returns. A query like "best headphones" returns results like "The Best Headphones for 2019 | PCMag.com". They've clearly optimized for the mass user base, since the average person is probably fine with a result like that. But I'm willing to bet no one on HN would ever click a link like t…
Re: The world needs more search engines
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... so Google wasn't able to cheat with privileged information about me as a user." The way they "cheated" was to look at the tens, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of previous queries that matched yours in substance. If the competing websites for "web search" had the same volume of submitted queries that are substantially similar to yours, then they too would be able to give you "exactly" what you are look…
There’s some truth to that but Google also has a massive knowledge graph. For imdb and freebase like queries they can give very accurate answers as cards. Other humans don’t need to teach every single fact. They just need to teach how to extract and organize facts from a site. When you see google giving you a one/two word answer as a card, that’s very likely coming from it’s knowledge graph. What we need is more of t…
For example, say the film credits for Spiderman is a "primary source", and a cast list for Spiderman derived from the credits at IMDb is a "secondary source". Google extracts the information from IMDb and substitutes itself as the secondary source.
Does this raise an issue in that ideally users should sometimes be retrieving information from (i.e., accessing) primary and secondary sources directly, whereas a third party always acting as a universal secondary source, e.g., a third party funded by advertising, might introduce (more) bias into the information retrieval process, e.g., in competition for "eyeballs".
From the OP references: https://sparktoro.com/blog/less-than-half-of-google-searches...
Re: The world needs more search engines
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you're confirming that Google tracks you without using fingerprinting methods? That's literally the opposite of what s/he just said. The person you're responding asked "How would it know?", implying that they (while being on the Google ads team) think there is no way to know without fingerprinting (or cookies from non-incognito mode).
Right: fingerprinting is the general term for using something other than client-side storage (cookies, local storage) to determine identity. Incognito mode and other private sessions intentionally don't preserve client-side storage.
Personally, Google ads give me mixed feelings. I see how personalization is useful for everyone involved and, so long as only machines look at my data, I don't have any personal issues with it. But at the same time, Google collects everything on everyone worldwide to the point where I feel like the USA would have an easy time conquering any country they please (if a nation already has live data on pretty much all its enemy's subjects, war would be exceedingly efficient for them to start and quickly win), so that kind of threatens our freedom if you see what I mean; and secondly the data is not necessarily 100% secure, so in the event of a breach it might be seen by humans, specifically people that I would not want to know what I searched for (or pages I visited that have Analytics or an embedded YouTube video or ads or a map on their contact page or ...). So it's a mixed bag of feelings and your position (job) seems like the kind that would make one think about before accepting. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#435Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…
To be fair, that example query is more of a personal assistant kind of question. If I want to know who played in that movie, either I know which site has that information (IMDB) and go there directly, or I search for something like "actors spiderman movie ". If you want DDG to understand natural language queries, I think their privacy policy may need to be adjusted so that our queries can actually be used to develop…
!bangs are the main reason why it's always going to be difficult for me to switch from DDG to anything else.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the feedback, if you find something fishy in the requests then that's like a bug and we will gladly fix it ASAP. Disclaimer: I work at Cliqz.
For the current Cliqz Browser (1.30.1) when I type "pythux" in the URL bar the request looks like this: GET /api/v2/results?nrh=1&q=pythuxs=UTlnJzAh4ULkORaiZgLPO6LW9LOWZZoO&n=5&qc=0&lang=en&locale=en-US&platform=0&o=%5B%5B%22custom-search%22%5D%5D&country=de&adult=0&loc_pref=ask&count=10&suggest=0 HTTP/1.1 Host: api.cliqz.com 1. I saw UTlnJzAh4ULkORaiZgLPO6LW9LOWZZoO in other requests too, but not all of them. Can yo…
Thanks for taking the time to dig into things. Comments like these are why I continue to regularly read Hacker News.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#437So yeah, I'm down for more search engines. If there wasn't only one dominant one, SEO wouldn't be such a problem, either, I imagine.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All of this teaches one lesson: be more like Apple. Treat your customers poorly and massively overcharge them. Make sure you are never the biggest in your field. Essentially, don't offer products that are too good for the price. You’re wrong on both counts: Apple has its own share of potentially monopolistic behavior, and there are billions of people worldwide who disagree with you on how the company treats them.
So Apple is a “monopoly” over what exactly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_but_significant_and_non-...
Re: The world needs more search engines
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. Yeah, and due to economies of scale and network effects it will stay that way, unless some people are willing to suffer the minor inconvenience of using a slightly inferior competitor.
Why would they tho?
Re: The world needs more search engines
#440Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…
When DDG doesn't yield the results I'm looking for, I will frequently try Google, but more and more I find that if DuckDuckGo can't find the results that I want, then neither can Google. What Google can do however, is annoy me with results that it knows to be wrong, because it is excluded the most specific part of my query. Google will remove the bit that absolutely had to be in the query, to get more hits on the maj…