51–60 of 101 posts
I use DDG but homestly it not much better as far as quality of results go. To me it feels like DDG has gone out of its way to copy Googles shitty algorithm.
DDG search results are far worse than Google. It's not remotely as good at search. However 90% of my searches are trivial -- DDG will find what I'm looking for. For the remaining 10% I'll switch to Google and the result will pop up. This is a decent compromise as someone trying to wean themselves off Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I think those features are cool, and also appreciate DDG's very primitive version of them, how come it isn't considered some kind of copyright violation? After all, use a 5 second clip of a song for fair use and YouTube may automatically remove your video(or just the audio) on behalf of Universal Music Group. Maybe websites ought to send DMCA takedown notices to Google when they find their content being used as…
Facts are not copyrightable, even if you worked very hard to find the fact. Copyright generally applies to the complexity of the result, not the effort that went into getting the result.
Yes, Google has and is very much abusing their position when it comes to (re-)directing traffic to other websites, but one has to wonder how much from that is a disaster of the affected sites' own making when they've tried for so long to squeeze every last drop of "SEO juice" out of their content and use every dirty advertiser trick under the sun.
Maybe that's not so tangential after all. Assured of their own power, formerly over other search engines, now increasingly over the websites themselves, they have no incentive to put out a really great product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
You lose the serendipity of other things sites might tell you - you get Dr. Fauci's age quicker, and a few other bits that Google sanction as appropriate for you, but that's all you get. Google can censor the rest of the facts if they choose to, and you'll never know because you don't leave the safe walls of Google's search page. To date Google have 'only' censored search results in countries like China, but doesn't…
I think this already happens, as an example I was searching for something like "X in Garry Mod" and most things on the results were youtube results. I can't prove this is deliberate but it feels weird you search for some API and you get either a full page of Youtube results or Google answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You lose the serendipity of other things sites might tell you - you get Dr. Fauci's age quicker, and a few other bits that Google sanction as appropriate for you, but that's all you get. Google can censor the rest of the facts if they choose to, and you'll never know because you don't leave the safe walls of Google's search page. To date Google have 'only' censored search results in countries like China, but doesn't…
I get that "censorship" is dominating some people's thinking these days, but the relevancy here is ... tenuous. Google always controlled the search results, and therefore the information you were going to see. Filtering the pages they link to isn't materially different from filtering the facts they choose to feature. There's also a complete lack of motive here: Google allows you to pay them to "manipulate" SERPS (by…
The difference is that now they're incentivizing you not to click on the search results for informational searches. There could be damning evidence that IAmEveryone is mean to kittens on the first result, but if people don't click it they'll never know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
While I think those features are cool, and also appreciate DDG's very primitive version of them, how come it isn't considered some kind of copyright violation? After all, use a 5 second clip of a song for fair use and YouTube may automatically remove your video(or just the audio) on behalf of Universal Music Group. Maybe websites ought to send DMCA takedown notices to Google when they find their content being used as…
Let's not make copyright even more cancerous as it already is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facts are not copyrightable, even if you worked very hard to find the fact. Copyright generally applies to the complexity of the result, not the effort that went into getting the result.
But the expression of the fact is copyrightable and Google is taking verbatim excerpts from websites and posting them on their site.
Google helps you by actually giving you information you search without having to go through a SEOd webpage feeding tracking advertisers. You want to make copyright even more abusive and restrictive for what? Feeding scummy websites that exist to collect clicks for returning simple facts? We're not talking Wikipedia type content here.
I would pay money for an ad-free version of Google with the quality of results from a few years ago. I use DuckDuckGo and I find myself typing !g enough that I might change back completely.