61–70 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your link also mentions that Google has a patent on this (patent no. 20070239716). Interesting.
(That's a publication number, not a patent number. Notice that it starts with a year. Issued patent numbers are sequential.)
Do you guys already support Mycroft plugins? Granted you can't use them to play tetris in the results list, but they're easier to make (you only need to know how to edit XML) and there are already thousands on http://mycroft.mozdev.org . You just need to add some heuristics to scrape the results out. Actually, one could make a pretty good search engine that was just a frontend for mycroft that was able to extract res…
* http://yubnub.org/ - one of the first if not first to create a community around web commands. Primitive string substitution
* http://queri.ac (disclaimer: I maintained it for awhile) - a small community of web commands. Supported options, bookmarklets and more. Browser-independent.
* ubiquity, https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Ubiquity, - improved on web commands by having them written in javascript and had an awesome API for combining commands and rendering command output. However, it was firefox-specific.
The main innovation I see with duckduckhack is that they're using github to foster contribution.
VerticalSet is offering similar functionality. DuckDuckGo is starting to go in the same direction. http://www.verticalset.com/ Although aim is same to make search engine a platform, technologically it is rather different. Would love to hear feedback on this.
I have more than a few ideas for hacks, after reading the very nice tutorial. Look forward to playing with it.
For some context on how this has been tried before: * http://yubnub.org/ - one of the first if not first to create a community around web commands. Primitive string substitution * http://queri.ac (disclaimer: I maintained it for awhile) - a small community of web commands. Supported options, bookmarklets and more. Browser-independent. * ubiquity, https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Ubiquity , - improved on web commands by…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The !bang syntax is for pass-through search ( http://duckduckgo.com/bang.html ). So, why even bother going to DDG and not simply using address bar search shortcuts? Why would I do 'ddg !g "my" "search" "terms"' as opposed to 'g "my" "search" "terms"'?? Or is this using ddg as start page for your browser, or ... Just curious.
For me, there are a couple of benefits of having the functionality built into my search engine rather than my browser. First, all I have to do is set up DDG as the default search engine in my browser, and then I get tons of search shortcuts working without any more effort on my part. I don't have to worry about syncing between different computers, browsers (I use Chrome and Firefox at different times), and operating…
I'm going to guess "yes" but perhaps for others it would be no?
I'm not saying this just to be argumentative (honest!). Just that when I tried DDG as my search provider before (which was a while back now) I found that !bang looked like a great idea but just made searches slower for me. But then I've got quite a few years of established search keywords.
Earlier 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.
Good choice, in the end. The brand is more "DuckDuck", not "Go".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Showing extracts in search results is widely considered to be fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google
perhaps bit OT, but read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google#Ruling (1) Operator did not directly infringe on author's copyrighted works; (5) Search engine fell within protection of safe harbor provision of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). wouldnt the same rules applies IF the government comes after The Pirate Bay? Or even the guy who is now being extradited to US for his linking website?
2. The purpose and character of Google's summaries and cached pages is quite different from The Pirate Bay's links. (In particular, Google has no intention of totally replacing the original site with an unauthorized copy, and its content is not generally useful as such.)
3. The Pirate Bay is not covered by the DMCA's safe harbor provisions (as, again, it isn't open to the idea of taking down content at the request of copyright holders).