I can never remember the (short) url, so I end up Googling it so I don't have to spell it out..
Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
91–100 of 198 posts
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I understand your point, please. > Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty. These kind of comments are a bit unnecessary, especially on Hacker News, I believe.
Why? The topic is whether or not to use a search engine. This one delivers bad results compared to major ones. Frustratingly bad if you use it enough. I expected such a reply.
There is always a way to show that a search engine is bad with constructive feedback rather than just replying it's "shitty".
At least, the OP could have elaborated on why does he thinks this way so that everyone could understand why DDG's results are "shitty".
Unfortunately, no one can know what the OP thinks. As a result, it is hurting the work of others without any feedback so that they can improve themselves (i.e. DDG team) and serves little purpose (no explanations on the why) except expressing a frustration.
At least, that's my opinion. Let's be elegant in how do we relate to others. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think this kind of behavior is what creates a more toxic environment in our fields.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#93> I'm getting a feeling that some day in future, DDG is going to become as big as Google, if not supersede it. Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. > a search engine's results are only as accurate as the number of users who search and contribute to it That makes no sense. Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty.
> Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. Really? I've never heard this, do you have anymore information about it?
[deleted]
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#94DDG is really great for easily doing specific types of search, eg. adding "!w" to your query will search for something on Wikipedia. For that feature, it's extremely useful and I don't like to be without it. But its own search results (which I think are actually anonymized Bing search results?) are nowhere as near what google manages by personalizing your search. So I'll often add "!g" to my query to get google resul…
You can add these shortcuts into your browser. On firefox, you can right click on a search box and specify some character(s). I'm sure there's a similar process on chrome too.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I understand your point, please. > Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty. These kind of comments are a bit unnecessary, especially on Hacker News, I believe.
Why? It's a discussion about a search engine. The quality of the results are one of the most important aspects of it.
You're right that it's on-topic. But it's about as non-constructive as you can get while still being on-topic.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
suggest fastmail.com
I have a question about fastmail: I tried migrating from gmail but the original date of the emails didn't transfer. Anyone knows how to solve it? I had to go back to gmail since it's a deal breaker and I couldn't find a solution, but I really want to leave gmail (so I can have a direct relationship with the service provider without advertisers involve)
How were you trying to migrate? I've been doing a Gmail->FastMail migration and I definitely had no issues with original email dates.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#97DDG has been my default search for the last few years and I only very rarely use it for it's native search results. The bang (!) search syntax is by far the biggest reason I use it. It allows me to search sooooo many websites directly from the address bar. If you want normal Google search results, use !g. If you want Google Images, use !gi. Amazon? !a. Wikipedia? !w. The list goes on and on and on. Edit: grammar.
You can add these shortcuts into your browser. On firefox, you can right click on a search box and specify some character(s). I'm sure there's a similar process on chrome too.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#98> I'm getting a feeling that some day in future, DDG is going to become as big as Google, if not supersede it. Well, no, they don't even have their own search engine. > a search engine's results are only as accurate as the number of users who search and contribute to it That makes no sense. Anyway, we don't use DDG because its results are shitty.
And after 10 years or so of trying, you'd expect the results to be far better, and more people to use it. I think the search engine space is very ripe for a startup, but duckduckgo isn't it IMHO.
> after 10 years or so of trying, you'd expect the results to be far better
Would you? Most search engines' growth, including Google, was fueled by advertising revenue. Obviously that part of the equation isn't really an option for DDG.
I wonder if they would be better off as a non-profit, like Wikipedia. I would donate to them.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
And DuckDuckGo is not really comparable when you don't live in the US. Google is far more superior, even without your info.
We have the chicken and egg problem there. Google have that results because it has terabytes of information on everything and that's because millions use it. If more and more people start using DDG, their results will also improve.
See, I'm not willing to do that. I'm not willing to put up with inferior results on the promise that maybe, someday in the future, they might get better.
Re: Let's start using DuckDuckGo more often
#100I actually tend to use Bing. hides
Bing image search is a lot better than Google's.