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

DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

help.duckduckgo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#91

Post by kube-system »

kevincox wrote: post #87
kube-system wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any easy way to determine that? I’m not aware of one. The presence of JavaScript is not always enough to determine that the page is not usable without JavaScript.

You could check to see if there is content on the raw received HTML as well as indexing the content after evaluating JavaScript. If the page pre-JS page has content you mark it as no-JS friendly and if it only gets content after running JS then you mark it as JS-required.

What if the page gets part of its content from JS, or it uses JS to facilitate users actions? This is fairly common.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#92

Post by kevincox »

kube-system wrote: post #91
kevincox wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could check to see if there is content on the raw received HTML as well as indexing the content after evaluating JavaScript. If the page pre-JS page has content you mark it as no-JS friendly and if it only gets content after running JS then you mark it as JS-required.

What if the page gets part of its content from JS, or it uses JS to facilitate users actions? This is fairly common.

If resources were no concern you could rank the page twice and have separate JS and no-JS indexes. Of course this isn't perfect as a lot of the ranking comes from pages referring to it but I think it is fine. If the page has a good chunk of content it likely still makes sense to include it in no-JS searches. I don't think people will be annoyed that they can't do every action on the page, the real annoyance is getting a blank screen or the main content otherwise unavailable.

So at the end of the day I think just having a js-required flag for each document is sufficient and set that flag if the "main content" (as determined by heuristics) is unavailable before running JS. I think that would be good enough to satisfy most users with JS disabled without too much expense.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#94

Post by dredmorbius »

boogies wrote: post #84
dredmorbius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lite is amazeballs as a command-line utility (leveraging any of several console-mode browsers, including w3m, lynx, links, elinks2, etc.). As a bash (or zsh) function: ddg () { /usr/bin/w3m "https://duckduckgo.com/lite?q=$*&kd=-1" } Note that this enables any bang searches as well, though you'll need to single quote these to avoid attempted history expansion. lite is also my default w3m search bookmark entry. So: ddg…

Have you heard of Julian Assange’s surfraw? $ alias d='sr duckduckgo -text -ducky' $ d '!man surfraw' [www-browser opens http://manpages.org/surfraw] […] DESCRIPTION Surfraw provides a fast unix command line interface to a variety of popular WWW search engines and other artifacts of power. It reclaims google, altavista, dejanews, freshmeat, research index, slashdot and many others from the false-prophet, pox-infested…

Yep, both the tool and its author.

I also use dict, have Debian's gazeteer TIGER files & miscfiles installed, dwww, RFCs, and more.

Info-on-tap is wonderful.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#95

Post by abhayhegde »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #20

Can you please add a dark theme like your JS-based site? Just cause you don't use JS doesn't mean they can't use CSS.

You could use the following in Style editor of browser (accessible via Inspect Console):

  html{
   background-color: black !important;
   filter: invert(90%) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
  }

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#96

Post by makecheck »

If you want to add this as a search bar option in Firefox, you have to visit one of these pages first and then a green plus will appear in the search bar menu to (for example) add DuckDuckGo Lite. Then in settings you can also make it your new default.

[When did Firefox remove the option to just type in a URL for this?]

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#97

Post by chadlavi »

Nextgrid wrote: post #13

I wish I could set the "HTML" version as default in Safari. It's ~1.5s faster than the default JS version.

Same, though looks like maybe it doesn't actually return the same results as the full site, which is really weird. All 3 front-end clients should show identical results.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#98

Post by rkta »

dredmorbius wrote: post #58
benhoyt wrote: post #17

As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…

lite is amazeballs as a command-line utility (leveraging any of several console-mode browsers, including w3m, lynx, links, elinks2, etc.). As a bash (or zsh) function: ddg () { /usr/bin/w3m "https://duckduckgo.com/lite?q=$*&kd=-1" } Note that this enables any bang searches as well, though you'll need to single quote these to avoid attempted history expansion. lite is also my default w3m search bookmark entry. So: ddg…

What is the &kd=-1 for?

edit: To answer my own question https://duckduckgo.com/params

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#99

Post by iamtedd »

cookiengineer wrote: post #77
iamtedd wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Since a couple months ago DDG decided to block TOR Browser users," Do you have a source for that claim? A quick search returned nothing. Edit: I downloaded the (latest version of Tor Browser)-1 (10.0.12) and DDG is on the start page as the default search. No problems searching for things either.

Try using a mobile carrier and TOR on Android. You'll always get (and I quote) this: "We've detected that you have connected over Tor. There appears to be an issue with the Tor Exit Node you are currently using. Please recreate your Tor circuit or restart your Tor browser in order to fix this. If this error persists, please let us know: error-lite-tor@duckduckgo.com" And no, rotating the exit node or changing the ide…

Even this works for me. Must be a US problem. Regardless, I fail to see how your first hop onto the Internet would affect DDG, and no-one else and therefore be a DDG problem. Your carrier must be mangling the data somehow.

How does this equate to DDG saying that they're blocking Tor users?

Post reply on HN