6 ms·

You are primarily going to get responses from people on threads like this who like and use DDG regularly. Selection bias. If you didn't find DDG useful, you wou

You are primarily going to get responses from people on threads like this who like and use DDG regularly. Selection bias. If you didn't find DDG useful, you wouldn't be using it, and probably don't have much commentary to add. I don't see them truly competing with big budget search engines, but it's probably easy enough to make decent money from keyword ads and if you can sell the brand, you can get enough users to cover a smaller machine footprint and R&D budget that's orders of magnitude smaller. The results are probably not awful (I don't use it). Result quality gets exponentially more difficult as you try to push that boundary, so you can probably get 80% of the quality there with 1% of the investment. The results may be good enough for plenty of folks, but I highly doubt they will ever be better than the big budget search engines.

lugg 8y ago
This post reads perfectly if you replace DDG with "Google" and believe it's 1999. Sure Google had a vastly superior algorithm but I don't think too many people really grasped that at the time.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Contrary to the seemingly popular belief, that their success was due to their algorithm, I used them because of their uncluttered and simple design. That's why I used Altavista before that. Google kept things very simple while other sites loaded on the bloat and garbage. I don't remember ever feeling like what I found with Google couldn't be found with Altavista or lycos. But a lot of the other companies tried to prematurely monetize to an excessive degree.
  - ian0 8y ago
    I was quite young at the time but made the same transition for the same reasons. I think the vast majority of users don't consciously evaluate search engines for accuracy. And most non-technical users just assume that if they cant find it through X, its probably not there.
  - philipps 8y ago
    I remember google having vastly more useful results than its competitors at that time. The uncluttered design was a bonus.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      I remember google having equivalent or even inferior results to yahoo search for quite a while, especially in niche topics like sports and music. The differences in algorithms just didn’t matter much for average case queries. I think the difference in algorithms matters even less now, and that google’s modern advantage is not in ranking algorithms but in automated display of structured data, like sports league results, filmography for an actor, etc., and work around knowledge graph methods to automate that stuff. Early google was unequivocally only differentiated by branding and sparse design.
    - rectang 8y ago
      Before people figured out how to game PageRank, Google was spooky. Unreal. Incredibly good results.
  - lettergram 8y ago
    I actually postulate it was due to their ability to parse queries in an effective way, combined with the speed (and sure, probably design) of results [1]. From what I recall at the time, and even to this day, Google does a better job of determine exact match vs question (and finding subject matter) based results. [1] https://austingwalters.com/is-search-solved/ https://austingwalters.com/is-search-solved/
    - devmunchies 8y ago
      Yes. Their NLP is unparalleled. I'd say the uncluttered UI, query parsing, and search algorithm were all the major factors.
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    "That's why I used Altavista before that. Google kept things very simple while other sites loaded on the bloat and garbage." It wasn't just the simplicity. Google was also a lot faster, and had no ads! How ironic that advertisement later became their bread and butter.
    - TheGrassyKnoll 8y ago
      Yes. It was clean AND fast when the rest of the internet was pretty clunky in the late 90's. I think that speed investment paid off HUGELY.
- apatry 8y ago
  I don't think they are comparable. DuckDuckGo federate the results of other search engines (e.g. Bing) and add its own sauce on top of it. There is a limit to what it can do. Google invested in the fundamental from the start and they pushed the limit of what search engines can do.
- samstave 8y ago
  YUP! When I was in my first role as an IT manager, I set the policy that all machines had their default page set to google.com away from Yahoo, because yahoo was an ugly mess. Google was clean and simple. This was the only reason. I made the edict to set it to google and so some people said "you should go work for google since you like them so much" - man I wish I had tried to do so then. And this was in 1998 or so...
- mynameishere 8y ago
  Google was clearly better at the beginning. I remember those days, and how Yahoo! put a bunch of other search engines at the bottom of its own results (Altavista, Excite, Lycos, etc). So it was easy to compare. When Google showed up, it was pretty obvious the game was over. The main reason? "And" searches. Brilliant.
  - rectang 8y ago
    AltaVista had support for boolean operators; I and many other techies became very practiced in composing complex queries. It was my favorite search engine. Then Google showed up, and Google had PageRank. Boom, the top result for any simple query was what you wanted.
    - icantdrive55 8y ago
      "Boom, the top result for any simple query was what you wanted." I wish I could go back to that Google. Today--I discount the top searches by habit.
BraveNewCurency 8y ago
> The results may be good enough for plenty of folks, but I highly doubt they will ever be better than the big budget search engines. On the other hand, that is not the criteria for them to be successful, because they are already better on a different metric: Privacy. I find that 90% of my queries are just "who is that person?" or "what is that thing?". Those queries can be answered by DDG just as well as Google. So I'm not giving up anything, but gaining privacy. More importantly, I'm (subtly) sending a signal to the market that I find privacy is important. Even on the 10% of queries that are complex, DDG does "good enough". I sometimes wonder if Google has the results sorted better, but I'll gladly waste a few minutes here and there in exchange for privacy.
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  DDG users sound an awful lot like evangelists. You could do both privacy and good search results without using DDG: startpage.com You can also have at least as good privacy (better in my opinion) and better search results (again, in my opinion) with other search engines: qwant.com What is it those two examples doesn't have that DDG does have? The evangelist feel of DDG really turns me off and I'm sure it scares many off from ever looking at it. It is a bit like listening to Apple fans talking about Steve 'The Juice' Jobs.
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    No idea why you're getting downvoted - I've felt similarly about DDG - why do people prefer it so much over startpage?
    - ams6110 8y ago
      I use DDG and have never heard of startpage before. Checking it out.
addicted 8y ago
The vast majority of my searches are resolved by: 1) Wikipedia 2) Maps 3) Stack Overflow. I don’t see why I should sacrifice my privacy for google to provide me with a single interface for these few sites, especially when DDG does it without mining all my info.
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  You get better results from Wikipedia and SO with Qwant FYI.

lugg 8y ago

This post reads perfectly if you replace DDG with "Google" and believe it's 1999. Sure Google had a vastly superior algorithm but I don't think too many people really grasped that at the time.

jjeaff 8y ago
Contrary to the seemingly popular belief, that their success was due to their algorithm, I used them because of their uncluttered and simple design. That's why I used Altavista before that. Google kept things very simple while other sites loaded on the bloat and garbage. I don't remember ever feeling like what I found with Google couldn't be found with Altavista or lycos. But a lot of the other companies tried to prematurely monetize to an excessive degree.
- ian0 8y ago
  I was quite young at the time but made the same transition for the same reasons. I think the vast majority of users don't consciously evaluate search engines for accuracy. And most non-technical users just assume that if they cant find it through X, its probably not there.
- philipps 8y ago
  I remember google having vastly more useful results than its competitors at that time. The uncluttered design was a bonus.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    I remember google having equivalent or even inferior results to yahoo search for quite a while, especially in niche topics like sports and music. The differences in algorithms just didn’t matter much for average case queries. I think the difference in algorithms matters even less now, and that google’s modern advantage is not in ranking algorithms but in automated display of structured data, like sports league results, filmography for an actor, etc., and work around knowledge graph methods to automate that stuff. Early google was unequivocally only differentiated by branding and sparse design.
  - rectang 8y ago
    Before people figured out how to game PageRank, Google was spooky. Unreal. Incredibly good results.
- lettergram 8y ago
  I actually postulate it was due to their ability to parse queries in an effective way, combined with the speed (and sure, probably design) of results [1]. From what I recall at the time, and even to this day, Google does a better job of determine exact match vs question (and finding subject matter) based results. [1] https://austingwalters.com/is-search-solved/ https://austingwalters.com/is-search-solved/
  - devmunchies 8y ago
    Yes. Their NLP is unparalleled. I'd say the uncluttered UI, query parsing, and search algorithm were all the major factors.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  "That's why I used Altavista before that. Google kept things very simple while other sites loaded on the bloat and garbage." It wasn't just the simplicity. Google was also a lot faster, and had no ads! How ironic that advertisement later became their bread and butter.
  - TheGrassyKnoll 8y ago
    Yes. It was clean AND fast when the rest of the internet was pretty clunky in the late 90's. I think that speed investment paid off HUGELY.
apatry 8y ago
I don't think they are comparable. DuckDuckGo federate the results of other search engines (e.g. Bing) and add its own sauce on top of it. There is a limit to what it can do. Google invested in the fundamental from the start and they pushed the limit of what search engines can do.
samstave 8y ago
YUP! When I was in my first role as an IT manager, I set the policy that all machines had their default page set to google.com away from Yahoo, because yahoo was an ugly mess. Google was clean and simple. This was the only reason. I made the edict to set it to google and so some people said "you should go work for google since you like them so much" - man I wish I had tried to do so then. And this was in 1998 or so...
mynameishere 8y ago
Google was clearly better at the beginning. I remember those days, and how Yahoo! put a bunch of other search engines at the bottom of its own results (Altavista, Excite, Lycos, etc). So it was easy to compare. When Google showed up, it was pretty obvious the game was over. The main reason? "And" searches. Brilliant.
- rectang 8y ago
  AltaVista had support for boolean operators; I and many other techies became very practiced in composing complex queries. It was my favorite search engine. Then Google showed up, and Google had PageRank. Boom, the top result for any simple query was what you wanted.
  - icantdrive55 8y ago
    "Boom, the top result for any simple query was what you wanted." I wish I could go back to that Google. Today--I discount the top searches by habit.

BraveNewCurency 8y ago

> The results may be good enough for plenty of folks, but I highly doubt they will ever be better than the big budget search engines. On the other hand, that is not the criteria for them to be successful, because they are already better on a different metric: Privacy. I find that 90% of my queries are just "who is that person?" or "what is that thing?". Those queries can be answered by DDG just as well as Google. So I'm not giving up anything, but gaining privacy. More importantly, I'm (subtly) sending a signal to the market that I find privacy is important. Even on the 10% of queries that are complex, DDG does "good enough". I sometimes wonder if Google has the results sorted better, but I'll gladly waste a few minutes here and there in exchange for privacy.

TheForumTroll 8y ago
DDG users sound an awful lot like evangelists. You could do both privacy and good search results without using DDG: startpage.com You can also have at least as good privacy (better in my opinion) and better search results (again, in my opinion) with other search engines: qwant.com What is it those two examples doesn't have that DDG does have? The evangelist feel of DDG really turns me off and I'm sure it scares many off from ever looking at it. It is a bit like listening to Apple fans talking about Steve 'The Juice' Jobs.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  No idea why you're getting downvoted - I've felt similarly about DDG - why do people prefer it so much over startpage?
  - ams6110 8y ago
    I use DDG and have never heard of startpage before. Checking it out.

addicted 8y ago

The vast majority of my searches are resolved by: 1) Wikipedia 2) Maps 3) Stack Overflow. I don’t see why I should sacrifice my privacy for google to provide me with a single interface for these few sites, especially when DDG does it without mining all my info.

TheForumTroll 8y ago
You get better results from Wikipedia and SO with Qwant FYI.