3 ms·
The only reason we don't have it is we don't have accounts. It's even really a complaint. I am glad that when I show up on DDG (which I still do several times
by dtby 16y ago
The only reason we don't have it is we don't have accounts.
It's even really a complaint. I am glad that when I show up on DDG (which I still do several times per day) I get the same high-quality results without regard to who I am.
I'm also happy to take requests to ban these stupid sites for everyone.
The problem is that I have, for example, en.wikipedia.org marked as spam, simply so that their juice doesn't overwhelm my search results. It makes sense for me, but I suspect it's not even close to what your average user wants or expects.
In any case, thanks for the recent addition of non-Google options for searches when DDG runs out of results. Small as it may seem, I consider that a major step in the right direction.
- tropin 16y agoAn user marking a web as spam is hardly a problem. Haven't you used Gmail? If I tag a site as spam, DDG shouldn't show it to me. If a thousand users mark it as spam... then it starts to be clear that is a shady site, and DDG should eliminate it from its system. Uhm, but now we have a vector for script kiddies to ban sites from a... who knows, maybe in some years... major web search. Perhaps definitively removing a site should be done by a human operator.