3 ms·
Agreed. I tried it a few times over the years and found the results to be pretty poor, but I tried again recently and found the results to be good enough to ful
by wycy 7y ago
Agreed. I tried it a few times over the years and found the results to be pretty poor, but I tried again recently and found the results to be good enough to fully switch both my computer and phone to DDG.
Although I'm fully switched over, there are 2 drawbacks:
* Since DDG tracks you less, the results for local searches may be worse. If you're in Boston, TX you'll probably want to search for "boston, tx restaurants" whereas I'm guessing Google could handle "boston restaurants" if your location is in Boston, TX.
* Finding brand new results seems a bit harder. I found this especially true when searching for election results. Searching for, e.g., "nevada election results" was showing me results from 2016 and 2018 on the day of those elections this year. Now the DDG results seem to correctly point to 2020 results.
- IggleSniggle 7y agoYeah I don't like that DDG interface limits you to timeframes of Last Day/Week/Month/Year. There are lots of good reasons to want to search a particular timeframe!
- saalweachter 7y ago> Google could handle "boston restaurants" if your location is in Boston, TX. Location is the single biggest implicit factor for Google search results; "restaurants" would probably get you what you are looking for (well, ignoring that it's an overly broad query, and most places have too many restaurants for a simple ranking of them to really be that helpful).
- onychomys 7y agoI live in Rochester, MN, and that's how I can say with some certainty that google doesn't do a good job of using your location in their search algorithm. If you just search for something simple like "Rochester library hours", it'll default to Rochester NY. Everybody in my town has learned that we have to use "Rochester MN library hours". I get that the one in NY has ten times more residents than we do, but it's not like we're some backwater here!