7 ms·

I switched all my default search to DuckDuckGo a few months ago because of stuff like this. No regrets here. If you haven't tried it recently, give it a shot. I

I switched all my default search to DuckDuckGo a few months ago because of stuff like this. No regrets here. If you haven't tried it recently, give it a shot. It's gotten tons better in the past few years. Once you get used to it, it's as good as Google search.

m-p-3 6y ago
And there are so many nice features, like the !bangs search prefixes, and the ability to store and sync your preferences as a passphrase, without requiring an actual account. The dark scheme is also quite good.
- simpss 6y ago
  the only gripe i have with DDG is missing 'site: "somewebsite.com"' option. Is there a way to achieve it? I mainly use it for '*.countrydomain' to get results for a specific country.
  - coldpie 6y ago
    I think you want "inurl", see here: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/syntax/ https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sy...
    - simpss 6y ago
      yes, exactly, thank you. Not as powerful as a specific wildcard, but good enough. sadly, it doesn't work with .something, so 'inurl:.co.uk' doesn't seem to work. Works with 'co.uk' but that's only valuable with longer suffixes. something like 'uk' is a bit too common.
  - chrischattin 6y ago
    "site:somewebsite.com some_search" works just fine on DDG.
    - simpss 6y ago
      sorry, just checked, it's the wildcard that isn't working. So 'site:*.co.uk'
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        "whatever site:uk" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=whatever+site%3Auk https://duckduckgo.com/?q=whatever+site%3Auk Appears to work?
        simpss 6y ago
        yep, that works, sadly .uk doesn't so domain endings that are commonly found in words can't be used.
  - wolco 6y ago
    Try the hidden param "sites" http://duckduckgo.com/?q=duckduckgo&sites=stackoverflow.com http://duckduckgo.com/?q=duckduckgo&sites=stackoverflow.com
  - chris_f 6y ago
    The 'site:' operator already works in DDG how you describe. DDG is mostly Bing under the covers for organic results, so most of Bing's advanced [0] searches will work in DDG. Edit: Interestingly enough I can't get the 'IP:' operator to work in either Bing or DDG. [0] http://help.bing.microsoft.com/#apex/18/en-US/10001/-1 http://help.bing.microsoft.com/#apex/18/en-US/10001/-1
givinguflac 6y ago
I completely agree. I loaned a friend an old phone, and it took him a couple months to even realize ddg was default search and not google.
caribousoup 6y ago
It really isn't as good. I want DDG to be awesome. I'm not in the Google ecosystem, and don't care for their business practices. I would be happy to dump them. But Google search is noticeably much, much better. They've got us over a barrel.
- twic 6y ago
  I kept seeing comments on HN about how DDG was as good as Google, so i've switched on one of my machines. It isn't. For stuff that doesn't matter too much, or is an easy search, i use DDG, then fall back to Google if i don't find what i need. For anything serious, i just open up a Google tab :(
  - bilkow 6y ago
    Well, sometimes what you're used to matter too. For me DDG is better (expect for local searches, in which case I've got to include my city's name). Every time I search anything in someone else's computer (with google) I find it much harder to find what I'm looking for, sometimes I can't find and just go to DDG. The only times I use !g is when I find some pretty obscure programming errors and no (useful) results on DDG, and only once in a while google is able to find anything better, usually the results are the same.
    - madacoo 6y ago
      It's interesting that there are such diverse experiences of DDG vs Google. I'm also in the camp of finding DDG to be better at finding what I'm looking for. I wonder if the difference has to do with variations in search strategy or interests, or a combination of both. In any case, DDG does seem to have been improving, and I don't see any reason to believe that the trend won't continue. Particularly since Google seems hell-bent on making their search useless.
  - mdavidn 6y ago
    I start with DDG and fallback on Google only when I can't find something. But I find that DDG is good enough for about 95% of my searches.
stevens32 6y ago
DDG has basically equivalent results for most things, but I find that I use !g for programming stuff enough that I've gone back to just using the Google site for those searches. It feels like Google has better results for more recent programming topics.
- chrischattin 6y ago
  Most programming searches are just stack overflow, at least for me. So, I just add `!so` to the search in DDG. It's the same as using "site:stackoverflow.com #{what_youre_looking_for}"
alesua93 6y ago
I've been using DDG as my default search engine for more or less a year now, and tbh I find myself using the !g bang way more often than I'd like. Basically anytime I'm searching for something dev related or anything that's broad enough that without my personal user info it would be hard to return the results I'm looking for. Which is kind of the crux of the issue I believe. For everything that's wrong with Google as a company in terms of privacy-related issues, the truth , at least for me, is that many times (not all) it ends up being... quite convenient I guess. YMMV though, maybe I need to step up my searching game to obtain better results using DDG. That's definitely something I should work on.
- chris_f 6y ago
  "YMMV though, maybe I need to step up my searching game to obtain better results using DDG. That's definitely something I should work on." Yeah, I had the same exact feeling a couple of month ago and created this [0]. [0] https://www.runnaroo.com https://www.runnaroo.com
  - alesua93 6y ago
    Looks interesting! I'll give it a look, thank you!
  - gpanders 6y ago
    I'm surprised I've never heard of this. The results seem pretty good too. Searching for my username on DDG returns an entire page of results on "glanders", a "contagious zoonotic infectious disease that occurs primarily in horses, mules, and donkeys". I don't find anything related to my name until page 2. Runnaroo, however, has my GitHub profile as the first hit and my person website as the second. I like those results!
    - chris_f 6y ago
      Firstly, thank you! "I'm surprised I've never heard of this." It is only a couple months old, so not many people have heard of it yet, but I have been trying to make an effort to share it more vs. just staying behind the computer and adding features. It did get a nice bump recently when Brendan Eich tweeted out a link to it. That was a really cool surprise. "Runnaroo, however, has my GitHub profile as the first hit..." I'm also working on adding Github right now as a Deep Search source, so the below results will soon be integrated into the SERP for that query. https://api.github.com/search/repositories?q=gpanders https://api.github.com/search/repositories?q=gpanders
908087 6y ago
Now if we can just get people to stop saying "Google it" instead of "search it" or something else which doesn't involve being a constant two-legged advertisement for Google, maybe others will start to realize they have options.

m-p-3 6y ago

And there are so many nice features, like the !bangs search prefixes, and the ability to store and sync your preferences as a passphrase, without requiring an actual account. The dark scheme is also quite good.

simpss 6y ago
the only gripe i have with DDG is missing 'site: "somewebsite.com"' option. Is there a way to achieve it? I mainly use it for '*.countrydomain' to get results for a specific country.
- coldpie 6y ago
  I think you want "inurl", see here: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/syntax/ https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sy...
  - simpss 6y ago
    yes, exactly, thank you. Not as powerful as a specific wildcard, but good enough. sadly, it doesn't work with .something, so 'inurl:.co.uk' doesn't seem to work. Works with 'co.uk' but that's only valuable with longer suffixes. something like 'uk' is a bit too common.
- chrischattin 6y ago
  "site:somewebsite.com some_search" works just fine on DDG.
  - simpss 6y ago
    sorry, just checked, it's the wildcard that isn't working. So 'site:*.co.uk'
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      "whatever site:uk" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=whatever+site%3Auk https://duckduckgo.com/?q=whatever+site%3Auk Appears to work?
      - simpss 6y ago
        yep, that works, sadly .uk doesn't so domain endings that are commonly found in words can't be used.
- wolco 6y ago
  Try the hidden param "sites" http://duckduckgo.com/?q=duckduckgo&sites=stackoverflow.com http://duckduckgo.com/?q=duckduckgo&sites=stackoverflow.com
- chris_f 6y ago
  The 'site:' operator already works in DDG how you describe. DDG is mostly Bing under the covers for organic results, so most of Bing's advanced [0] searches will work in DDG. Edit: Interestingly enough I can't get the 'IP:' operator to work in either Bing or DDG. [0] http://help.bing.microsoft.com/#apex/18/en-US/10001/-1 http://help.bing.microsoft.com/#apex/18/en-US/10001/-1

givinguflac 6y ago

I completely agree. I loaned a friend an old phone, and it took him a couple months to even realize ddg was default search and not google.

caribousoup 6y ago

It really isn't as good. I want DDG to be awesome. I'm not in the Google ecosystem, and don't care for their business practices. I would be happy to dump them. But Google search is noticeably much, much better. They've got us over a barrel.

twic 6y ago
I kept seeing comments on HN about how DDG was as good as Google, so i've switched on one of my machines. It isn't. For stuff that doesn't matter too much, or is an easy search, i use DDG, then fall back to Google if i don't find what i need. For anything serious, i just open up a Google tab :(
- bilkow 6y ago
  Well, sometimes what you're used to matter too. For me DDG is better (expect for local searches, in which case I've got to include my city's name). Every time I search anything in someone else's computer (with google) I find it much harder to find what I'm looking for, sometimes I can't find and just go to DDG. The only times I use !g is when I find some pretty obscure programming errors and no (useful) results on DDG, and only once in a while google is able to find anything better, usually the results are the same.
  - madacoo 6y ago
    It's interesting that there are such diverse experiences of DDG vs Google. I'm also in the camp of finding DDG to be better at finding what I'm looking for. I wonder if the difference has to do with variations in search strategy or interests, or a combination of both. In any case, DDG does seem to have been improving, and I don't see any reason to believe that the trend won't continue. Particularly since Google seems hell-bent on making their search useless.
- mdavidn 6y ago
  I start with DDG and fallback on Google only when I can't find something. But I find that DDG is good enough for about 95% of my searches.

stevens32 6y ago

DDG has basically equivalent results for most things, but I find that I use !g for programming stuff enough that I've gone back to just using the Google site for those searches. It feels like Google has better results for more recent programming topics.

chrischattin 6y ago
Most programming searches are just stack overflow, at least for me. So, I just add `!so` to the search in DDG. It's the same as using "site:stackoverflow.com #{what_youre_looking_for}"

alesua93 6y ago

I've been using DDG as my default search engine for more or less a year now, and tbh I find myself using the !g bang way more often than I'd like. Basically anytime I'm searching for something dev related or anything that's broad enough that without my personal user info it would be hard to return the results I'm looking for. Which is kind of the crux of the issue I believe. For everything that's wrong with Google as a company in terms of privacy-related issues, the truth , at least for me, is that many times (not all) it ends up being... quite convenient I guess. YMMV though, maybe I need to step up my searching game to obtain better results using DDG. That's definitely something I should work on.

chris_f 6y ago
"YMMV though, maybe I need to step up my searching game to obtain better results using DDG. That's definitely something I should work on." Yeah, I had the same exact feeling a couple of month ago and created this [0]. [0] https://www.runnaroo.com https://www.runnaroo.com
- alesua93 6y ago
  Looks interesting! I'll give it a look, thank you!
- gpanders 6y ago
  I'm surprised I've never heard of this. The results seem pretty good too. Searching for my username on DDG returns an entire page of results on "glanders", a "contagious zoonotic infectious disease that occurs primarily in horses, mules, and donkeys". I don't find anything related to my name until page 2. Runnaroo, however, has my GitHub profile as the first hit and my person website as the second. I like those results!
  - chris_f 6y ago
    Firstly, thank you! "I'm surprised I've never heard of this." It is only a couple months old, so not many people have heard of it yet, but I have been trying to make an effort to share it more vs. just staying behind the computer and adding features. It did get a nice bump recently when Brendan Eich tweeted out a link to it. That was a really cool surprise. "Runnaroo, however, has my GitHub profile as the first hit..." I'm also working on adding Github right now as a Deep Search source, so the below results will soon be integrated into the SERP for that query. https://api.github.com/search/repositories?q=gpanders https://api.github.com/search/repositories?q=gpanders

908087 6y ago

Now if we can just get people to stop saying "Google it" instead of "search it" or something else which doesn't involve being a constant two-legged advertisement for Google, maybe others will start to realize they have options.