6 ms·
Yeah I've tried DDG reliably for nearly a year. A good 30% of the time I end up having to run my query on Google anyway. I will literally pay money for a searc
by nxmnxm99 6y ago
Yeah I've tried DDG reliably for nearly a year. A good 30% of the time I end up having to run my query on Google anyway.
I will literally pay money for a search engine that's privacy focused and can get closer to Google in terms of performance.
- danwills 6y agoI reckon I'd pay for that too, actually sounds really, really awesome (assuming the performance is there)
- nanna 6y agoPersonally I need to switch from ddg to Google maybe 0.1% of my searches, but at least for you you've managed to avoid Google 70% of the time, and it's not like adding a !g to do so takes more a milisecond.
- tempestn 6y agoRight, but running 30% of your searches a second time, after looking through unhelpful results on the first attempt, takes more than a few ms.
- com2kid 6y agoFor me, it is 70% I have to use Google. Even for not-that-obscure bands, all DDG needs to do is return the wikipedia page and it fails to do that.
- nxmnxm99 6y agoI agree, and I'm still very thankful for DDG. Would gladly pay to have someone take me even further.
- mkl 6y agoHow long ago did you try DDG? Years ago I had a similar experience to you, and switched back, but now DDG is much better for me, and I only try !g < 5% of the time, often with no luck there either.
- nitrogen 6y agoA good 30% of the time I end up having to run my query on Google anyway. A 70% reduction in Google sounds like a win.
- nxmnxm99 6y agoAbsolutely it is.