4 ms·
the 'html' version is nice. the 'lite' version is so barebones, I can't imagine anyone actually using it. It almost seems like it's meant for scraping
by metalliqaz 6y ago
the 'html' version is nice. the 'lite' version is so barebones, I can't imagine anyone actually using it. It almost seems like it's meant for scraping
- junippor 6y agoI've used the lite version for years.
- bombcar 6y agoThe lite version reminds me of the original Google search results.
- alpha_squared 6y agoHave you ever been in a part of the world where internet speeds were abysmal?
- jacobmischka 6y agoI imagine it would be handy on an absolutely abysmal connection or one with data limits.
- zelphirkalt 6y agoIt is so fast and clean, I just set it as my duck keyworded search. I'm not on a search engine for the looks, but for the results. The faster I get them and the fewer things there are to distract the eye, the better for me.
- lame-robot-hoax 6y agoThe lite and HTML versions are identical in speed for me. If I had really slow internet though, maybe I’d see a difference. The JS version is maybe a tiny bit slower, but honestly is about the same.
- MarkLowenstein 6y agoA guy at work made a no-frills search results viewer that was just a standard Windows UI ListView (table) window with one result per row. Best search page I ever saw, because you could see 40 results at a time instead of 10.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alcover 6y agoI use it day-to-day. No problem. As a rule, when JS is not mandatory I block it.