3 ms·

When using DDG I sometimes curse the bad results. Stupid DDG, I think, open google.com in a private tab, do my search, only to realize that google is not return

When using DDG I sometimes curse the bad results. Stupid DDG, I think, open google.com in a private tab, do my search, only to realize that google is not returning anything useful either. Modifying the keywords a bit, I get my results, and finally pasting the same keywords to DDG, surely, my results would have been the same too.

seoaeu 5y ago
Personally, the nagging "I wonder if Google results would be better" is enough of a reason for me to not use Bing/DDG/etc. A search engine is a tool and it is hard to be productive when you can't trust your tools.
- 3np 5y ago
  I run an instance of searx[0] for me and friends. It is very easy to set up and will aggregate results across DDG/Google/Bing/plenty of others if you wish. Strips tracking parts of links and can trivially do other rewriting you may want. Easy to add filter lists to remove blogspam domains, pinterest et al. Bonus; you won't leak your actual client IP to any of them. Comes with morty[1], which is a decent "anonymizing" HTTP proxy. Supposed privacy wins completely aside, it's the best search user experience I've had in many years. You do run the risk of getting CAPTCHA'd but so far I've had 0 of that with the above-mentioned. [0]: https://github.com/searx/searx https://github.com/searx/searx [1]: https://github.com/asciimoo/morty https://github.com/asciimoo/morty
- npteljes 5y ago
  Change is hard, one has to appreciate that. Productivity is not everything. I did my share of changes over a long time, and bit by bit, and this helped me to separate my resistance to change, and the actual pros and cons of the systems.
jeroenhd 5y ago
I've got a lot of trouble with some technical Googling that just doesn't get the right results in DDG. I assume it's because the algorithms have adjusted to my interests, but it's making using DDG for professional purposes quite hard sometimes.
squiggleblaz 5y ago
I use DDG almost exclusively; it is normal that I do not search with Google in a calendar month. On some devices, when I do reach for Google, it asks me to agree to their T&Cs so I just hit back. However: * Google is very much better at finding solutions to programming errors. Duck Duck Go sometimes works fine, but sometimes it sends me on a wild goose chase (if you pardon the ... almost pun). This has always been a problem since I started using DDG. * Duck Duck Go is poisoned by useless autogenerated results. If I want to compare two options, I don't want an autogenerated comparison. I want actual analyses and anecdotes from users. In that case, I normally add site:reddit.com rather than !g so I can't positively say Google is better but I believe it is. This started bothering me at some point, but it might be my fault. In both cases, I think the issue is the same: Google is still better at prioritising conversational content over content produced predominately to get eyeballs near ads. This is slightly ironic.
- npteljes 5y ago
  I also noticed that DDG (and Bing I guess) return results that are obviously SEO-gamed websited. Throws be right back into the early 2000s, when the big G was full of nonsense like this. Local results are another part where google works clearly better. I add "site:.mytld" of course but it's clunky and the results are not always satisfactory.
hedora 5y ago
I have had similar results for the last few years. I think it’s been since ~2015 since g! has given me better results on a query than ddg. Sometimes google gives a larger number of irrelevant results, so maybe they have more index reach, or maybe they’re worse at filtering garbage. I can’t tell. I don’t use ddg for local search. I usually use yelp or (preferably) a privacy respecting mapping app instead. Google’s local results were garbage and often somehow more gamed than yelp’s last time I checked. Maybe they’re decent now. Don’t know; don’t care.

seoaeu 5y ago

Personally, the nagging "I wonder if Google results would be better" is enough of a reason for me to not use Bing/DDG/etc. A search engine is a tool and it is hard to be productive when you can't trust your tools.

3np 5y ago
I run an instance of searx[0] for me and friends. It is very easy to set up and will aggregate results across DDG/Google/Bing/plenty of others if you wish. Strips tracking parts of links and can trivially do other rewriting you may want. Easy to add filter lists to remove blogspam domains, pinterest et al. Bonus; you won't leak your actual client IP to any of them. Comes with morty[1], which is a decent "anonymizing" HTTP proxy. Supposed privacy wins completely aside, it's the best search user experience I've had in many years. You do run the risk of getting CAPTCHA'd but so far I've had 0 of that with the above-mentioned. [0]: https://github.com/searx/searx https://github.com/searx/searx [1]: https://github.com/asciimoo/morty https://github.com/asciimoo/morty
npteljes 5y ago
Change is hard, one has to appreciate that. Productivity is not everything. I did my share of changes over a long time, and bit by bit, and this helped me to separate my resistance to change, and the actual pros and cons of the systems.

jeroenhd 5y ago

I've got a lot of trouble with some technical Googling that just doesn't get the right results in DDG. I assume it's because the algorithms have adjusted to my interests, but it's making using DDG for professional purposes quite hard sometimes.

squiggleblaz 5y ago

I use DDG almost exclusively; it is normal that I do not search with Google in a calendar month. On some devices, when I do reach for Google, it asks me to agree to their T&Cs so I just hit back. However: * Google is very much better at finding solutions to programming errors. Duck Duck Go sometimes works fine, but sometimes it sends me on a wild goose chase (if you pardon the ... almost pun). This has always been a problem since I started using DDG. * Duck Duck Go is poisoned by useless autogenerated results. If I want to compare two options, I don't want an autogenerated comparison. I want actual analyses and anecdotes from users. In that case, I normally add site:reddit.com rather than !g so I can't positively say Google is better but I believe it is. This started bothering me at some point, but it might be my fault. In both cases, I think the issue is the same: Google is still better at prioritising conversational content over content produced predominately to get eyeballs near ads. This is slightly ironic.

npteljes 5y ago
I also noticed that DDG (and Bing I guess) return results that are obviously SEO-gamed websited. Throws be right back into the early 2000s, when the big G was full of nonsense like this. Local results are another part where google works clearly better. I add "site:.mytld" of course but it's clunky and the results are not always satisfactory.

hedora 5y ago

I have had similar results for the last few years. I think it’s been since ~2015 since g! has given me better results on a query than ddg. Sometimes google gives a larger number of irrelevant results, so maybe they have more index reach, or maybe they’re worse at filtering garbage. I can’t tell. I don’t use ddg for local search. I usually use yelp or (preferably) a privacy respecting mapping app instead. Google’s local results were garbage and often somehow more gamed than yelp’s last time I checked. Maybe they’re decent now. Don’t know; don’t care.