3 ms·
That's concerning! I'd really appreciate if you could collect a set of specific examples and report at http://duckduckgo.com/feedback.html http://duckduckgo.com
by epi0Bauqu 15y ago
That's concerning! I'd really appreciate if you could collect a set of specific examples and report at http://duckduckgo.com/feedback.html http://duckduckgo.com/feedback.html
That's how we improve fastest. But generally, the way we get results shouldn't result in a lot of stuff actually missing, which may speak to some bugs in there.
- thaumaturgy 15y agoI've been noticing the same pattern -- the results from DDG aren't quite complete enough. Sometimes, it's just missing a few minor things, other times, I'll run a search query and there will be a major search result that I know is missing, that I can get in one of the top 5 results from Google. Which sucks, because I hands-down full-on no-buts prefer DDG's interface to Google. I hope I'm not being uncool here, but a while back I privately suggested mining the data from "!g" queries as a way to see where DDG wasn't returning the results that people expected. Is there a reason you can't do that? In my case at least, I usually start with DDG, and if I don't get what I'm expecting, then I use a "!g" -- so you'd have a nice little database of results to perform comparisons from.
- BrandonM 15y agoSince we can't see vote counts anymore, I just want to chime in and say I agree. As a previous DDG user, I feel much the same way. And mining !g sounds like a great idea, though there might be some privacy issues to deal with (I'm imagining a dedicated DDG user who wants to Google his name).