I'm tired of google's stemmer getting in the way of doing specific searches. Even quotes won't keep it from showing results that are the same except for having an s dropped or added. It's frustrating at times.
It was bad enough not being able to search for strings.
What I'd really like is an uncrippled search engine that lets people be very specific in their searches. I'd really like support for simple regexes.
Thanks! I didn't know about that. It makes a difference, though I'm having trouble finding something that doesn't work even when it's in quotes right now.
Here's an example of how ridiculous Google has gotten about search queries:
Now who would search for "gaps" when they wanted to get to The Gap? And worse, if you add terms that are on the gap page when trying to look for, say, something about the income gaps between men and women (gaps men women), the store is the #1 hit.
> Now who would search for "gaps" when they wanted to get to The Gap?
Possibly someone searching for "Gaps summer range". There are a LOT more people who look for The Gap than for gaps.cgi, and it's quite likely some of them can't punctuate their sentences properly.
Very interesting. When I started using Google as an undergrad (circa 1999), I remember using the "+" character in searches, since that was standard procedure for searching linked strings before the age of Google Empire; I distinctly remember Google popping up warnings: "this '+' character is NOT necessary in searches" . . ..
I was just thinking about this the other day while trying to search for $HOME (impossible to get even ONE unix-related result, no matter how you quote it).
I agree- the irony in google fighting for the next platform to be open regardless of what it is, is in google monetizing data that I would rather remain 100% private.
Google is fast approacting too good to be true status, at least for me personally: I use google voice, gmail has become my primary email client (including letting it manage my own domain email), I use google docs to edit documents on the fly, and was probably one of the first people to download chrome and chrome os.
That is far, far more information than I feel comfortable letting any one company have about me.
The other choice is simply spreading it between multiple companies. In the modern age, all that disparate data will eventually get centralized or aggregated somewhere, somehow, whether or not it's your choice to do so, that of the companies you're interacting with, your friends', your own employer's, or your government's.
Am I missing something? Why using duckduckgo? The only mention I have seen of it is a paid ad they bought on reddit. Is there any reason they are better than the plethora of existing alternatives? Do they even maintain their own index, or are they a scraper?
I'm pretty sure they use Yahoo BOSS, plus some in-house stuff that merges info from trusted sites like Wikipedia. Yahoo's results are pretty good, though I hope that BOSS-based sites survive whatever the fallout of the Yahoo-MS search deal ends up being.
Personally I've found that the extra features on top of Yahoo's results that DDG gives aren't usually very useful, but it's nice and fast with a simple, usable interface. For the few weeks I had it as my Firefox search box default, the only thing I felt was missing was how Google includes results from Google News and Image Search right on your search results page.
Also, the founder of DDG posts here on HN, which is one reason why you'll hear about it around here more often than other places.
Curious, what do you think the plethora of other alternatives are? I've been pretty unimpressed by the small search engines trying to use their own indexes (Cuill) and even less impressed by the "human-powered" engines (Mahalo). I haven't seen anyone else really come close to Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Ask.
DDG founder here. We started out solely with our own crawler, which we still use for various things, e.g. finding and removing 50 million+ parked/spam domains. But we do use Yahoo BOSS as well.
However, we do not use BOSS straight up. We re-rank, omit, edit, merge, etc. in ways (I think and hope) yield much more relevant results, especially for more specific queries.
The Yahoo/MS search deal shouldn't effect us. We already have Bing in place as a backup and could easily switch to Ask's feed as well. We treat them as somewhat of a commodity, i.e. an output of the Web link graph, with our ranking stuff on top doing the important "last mile" work.
I reported an issue to them via e-mail on saturday. Got a response on sunday, I added some details, and it was fixed a few hours after their first response.
they're still small, they still listen to feedback.
How would one combine everything good about something like "Search Engine as a Startup" with everything good about "A Company like Google?"
Could we have an ad & donation supported open source search engine running on top of AWS or Google Apps? (Yes, the 2nd one would be ironic, if even allowed to exist by Google.) Perhaps this would be a way to combine the responsiveness of Duck Duck Go or the early Google with the infrastructure and computational horsepower of Google/Bing ca. 2009?
Ultimately the reason you should use it is because it gets you the information you want faster and with less mental effort. That's the primary goal. I'd encourage you (or anyone!) to try it for a week and then let me know how it goes with this goal in mind.
We've tried to achieve that goal via UI and a number of features that may or may not appeal to you individually. We also try to concentrate on features that the major search engines won't do because of their business position. A lot of those features are listed here: http://duckduckgo.com/about.html
What's not listed there that I think appeals to this crowd in particular is the background relevancy stuff I mentioned in my other comment and answer to your other question: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=979479
I think what also appeals to people like me (and by extension, I assume a lot of HN types) is keyboard shortcuts, aggressive filtering of parked/spam domains, and disambiguation.
We do have our own index and use it to improve relevancy as well as to add our own Zero-click Info and links to search result pages. Search any major topic and you should see a red box on top with a quick snippet and related topics. We also use it to build our own category and disambiguation pages, e.g. http://duckduckgo.com/c/Social_bookmarking
Hey, while you're here, one thing about Duck Duck Go that concerns me is that it can be killed on a per-IP basis by locking on "safe" search.
If I accidentially do this at home, or if I find that I have to use tor too often while in coffee shops to ensure I see all search results, (or if I use tor and some idiot has forced it on for those IPs), that could be a problem.
Also, I wonder how hard it would be to spoof packets to kill IPs one doesn't even have access too? Do you send a nonce back to the user and check it before completing the banning process?
The short answer is when we start running into collisions we'll change the parameters of this service, or perhaps sooner. That is, I'm fully aware of these limitations/issues and am actively monitoring them.
I wanted to try the extreme case (at least for a time) to see if a lot of schools and businesses that use one static IP would find the process super simple and just use it. After all, they could set all their computers to safe search in one click. This experiment is ongoing, but it will probably evolve into a program where we have more of a back and forth opt-in process.
Suggestion: Improve specific searches. Broad searches work very well (try "partial evaluation") but various specific searches (try "read file .net" and compare with google; their output isn't stunning but a lot better) don't.
Thx. Our specific searches certainly vary in quality, which is something we're actively working on. Actually, I think they are more of a curve where they are really good for broad and long (very specific) but are average on the middle range. We do semantic stuff on longer queries that make the results better. But in any case, you should be generally getting different results for specific searches. Sometimes these differences will be spot on; other times, not so much. I'll take a look at 'read file .net' now--please send other examples our way: help@duckduckgo.com.
They want to put a random cookie on your browser and link it to your search preferences. Oh my goodness, how horribly bad of them!
Yes, Google knows all your secrets (even if you never went online, they'd probably have enough data from your contact with the rest of the world to reconstruct a profile). No, they have not shown any inclination to misuse this information. Privacy is dead - luckily, it was killed by Google and not MSN. Welcome to the 21st century, learn to cope.
I think the days of an invincible google are clearly over. Their brand is diluted (imho) with countless products, I think that at least for search - someone could beat them.
Eg, If facebook bought or built a search engine, it could be 'game on'.
Don't forget that they contract out web search to Bing. Try it, query for something on the Web with Facebook's search box. I always ignore it because it's noise -- when I go to Facebook I want to look for people, not essays or blog posts.
Facebook search returns web results, too. Not that the results are particularly relevant, but after Google it's probably the second-most viewed search box on the web.
And you'll notice at the bottom it says "Powered by Bing."
I also switched from Google to Duck Duck Go about a week ago. It's perfect for common terms, but I still switch to Google for the more obscure stuff. But it's not like Google in 1999. Search has gotten harder, and more expensive -- which is part of why Google is doing what they can to get a competitive advantage (by hoovering up more of your data) and exploiting it (by selling the data, displaying ads based on it, etc.).
They purposely restricted that section to "personal information". If they don't tie your web history to your persona, they are free to sell it or do whatever else they want with it.
I hear you. I am still a "google fan," specifically I have a business idea I want to implement on top of Wave, and I plan on continuing using GMail.
That said, I switched my default Firefox search to Clusty yesterday. This morning, I searched for a vendor of old Rudger Mark II magazines/clips. I clicked on a paid link, and ended up spending a fair amount of money. Clusty got a profit slice that Google would have got if their privacy issues had not caught my attention.
The sci-fi author David Brin (a cool guy, BTW) advocates for no privacy as long as everyone has an equal amount of "non privacy" - the problem as I see it is the corporations, who profit by knowing everything about you via discount cards at supermarkets, the web, etc. I'll stop complaining when we have the ability to know private corporate details, have congress people have to wear Nascar-like advertisements on their clothes, etc.
I've always had the "they're watching you" thought running in the background of my mind. But, I have always ignored those thoughts.
Then I saw the Chrome logo. To me, it very blatantly looks like an imposing robotic eye, watching every move. I said: screw this, too f'n much. And I, incidentally, also moved on and also use Duck Duck Go. But, I still use Google as a spell checker every once in a while.
----
Addendum: Google has the uncanny ability of making bad logos look nice.
Yeah, because the logo of a fully open-source browser is totally reasonable. Well, it's probably as reasonable as freaking out over 180-day anonymous cookies that improve your search results.
Well, the logo alone would be a pretty stupid reason to abandon Google. But, like I said, it was just the last straw.
And if I am going to have a last straw, the thing that removes that piece of straw must be eccentric. Yet, vaguely resemble truth. The point is to have prepared a retort to "why don't you use Google search?" Because people will ask with the intent to condescend.
I find myself smug about the robotic eye logo because I think it is ironic. It is as if a totalitarian government plastered posters onto drab brick walls. The posters say: "big brother respects your privacy." And on the poster, above those words, is a picture of a robotic eyeball staring at the citizens who stopped to read.
I'd much rather have a fun reason to change loyalties, so I don't have to go into the many details.
It'll keep me from receiving the same flak as when I switched to Linux.
The problem is that when you go into such detail about this eccentricity, it stops coming across as a funny joke ("Of course Google's evil. Did you see the eye?!") and starts sounding like you've cracked.
Why worry about flak? Use what works for you. If people get bitchy about that, tell them you like it, and if they push it tell them to fuck off. End of every pointless tech debate you'll ever have. If you're going so far as to build defenses you're worrying too much.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that I've cracked because I explained a joke. Something I called an eccentricity since I do realize it is a little out there. Besides that, I just came up with the "totalitarian government" thing, and I thought my explanatory comment was a more suitable place to extrapolate into the small story.
But, it is intrinsically me to worry too much. Sardonic fun.
I don't know why I've explained here... but in real life the almost-joke would stop the conversation before there was even a debate. Which is valuable to me because hearing people's inane remarks is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard.
I can understand anyone who's worried about the privacy concerns of using Google products. But leaving them just because of a logo? That does seem like the over-reaction sahaj mentioned.
It was not the logo that made him leave. It made him realise that he wants to leave.
edit: Huh? I upvoted your comment because I felt it was a somewhat valid question but the site still shows it at 0. Well, maybe someone downvoted just in the same second. Unlikely though.
I've been stuck behind the Chinese firewall for a while now and while I do proxy for searches that clearly need it, I surf most of my web unproxied. For whatever reason, the firewall seems to arbitrarily and frequently block many of my (non-risque and non-politically-sensitive) Google queries. The end result is that I've been using a whole lot of Bing. Aside from my habit of using Google as my default search tool, I don't see much reason in terms of performance for me to stick with them. As it is, I will likely be switching my default search engine to Bing once I figure out how to do it in Chrome.
Type "bing.com" in the address bar, hit Tab instead of Enter and search for anything.
Open Options from the tool menu. On the Basic tab, locate "Default search" and click the Manage button. In the list of "Other search engines", select bing.com and click Make Default.
Google has focussed too much on common searches (the money makers). They have had so little competition that they forgot that people select their search engine based on specific searches.
On the one hand, once you sign over your email, you've signed over verification on any site. On the other, it's pretty jarring to see all the personal information (CC and address) and relational data (contacts, RSS subscriptions, purchase history) Google owns.
There are threat models which are useful, and there are threat models which lead you to wear a tinfoil hat. Which type of model are you basing your question on?
"You can delete information from Web History using the remove feature, and it will be removed from the service. However, as is common practice in the industry, and as outlined in the Google Privacy Policy, Google maintains a separate logs system for auditing purposes and to help us improve the quality of our services for users."
* It's completely separate from your Google Account and Web History (which are only available to signed-in users). You'll know when we customize results because a "View customizations" link will appear on the top right of the search results page.
I have been noticing a decline in Google's search results, _especially_ for computer-related help. Tons of awful blog posts, from years ago, created for AdSense money.
Why can't Google [surreptitiously?] rank search results by actual relevancy (e.g. clicks & abandons)? And don't tell me because of voting rings: I have seen "voting ring detection" often as a common screening problem for job interviews.
This. While humanity has uploaded a lot of valuable, worthwhile information online in the past decade, that's just a blip compared to the amount of totally useless junk online. That makes things harder for all search engines. It also will be interesting to see how search engines cope with the internet as the number of websites/pages continues to grow in the next fifty or so years.
Sorry for this to get all meta, but what is the meaning of saying "this" at the beginning of a comment? I've seen it elsewhere, sometimes as the entire response. I'm afraid I missed the beginnings of this convention, and it's not intuitive (at least to me).
Ok, I see now that the original poster was effectively saying "this is why", not necessarily using the "this" meme that I was confused about. Still, I got my answer and the post has been clarified for me. Thanks, guys.
Eventually I suppose that we will see sites such as quality directories rise again. For example, a site dedicated specifically towards programming topics with links to known high quality programming articles.
In a way I cope with that problem by searching for "keyword + name of site that I trust". For example "cross domain javascript fade quirksmode". It works better that way, but it assumes that you already know the names of major "solution providers."
That is also probably why Google usually ranks Wikipedia so highly. And that is another solution. Google can make known, trusted websites such as About.com, Wikipedia, Quirksmode, rank highly. They already do that based on domain name age and link backs, and it is part of the reason why it is so hard to rank highly when you start a new site.
Yeah, I think the domain name age is a real problem, since it creates a barrier to entry for new, better stuff, and slows down the evolution of the internet. Not sure how big the weight is, but combined with 10 years of link building, it can be very hard to topple a more established but inferior site.
Google can make known, trusted websites such as About.com, Wikipedia, Quirksmode, rank highly.
I thought this is what PageRank was supposed to determine algorithmically. I don't trust two out of three of your listed trusted websites, so this would devalue their service to me. Then again, they probably don't care much what I think, since I switched search engines months ago.
I try to avoid predictions in software further ahead than 30 years. I expect search will be rather unrecognizable by then. Just think back 50 years (PDP-10 and ITS 40 years ago; Apple and Unix at 30; Linux is 15).
I know it makes things harder, why can't they implement a suggestion like mine? People stop searching when they find what they're looking for.
Oh, wait.
The more searches they do, the more impressions they see.
The more impressions they see, the more likely they are to click on an ad.
More ad clicks, more money.
They can't be too greedy, or they'll lose business to competitors. They can't be too selfless, or they won't have the resources to do incredible things.
Hypothesis: Price, efficiency, benefits to the consumer all oscillate over the years, never to converge, as competition naturally enter and exit the field.
It was bad enough not being able to search for strings.
What I'd really like is an uncrippled search engine that lets people be very specific in their searches. I'd really like support for simple regexes.