News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by hedora on Friday March 06, 2020 @11:21AM (#22504792)
Google gives me bad results. It ignores some of the words in my queries, and the context boxes are generally spammy and irrelevant. Even if the correct information is somewhere in the results page, I bounce before I can find it.

From what I can tell from the article, this might be because I type too much stuff into the search bar, and because Google’s manually curated semantic web stuff is not relevant to me.

However, I’m really not sure why I can’t use Google anymore. It was better when I switched away, so I definitely used to be able to use it (I didn’t log in back then either).

Ddg is fine, and more respectful to its users. I don’t have a practical reason to figure out what the problem is.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by godshatter on Friday March 06, 2020 @11:49AM (#22505064)
I have this same problem. I use the same "subject sub-subject (...) specific query" tactic I've been using since forever and Google search has been becoming less effective for me over the years. I switched to DDG a couple of years ago I think, and it's better for handling that sort of thing.

Is there a search engine out there that respects quotes, and, or, case-insensitive when asked for, etc? In some ways I miss the days of altavista and similar search engines which had "advanced" tabs you could use to craft your query as closely as needed to find that one web page you know has what you need to find that you stumbled upon years ago.

The only time I use what the author refers to as "low intent searches" is when I've just heard a term or phrase I don't understand and don't know enough about it to ask specifically for something.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by redwall_hp on Saturday March 07, 2020 @12:42PM (#22512834)
What's going on is those of us who have been using the Web since Google was brand new (or earlier...remember AltaVista?) expect a search engine to find text on web pages.

What the average user in the post-smartphone world expects a search engine to do is deliver an answer to a question. These are basically incompatible, and it seems like a progressively smaller circle of the Web is being surfaced by Google these days, as they focus heavily on popularity and novelty.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by Eupolemos on Sunday March 08, 2020 @03:34PM (#22520020)
Just a heads up; post-smartphone means the era after the smartphone.

Maybe you intended to say this, then I'm really curious about your perspective?

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by wolco on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:31PM (#22505463)
Go into google search options and select verbatam to include all search terms.
Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by tracker1 on Friday March 06, 2020 @03:38PM (#22507097)
I switched for about a month... for most general searches ddg was as good or better... when searching for development terms as a programmer, I found that the ddg results were often worthless to me. The context that google has associated to you specifically adds value to the results.

Since most of my searches were for technical libraries, components, etc, I found myself searching again with !g more than half the time... after the month was up, I switched back. There are a LOT of things I like about ddg though.

It would be nice if DDG offered search roles, that could prioritize certain associated terms together for someone that is say a programmer, engineer, social media person, etc. This could be opt-in to maybe a dozen categories to skew results on one way or another, but not tied to a person per-se.

Also, a shorter domain name would help.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by mdaniel on Friday March 06, 2020 @05:24PM (#22507914)
> Also, a shorter domain name would help.

I'm surprised your browser doesn't just search from the "awesome bar", making navigating to the domain a non-event

However, the answer to your question is ddg.gg (unknown if that's short enough, but it's only 3 keys to press)

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by vinclou on Friday March 06, 2020 @06:26PM (#22508354)
I use DDG for 2 years already, and I'm a developer, I've never experienced ur problem, and I do search for technical stuff all the time. I dont see how DDG can fail to show u a documentation or library result, especially if you know what u are looking for
Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by vitro on Saturday March 07, 2020 @04:47AM (#22510820)
duck.com :)
Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by user234683 on Friday March 06, 2020 @03:19PM (#22506929)
> Google gives me bad results. It ignores some of the words in my queries

This is the problem I've been having with DDG, where it will aggressively rewrite my search into something completely unrelated

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by rhexs on Friday March 06, 2020 @08:14PM (#22508987)
I've said this before, but I really don't get any useful results from Google at all anymore. I have to prefix Reddit for every search to at least try to get a vaguely human answer to a question.

Of course Reddit is still gamed and has plenty of other issues, but far less than Google at this point.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by chipperyman573 on Saturday March 07, 2020 @03:06AM (#22510486)
Just to be clear, are you saying DDG gives you better results? I was just thinking about how google has this problem
Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by hedora on Friday March 06, 2020 @11:41AM (#22504964)
I think, on reflection, the issue is that typing “harry potter sport” and clicking on the wikipedia article at the very top of the page (above the first ad) is a much lower cognitive burden than the Google way, where I guess people are trained to type “harry potter” and then skim an entire page of ads, search results and noise to find the word “Quidditch” (which doesn’t appear, I just checked).

If I google harry potter sport, it presents the Wikipedia article in a context box, then the same article in a differently formatted context box, an ad, and then a third link to the same article at the top of the organic results.

Duck duck go displays the same link twice (once in a big context box). This seems better, though arguably not great.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by dagenix on Friday March 06, 2020 @11:58AM (#22505144)
A Google search for me produces the word "Quidditch" in a box along with a link to the Wikipedia page for Quidditch and the first paragraph of that article. The box appears at the very top of the results. I'm not sure how a search result for that query could be much more useful.
Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by gjm11 on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:15PM (#22505317)
I can confirm that I also see this, both in my regular Firefox instance where I do everything and in an incognito Chrome window. Specifically, I get, in order from top to bottom, with only trivial differences between those two cases:

A box with "Quidditch" in big letters, a picture and a brief description.

Some "People also ask:" with questions that do seem to be reasonably relevant.

The Wikipedia page about Quidditch.

Some video links, all relevant.

Some images, all relevant.

Another Wikipedia page about Quidditch.

A page about the "Department of Magical Games and Sports" from some Harry-Potter-specific wiki.

Same wiki's "games and sports" category.

"Beyond Quidditch: games and pastimes in the wizarding world" from www.wizardingworld.com.

NPR article about real-world quidditch games.

Quora question about other sports in Harry Potter.

Related searches: a bunch of Harry Potter things which seem pretty relevant.

Related search: "Quidditch teams".

A bunch of "Searches related to harry potter sport" which mostly also seem relevant.

So ... the organization of the page is a little weird in places, but this seems like an excellent set of search results for that query. The DDG results are also perfectly fine, though they feel slightly worse than the Google ones to me.

Re:DuckDuckGo is good enough for regular use by lostgame on Friday March 06, 2020 @07:31PM (#22508765)
Might have wanted to try this, before using this example. As other commenters have noted, this immediately offers up ‘Quittich’ at the first result.