I think DDG's site scoring is based on how many invasive trackers and advertising it has and not if a site's information is reputable. Though someone please correct me if I'm wrong?

That is correct.

Be interesting if they started to also add reputable content info to their site ranking .... like utilize one of those non-profit fact checking sites and score them based on how many of their articles over a period (3 to 6 months) or long periods of time (a year) was not factual .. truth bent ... etc.

If it was done well and became popular it might cut down on clickbait and the tons of trash that is pushed out as truth but isn't.

Looking at Drudge Report was your first mistake

It's good to see what the other team is doing sometimes. I've seen stuff on DR that other places didn't host but was still interesting. It's not in the same OMGWTF category as newsmax or OAN despite what some HN people will tell you.

Lately I've seen HN people linking to sites like Newswars (which is infowars rebranded, it seems) and whatnot.

> It's not in the same OMGWTF category as newsmax or OAN despite what some HN people will tell you.

Drudge has a history chock full of conspiracy theories, retractions and dirty-deletes. All of which center around attacking liberal politicians or causes to "own" or "gotcha" them.

Seriously, read the list that includes Obama birther conspiracies, Las Vegas shooting conspiracies, "immigrants setting wildfires" conspiracies (from Breitbart), and perpetuating hoaxes like "black man attacked McCain campaign staffer!": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report

Agreed.

Fair…

I bet it was the last of a series of mistakes.