News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by enneff on Thursday February 20, 2014 @07:04PM (#7274557)
What result do you expect for something as vague as "flowers"? Try something like "flower delivery <your city>" or "hydrangea" to see a useful search result page.
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Thursday February 20, 2014 @07:17PM (#7274622)
I would expect a glorified redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower That is what I expect for any search that is vague or generic. The results for "RTG" are pretty much my idea of what a set of results should look like.

(Note that while DDG's results page for 'flowers' is cleaner, the actual results are similarly shit.)

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by RandallBrown on Thursday February 20, 2014 @07:34PM (#7274684)
When I search google for "flower" the first result is the wikipedia page for flower.

While you might want the wiki page for flower when you search "flowers" I think most people might actually want to order flowers.

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Thursday February 20, 2014 @08:29PM (#7274885)
That plural/singular makes a difference there is something that I would consider to be a fault. "Llamas" gives me the page for "llama". Why should "flower" and "flowers" give me radically different results?

If I wanted to buy flowers I'd search "florist" or "online florist". The wiki page for florists is surely of far less interest than the page for flowers.

I suspect the google/ddg results for "flowers" are a result of florists SEO'ing out the ass, not a reflection on what people are actually looking for when they search for things.

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by enneff on Thursday February 20, 2014 @09:00PM (#7274994)
More likely: Google have noticed users that search for "flowers" typically go on to search for "flower delivery", and started showing them results relevant to their intent.

The Google result page for "flowers" also includes the wikipedia page for "Flower", btw.

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Friday February 21, 2014 @12:02AM (#7275540)
> "The Google result page for "flowers" also includes the wikipedia page for "Flower", btw."

Yeah, but it is farther down the list. I have to search for it.

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by saltysugar on Friday February 21, 2014 @01:01AM (#7275654)
Father? It's the second item on the list for me (and I use incognito)
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Friday February 21, 2014 @04:38AM (#7276128)
In incognito mode, it is 16th down the list for me, including ads and local results. Do you have an adblocker turned on or something?
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by enraged_camel on Friday February 21, 2014 @12:26AM (#7275603)
>>I would expect a glorified redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower That is what I expect for any search that is vague or generic.

If they wanted the wikipedia page, they would have performed the search directly on wikipedia.

The question you have to ask is: what is the most likely thing they are looking to do? Is it to learn more about flowers (wikipedia) or is it to buy flowers (regular results with ads + map of nearby flower sellers)?

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Friday February 21, 2014 @04:53AM (#7276172)
I've already said that I believe the most likely thing they are looking for is the wikipedia page. How many times do people actually buy flowers? Once or twice a year? If they are doing it any more often than that, then they shouldn't need to google "flowers" each time....
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by lmm on Friday February 21, 2014 @08:27AM (#7276824)
> If they are doing it any more often than that, then they shouldn't need to google "flowers" each time....

Why not? Computers are better at memorizing things than people; it shouldn't be a human's job to remember a site URL (and browser bookmarks are less useful than intelligent search engines).

Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:33PM (#7278904)
I imagine after a few times they would have a particular business or location in mind, and use google to search for that instead. For instance, if I googled "flowers" a few months ago and found "Joes Flower Shop in Seattle", if I wanted flowers again I would google "joes flowers seattle" instead of "flowers".
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by enneff on Friday February 21, 2014 @06:37PM (#7280196)
That's not how most people use computers. If they found the flower shop last time by typing "flowers", then they're going to type "flowers" the next time.
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by lugg on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:05AM (#7275924)
I dont think I've ever used wikipedia's search. I just google "term wiki"
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by tjpick on Thursday February 20, 2014 @07:36PM (#7274692)
why don't you set your default search engine to wikipedia?
Re:Inside DuckDuckGo, Google's Tiniest, Fiercest Competitor by Crito on Thursday February 20, 2014 @08:16PM (#7274844)
Because I want to see what I am missing.