Health food features: (features that are generally good for you but which you don't notice specifically at each use)
- Access via https, if you want.
- Logs deleted quickly
- Less data about you collected by Google.
Note: For Firefox, if you want to put the https version of DDG in your search box list, use the Add to Firefox link on the DDG page, rather than "Add Duck Duck Go" in Firefox's search box dropdown.
Immediately tasty features:
- Clean results page.
- Clean results page URL.
- (Some Linux distros dirty it up in Firefox.)
- If not many results, there's a link to the equivalent Google search.
- This is so polite and helpful it's classy.
- !Bang notation for alternate search engines.
The !Bang notation is enough by itself to use DDG as your default search box entry. I have alternate search engines in my Firefox search box, but I don't use them much because even "alt-downarrow ..." is just inconvenient enough to dissuade me from using it; then you have to switch it back. "!w" at the front of your query to signal a Wikipedia search is a pleasure.
I already use keyword bookmarks in Safari/Firefox for that, where I don't have to go through another search engine before (and can use "wiki" instead of "!wikipedia").
Yep, keyword bookmarks have had a significant impact on the way I search with a web browser. Their use eliminates the layer of complexity of visiting search hub services (like DuckDuckGo or YubNub) and feels more responsive than using a separate search box in the browser.
I've done DuckDuckGo searches with "d" for a little while now.
1 : characterized by pretension: as
a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing)
b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature
I disagree with "pretentious," but you are correct that not everyone sees Google data collection as potential trouble.
I do see it as potential trouble, not because they're Google but because they're in the data collection and correlation business and they're the elephant in the room. Many other people feel the same, although probably not the majority of people. For me and people like me, data minimization features are welcome.
Employers and government are inappropriately nosing into social network data. Insurance companies are denying medical coverage solely on the basis of statements made online, i.e. without benefit of actual medical examination; that's the equivalent of "I heard ...," and it's being used in life/death relevant cases, merely to find a way to deny cost and coverage, regardless of medical issues.
My approach to online data is:
- Data transferred to anyone, online or off, is potentially misued and should be minimized. If I don't need you to have it, I see no reason to give it to you, and so I'll make it hard for you to get.
- Online data is easier to misuse, on purpose or by mistake.
- The more of your data that's online, the harder it is to keep track of.
- The more of your data that's online, the easier it is to correlate with itself and other data. You're already part of a huge gmail correlation network, even if you don't use gmail. Connecting that to your search makes it much more valuable to google, and unfortunately much more potentially dangerous to you.
- Data correlation can create new data which can itself be misused.
- The privacy policy of today is null and void once a company is acquired, goes bankrupt or just decides to change the policy. Be sure to watch that privacy policy page! Every day!
There are many ways to think about your data online. Some of us are cautious about it. For people like that, any easy way to reduce your footprint is welcome. Duck Duck Go, besides being a welcome footprint shrinker, is overall just awesomely well done.
I've been using DDG since the new privacy policy. There are two points I frequently bump into:
1. DDG has a spellchecker, but not a good one. For example, DDG correctly guesses "hcker news", but unlike Google it fails to correct e.g. "hooker news".
2. DDG is relatively good on general queries (like unique names), but not on specific ones (like phrases). Recent example: searching for "r6rs vote" on Google gives ratification votes as the first link, DDG can't find that link at all.
So while I'm not too dissatisfied, I'm not too impressed either.
On 1, I was planning to backfill with Bing. In fact, I'll move that to the top of the list and do this weekend. Side note: Bing doesn't catch "hooker news" either; and should they?
On 2, I actually have that link but have something in place to only show one per domain. Perhaps I should choose the more specific one be default. Also will change!
I hope in time, it will impress you :). Please keep sending me feedback so I can improve!
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, Bing doesn't get that either, so the back-fill doesn't help in this case. However, I did note it for future improvement.
"Hooker news" is obviously a made up example. A real example would be "kelvin hobles". Google correctly guesses "calvin (and) hobbes", DDG and Bing do not.
DDG is a sometimes affair for me, too. I really like to use it for all those queries where I would get tons of spammy results with Google. DDG really works great for that kind of stuff!
The main things I have noticed after using it for a couple of weeks:
- Unlike with Bing, I didn't switch back to google after a couple of days
- The results often include more relevant pages covering the same topic, whereas google seems to try to return the one best page about a topic. If you are researching something rather than looking for something, Duck Duck Go is better.
The second thing is what has so far kept me at DDG.
One feature request: Please allow "!g" to work at the end of the query and not just at the front.
A few qualms I have after attempting to use it as my default for a while:
- the layout and font of the results page really bugs me. Century Gothic and Trebuchet are a lot harder to read than Helvetica/Arial, and it just looks goofy for something I need to read quickly and dispassionately about 100 times per day. I really suggest something more utilitarian, e.g., Verdana of HN/reddit would be much better.
- The infinite scroll seems like a good idea in theory, but in reality the growing length of the page makes it harder for me to sense the rank of the current link I'm looking at or where I am on the page. Both Google and Bing tried this kind of display, and abandoned it after a while... Could you at least number your result links?
- To add to that, your headings like "In abbreviations and acronyms", "Other Uses" and "Web links" that divide your infinite list are very small, the same color as other text, and easy to miss. The sections that narrow my search look almost identical to the actual web links. This makes me do some disruptive context checking to discern whether I am going to another web page or searching for something else on DuckDuckGo. Note how your and Google's "Did you mean:" statement is bright red, you should apply the same elevated importance to your disambiguation sections.
- I can't search for an address and immediately see a map of the location.
- You don't suggest image results for things that people almost certainly want images for, e.g., animals, celebrities, or landmarks. I then have to switch to another search engine for that which is an extra step.
Overall, I like what you're doing, I just feel like you need to make some serious improvements to match with the UX of Google or Bing! I can't knock your results or your privacy policy; both those things have seemed to be pretty good so far.
I have been using DDG as my primary search engine at home for several months and I've been happy with it. The !commands are of little utility to me, since my browser supports search keywords and I use them extensively. There's a couple areas I can think of that I wish it would improve:
1. Its ability to intelligently bubble up semantic information is very impressive but not as broad as google's, I think. For instance, it is very good at providing an info box saying 'So and so is a rock band from the UK', but what Google can do that DDG doesn't is provide several related youtube videos at the top of the search, because they've proven to be particularly relevant.
2. It doesn't have any way to quickly put the current search terms through image search. It feels very natural in google to click 'images' if I want to learn more about a topic, and I don't have that option in DDG.
3. Its arithmetic and conversions (I believe it uses Wolfram Alpha) are not nearly as reliable as google's. Google is almost scarily good at figuring out when I'm asking it do some math, or to perform a conversion.
On 1, I hope to improve that for verticals like music soon. I'm doing movies right now actually.
On 2, there is !i, but you say keywords don't mean much to you. Would it help to have a link to GImages on the right sidebar? Others have requested that as well.
On 3, math definitely needs a revision. Conversion syntax has improved recently. In any case, if you send me specific examples that don't work, I'd be happy to make them work.
one feature you could add is showing the current time for a given area (google does that), i.e. if i look for 'time australia', a box showing the current time for the different regions of australia could show up!
btw, great work, ddg has become my search engine of choice (bundled with yubnub ;) )
I've been using DDG as my primary search engine for the past three weeks. The author here doesn't discuss the downsides, and I haven't found very many either.
Occasionally (say, when searching for specific error messages and things) I still find Google to be better, but for most things I prefer DDG, and I'll be sticking with it for the forseeable future.
DuckDuckGo doesn't return anything to me because my browser is sufficiently old that the clever results presentation doesn't work. Bing and Google both work fine, degrading gracefully.
This isn't a complaint, I know my system (on which I do this sort of stuff) is old, but it is what it is, and DuckDuckGo doesn't work on it.
When trying out a new search engine, who here searches for their blog name to determine the "quality" of the engine? It highly ranks both of my blogs, whereas cuil did not.
Yep, I think bloggers have a good internal barometer of what blog posts / resources should be highlighted by the search engine. Duck Duck Go does a pretty good job.
I am thinking of trying DuckDuckGo for serious use, but I have still never seen it mentioned outside of HN.
It may not be fully rational, but think it is a method many of us use: When you hear about something from two completely independent sources, then it is probably worth checking out.
I used it (on home puter) for a long time, many months. But I found myself too often doing google searches after ddg one's to find what I wanted. I gave up using it.
It is a continually improving experience, so if that was a while ago, it may be worth another shot. If not, sorry to hear that--but I'd appreciate knowing what types of searches weren't working for you, or better yet the actual searches. You can click 'Give Feedback' on any page (bottom right corner).
Not sure if it is a bug or feature, but searching my domain with and without "www" produced different results. I expected actual website to be the first in both cases.
If by "affiliations" you mean "works for" or "is paid by" DuckDuckGo, it's highly unlikely. DDG is the product of solo founder Gabriel Weinberg (epi0Bauqu). Check out his awesome blog: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/.
when i search for HN it displays it at 8th place after some irrelevant punk band and an obscure town in Montenegro.
When i search for my name (as i always do to test search engines) it doesn't show my linkedIn profile with 500+ connections at all. Even Bing learned to find it.
Thanks. HN gets a disambiguation page. Arguably, Hacker News should be higher. In fact, it's on my list to re-visit the ordering by popularity. It does a bit of this now, but of course could be improved.
What's your name? I should actually be promoting LinkedIn pages, so this may be a bug. I'd love to check it out.
This is great, happy to see some valid competition in this space. I'll be giving it a try off and on. So far in my initial tests it's been pretty good.
That's been my experience as well. Also, searching for information on a very specific phrase (e.g. an error or an API method) doesn't yield best results for me.
That's why I was happy to discover !g , as it allows me to google when I need to, but still use DDG in the searchbox.
If you read about the DDG architecture (posted extensively in DDG threads here, and also on the blog page), you'll see that there is no one plug that could be metaphorically pulled.
Ill spend time trying it out again. Ill submit on feedback and problematic queries that prevent me from doing my job or makibg my life harder. I like the direct involvement from you about this.
is there a catch? I feel like i genuninely do not find the things i find in google.
wonder if its just the way I'm used to knowing how to search. is seldom dont find exactly what i'm looking for google. seems like it would be more a waste of time to change my workflow... hmm....
There is something to a change in workflow. I always say give it at least a week to get used to the changes. Perhaps you've already done that though. In any case, there is no "catch" so-to-speak, but I'd love to know what you are not finding. Please email me anytime.
Health food features: (features that are generally good for you but which you don't notice specifically at each use)
Note: For Firefox, if you want to put the https version of DDG in your search box list, use the Add to Firefox link on the DDG page, rather than "Add Duck Duck Go" in Firefox's search box dropdown.Immediately tasty features:
The !Bang notation is enough by itself to use DDG as your default search box entry. I have alternate search engines in my Firefox search box, but I don't use them much because even "alt-downarrow ..." is just inconvenient enough to dissuade me from using it; then you have to switch it back. "!w" at the front of your query to signal a Wikipedia search is a pleasure.https://duckduckgo.com/bang.html
Well done.