[weareallcowards]

I've used DDG search exclusively for about 9 months now, and I've never used the !g flag. Comments like this completely baffle me.

In my anecdotal experience, it's every bit as good as google, and I simply did not notice a difference in the results when I switched.

It must be down to what people search for, or maybe how heavily Google has customized their personal results to fit their behaviors. I mostly use web searches for looking up technical documentation, and 5-second tasks like weather forecasts and unit conversions.

[Frost1x]

I've used DDG for over a year now almost exclusively and while I agree it isn't by any definition horrible, sometimes when I know enough key descriptors for something I'm searching for but continually fail to find it on DDG, I fall back to Google with the same query and find what I'm looking for.

This has happened probably a handful of times but enough times that I would have been stuck in the water without Google, unfortunately. Only one of those handful of cases was significant (I needed that information for work, not a simple curious search) but Google saved the day.

Some of it may be due to years of growing accustomed to building searches subconsciously around Google which is unfair to DDG, but it's hard to say definitively.

[freediver]

There are at least three types of searches where Google is still the 'king' over Bing.

1. Index size - Google spider visits more places than Bing spider. This is why Google delivers better results for compiler error strings, serial numbers etc.

Query examples where Bing/DDG completely miss the mark:

SA1DP2CF - a serial number

s2 034 253 033 C - audi rs2 exhaust manifold part no

Denninger Str. 96, 81925 München, Germany - what is on this location?

2. Intent/Semantic

Query examples:

tesla 00001 - who owns first tesla? Bing is completely lost

original elite alien name - looking for thargoids, Google tells me that right away, DDG #8

3. Localized

Query example: hiking trails - Google gives me relevant local results based on my location (IP based), DDG doesn't (although it is aware of my IP-based location in the same way)

Getting these right is incredibly hard as you literally need Google size infrastructure to get this right, which even Bing doesn't have.

Second thing that is hard to catch up for any Google competitor is the rest of Google infrastructure users rely on - Browser, Email, Meet, Docs, Youtube, Android, Drive... Even if you get the search right but the user has to go back to Google for the rest of services, Google has a chance to get the user back.

IMO attacking Google starts with developing a product that does not insult user's intelligence, is innovative and does things Google can't, explores different business models (as ads inevitably lead to conflict of interest - optimize for user experience or advertising revenue?) and offers infrastructure that displaces (at least some) Google services.

[bsder]

Here's a search with big differences between DDG and Google:

"kicad convert wxpoint to millimeters"

Note how many "Autocad" entries clutter the DDG results. Google gets kicad in every single entry on the first page.

My biggest frustration with search engines is "I gave you the terms so USE THEM. Don't be helpful and omit terms you think aren't relevant."

I still miss AltaVista's interactive cluster diagrams where you could see the web of links and pick the relevant one.

If DDG simply implemented that single feature, I would never go back to Google.

The problem is that, like Microsoft in the 90's, Google will simply copy your feature if it takes off. So, there is no point in innovating in a visible way in search. That's the problem with a monopoly.

[chris_f]

>If DDG simply implemented that single feature, I would never go back to Google.

Here you go. #2 on the list.

https://www.runnaroo.com/blog/the-search-engine-hacker-news-...

[utopcell]

This says it is serving google results: https://www.runnaroo.com/about Is that accurate ?

[chris_f]

Yes, Google is the source for organic web page results (similar to how DDG uses Bing). There are currently about 60 other sources for the vertical specific results.

[bsder]

I don't see an interactive cluster diagram, but those search results are actually pretty good.

Thanks for this. I'll flip it to my default search for a while and see how it goes.

[chris_f]

Sorry, you're right I misread your comment. I was referring to the section about respecting the terms you want to be searched.

I know Swisscows and Carrot2 both do some topic clustering, maybe those would be interesting as well.

[BRedSox]

Interesting. That’s the first I’m seeing of it.

[xondono]

In my experience, it depends on what you are looking.

If you are searching technical info like pdf manuals, datasheets, etc.. I find DDG works better than Google, because most companies aren’t buying to be first result, so the manuals show up first.

If you are looking for Stack Overflow type of content “how to config X on linux using Y”. The !g flag becomes handy.

[FpUser]

>"I mostly use web searches for looking up technical documentation, and 5-second tasks like weather forecasts and unit conversions."

This is what I do as well but regarding results on technical info I consider DDG/BING/Whatever way inferior to Google.

[whimsicalism]

Sometimes I need the "!g" for Google's personalization.

[srtjstjsj]

Apropos, I searched "ddg bang patten" and got garbage results, so I added "!g" and Google found DDG's own page on bang patterns.

[mikem170]

I ran the same searches and got the info as the #4 result in DDG and the #1 result in Google.

Disclaimer: I switched to DDG and only very infrequently need to resort to google. I happier not being tracked.

[dredmorbius]

!bang