[1vuio0pswjnm7]

100% of searches I do are from commandline.

For most queries, I get ~100 links, up to a limit of about 250-300. No blue links, just black and white. People complain about the quality of Google search. The complaint I have is the limited number of results. I have custom programs that process SERPs and I use search not only for "search" but for also for "discovery"; I want a maximum number of results, several hundred at least. In the days of AltaVista I could get thousands.

Having used this commandline search method for decades, there does not seem to be any effect of "search history" on the results I get. All the search engines appear to rely on Javascript to "learn" about www users.

Whereas if I do a search in a popular browser, an absurdly large program that runs other peoples' Javascript indiscriminantly, I can easily see how search history is being used to modify the results. It's comically bad. And that is what most people seem to complain about.

[jftuga]

How are you performing CLI searches? Which program do you use?

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

There is no single program. It has always been a shell script that runs multiple programs.

At present, a routine search looks like this:

   echo search terms|1.sh > 1.htm
   links 1.htm

links is 1.4 MiB static binary.

The programs used in 1.sh are as follows. All are static binaries.

68K nc

744K busybox (sed)

44K yy025

44K yy030

44K yy032

40K yy044

44K yy045

40K yy073

168K yy084

yy programs are just dumb filters I write that process input from stdin and output formatted text, fast, with low memory usage.

A localhost-bound, forward proxy is also used. This can be up to 9 MiB static binary if I use the latest OpenSSL. Size can be significantly reduced by using alternative TLS libraries.

1.sh currently supports about 40 different search engines.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

1.sh is 12K