
Use DuckDuckGo to improve your privacy online (2018) - rbjorklin
https://spreadprivacy.com/privacy-simplified/
======
pixelbreaker
I first tried DDG in its early years and it just didn't yield the results I
needed, I tried it again a couple of years ago and have stuck with it ever
since as it has must better results these days.

~~~
mrweasel
Every now and then I search for something and don't get the results I'd
expect. So I turn to Google, but for the past year or so I noticed that Google
can't find what I expect for those search terms either. The difference seems
to be that Google starts guessing and excluding keywords, without
understanding that those keywords where important.

For me personally, Google is a less pleasant experience these days.

The DuckDuckGo privacy extension is currently the only type of "ad-blocker" I
currently use. I really like the look and feel, as well as the functionality.
The automatic downgrade from an A rating for the lack of an entry on
[https://tosdr.org/](https://tosdr.org/) is a little over the top for me
though.

~~~
jdgoesmarching
THANK YOU. I feel crazy when I tell people this but I 100% agree. Google seems
to look at your search as a general guide now rather than actual parameters. I
also have to surround each word in quotes or they get excluded on the SECOND
OR THIRD RESULT.

I'm very upset because this hinders my daily work and research. I'm starting
to rely on Bing which is definitely worse than old Google but may be better
than current Google.

I want to like DDG but it's normally missing article dates or other small
features I depend on. I'll keep checking in to see if this changes.

~~~
Y_Y
Is there any possible way the old google could be resurrected? By google
themselves or just someone cloning the tech? My google-fu keeps getting worse,
on pages I know I've found handily in the past. I'd almost pay for a good
search, cash or personal data or whatever.

~~~
class4behavior
Google offers the verbatim mode (search for exact words of phrases) which you
can activate in tools or by adding the tbs=li:1 parameter to the URL.

~~~
yesenadam
I've always used that, but it annoys me that verbatim can't be combined with
e.g. restricting the date on a search, because both use the 'tbh' parameter.

------
3xblah
If the user submits a GET request to DDG from the commandline with Javascript
disabled, then all results links are prefixed with the address of a DDG
server, e.g., [https://example.com](https://example.com) becomes
[https://duckduckgo.com/l/uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com](https://duckduckgo.com/l/uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com)

Whatever the reasons may be for this decision, it allows DDG to track all
links that the user follows from the results page. That is no better than
Google. It is not a privacy improvement in that regard.

If the user submits the request via POST, then the results are not prefixed.
For example, if the request is submitted from an html form with method set to
"post".

I submit that allowing users to GET (clean) results without using Javascript
would be a privacy improvement over Google. Not to mention that it would
please many users who get frustrated when trying to copy links from a Google
results page only to find they have been prefixed and loaded with Google url
parameters.

Users deserve clean result links.

To see the difference between prefixed and non-prefixed result links:

    
    
       curl -o a.htm https://duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=example.com
    
       grep -m1 .=result-link a.htm
    
       curl -o b.htm -d "q=example.com" https://duckduckgo.com/lite/
    
       grep -m1 .=result-link b.htm

~~~
rlue
Here it is with piping so you don't have to litter your working directory:

    
    
        curl -s https://duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=example.com | grep -m1 "'result-link'"
    
        curl -sd "q=example.com" https://duckduckgo.com/lite/ | grep -m1 "'result-link'"

~~~
agumonkey
And for xpath lovers

    
    
        curl -sd "q=example.com" https://duckduckgo.com/lite/ | xmllint -html -xpath '//a[@class = "result-link"]/@href' - 
        curl -s https://duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=example.com | xmllint -html -xpath '//a[@class = "result-link"]/@href' -

------
jialutu
I've stopped using Google and moved to DDG not because of privacy, but because
the results on Google just seem the same everytime even when I use different
wording, making it feel like Google has been becoming a "recommendation
engine" rather than a "search engine".

~~~
DecayingOrganic
If you feel like Google is excluding certain keywords you very much like to
include, you can wrap the word/sentence in double quotes, this tells Google to
show results that certainly include these keywords.

For example, searching: "word x" "sentence a" would prompt Google to show only
pages that include both the word and the sentence in the same page.

~~~
JetSpiegel
If only. It's a bit more fuzzy than that now.

~~~
vokep
Nope! :)

Its actually part of the syntax of search queries for google. That said, it
still isn't always the best results.

~~~
Liru
That's anecdotally false. I've had Google use synonyms for words I put in
quotes instead of the words themselves.

------
tombert
I love DDG (and have been using it as my primary search engine for about six
months) but I feel like the hacker community (including me) forgets that DDG
_is_ a for-profit corporation, and that at some level posting these kinds of
links is more or less the same as just giving them free advertising.

~~~
syrrim
The quality of DDGs results is related in part to the number of users they
have:

\- they use link clicks to determine coherence between query and result. More
users => more clicks => greater coherence

\- they fund themselves using advertising, so their revenue is roughly
proportional to their number of users. Increasing users => increasing money =>
more money to devote towards improving results

If one is interested in improving the results of DDG, then providing them with
free advertising is an easy way to do it.

~~~
tombert
I'm not disagreeing with your point (or the network effect in general), but I
guess I worry that if we don't engage in some early skepticism, we're going to
end up with another Google or Facebook on our hands.

------
jjordan
Switched to DDG for my defaults over a year ago now. Still occasionally have
to append a !g to my search, and Google Maps is still unmatched, but for run
of the mill searches it's been working out. Google lost my trust, so if I can
avoid using a service of theirs with a viable alternative, I do so. Go,
OpenStreetMap!!

~~~
DavideNL
> Google lost my trust

you might want to try occasionally using !sp instead of !g -> same results, no
google.

~~~
kasbah
Just !s will do actually.

------
dgzl
DDG has been my default search in FF for a very long time now. If I can't find
what I'm looking for with ddg, I'll simply add !g to my search, and it will
redirect to Google.

------
webo
I can’t tell if everyone here is serious when they say they haven’t looked
back.

Google knowledge graph is years ahead of DDG. Average person does not want to
click through results, s/he just wants the answer. Compare these queries in
Google vs. ddg:

    
    
      - nba scores
      - 2018 super bowl
      - lakers roster
      - movies in theatres
      - game of thrones cast
      - $aapl
      - where is my phone
      - 2019 thanksgiving
    

etc

~~~
kelnos
I can't say I haven't looked back; occasionally I'll fall back to Google when
DDG is having trouble finding what I want to find. Even then, it's certainly
less than 10% of the time (maybe even less than 5%), and I find when I have to
do that, Google's results aren't super high quality either (though most of the
time the quality is just better enough that it turned out to be useful to have
the Google fallback).

As for just "getting the answer", I suspect you're right most of the time, but
I really don't mind clicking through the first few results links to see the
answer. Figuring out the best answer and putting it in-line with the search
results is a nice-to-have for me, but certainly not essential.

Also note that I'm making a trade-off here: lower search result quality in
return for not having my search history tracked. For many people, I imagine
they don't care about their privacy as much and will make the opposite trade-
off. That's fine; I'm just glad we have good enough options so people can make
that decision and not be forced one way or the other.

------
arcticwombat
All hail the duck! (Not tongue in cheek. I'm a fan of the duck)

------
chucksmash
Also available at [https://duck.com](https://duck.com) now, after much ado.

~~~
sasoon
Why are they redirecting it to duckduckgo.com, why not just use duck.com?
Short and simple.

~~~
asadlionpk
they only recently acquired that domain. That too from google!

------
anonytrary
I'm not trying to defend Google by any means, but I've always wondered how DDG
can be as profitable as Google if they take into account less information when
showing you ads. Surely using more information allows you to more efficiently
match supply with potential demand, which is the point of ads. Is there any
research out there that shows that this efficiency gap does not exist?

I don't use or follow Facebook that much, but every time I hear Mark
Zuckerberg defending Facebook's business model, he always says something like
"we want to make sure the ads you see are actually useful/relevant to you". Is
there a way to achieve this outcome without taking into account more personal
information?

~~~
probably_wrong
> I've always wondered how DDG can be as profitable as Google if they take
> into account less information when showing you ads

AFAIK, no one has conclusively shown that highly targeted ads perform better
than interest-based ones (as in, putting ads for cars in car magazines). In
fact, I'm under the impression that "we don't really know what we are doing"
is the ad industry's secret.

The Atlantic calls this Wanamaker's Paradox[1], in honor of a retailer that
said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't
know which half". If DDG is right and showing ads based on your search terms
is enough, then you'd expect them to get _ahead_ of Google, because they would
have similar profits with less overhead.

Of course, there is much more to Google's dominance than "because they show
better ads", so I don't think "efficiency gap" is the best way to look at it
anyway.

[1]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-dange...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-dangerous-
question-does-internet-advertising-work-at-all/372704/)

------
leokennis
Switched to DDG about two years ago. First, it was worse than Google. However
in the meantime, DDG has improved a bit and Google got worse, showing a lot of
performance devrading crap/boxes/large text instead of search results.

So DDG is now all around the better choice.

------
ryanelfman
I love DDG! Switched to it about a year ago and haven't looked back. The odd
time I need to use Google at work for a specific technical lookup but
otherwise I don't need too. I love to support the underdog who values privacy.
I recommend it to everyone.

------
maewsa
Does this offer anything unique that other content blockers cannot? From what
I can see it would only be the forced encryption and I guess the letter grade.

I love DDG for search but not sure this browser competes with 1Blocker X
Safari integration on iOS.

~~~
sp332
It's not a content blocker. It does have a lot of "instant answers" with
information put in a box next to search results so you don't even have to
click through. e.g.
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+is+the+prime+minister+of+malay...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+is+the+prime+minister+of+malaysia)

Also it has "bangs" which give you shortcuts to lots of other services.
[https://duckduckgo.com/bang](https://duckduckgo.com/bang)

~~~
maewsa
Guess I worded it a bit strangely but this acts like a content blocker on iOS,
but in it's own browser. Most commenters are just commenting on the search
engine but this post is about their mobile browser.

I was just curious what benefits you get from switching to this browser vs.
using a content blocker with Safari.

------
ctnb
I'm glad most a lot of these comments are saying DDG works for them; I still
have a lot of issues with the search quality and switched to Startpage a while
ago which uses anonymized google results.

~~~
parthdesai
I'm with you. I switched to DDG, and within a day i started subconsciously
adding `!g` to my query. And it's for simple things, not even complicated
programming queries. For example, if i wanna see what the weather is, typing
"Toronto weather" in google gives me the current weather right on the front
page, whereas with DDG, i have to scan for weather network and click on it to
actually get the information. Same goes for a TV show/movie/sports score.
Google has Imdb rating/current live score right there on the home page.

~~~
blueblob
"toronto weather" gives me the weather now and the 7 day forecast in a widget
on the top of the search page. If I search "packers" it gives me the latest
packers scores on the top (and if a game is ongoing an indicator of the time,
who has the ball, and the score), if I search "patriots", there is an nfl tab
on the top that I can click and it gives me the scores. I'm not saying you're
wrong, but DDG has been working on some of those issues. You can always add
!imdb or !rt in front of your shows/movies for rottentomatoes or imdb.

~~~
parthdesai
Hmm, you are right it shows correct weather now.

But here[0] are the examples of sport and movies/tv shows that i was talking
about.

[0] [https://imgur.com/a/vBWh6rN](https://imgur.com/a/vBWh6rN)

------
scoutt
I'm glad they're moving forward, but I still don't buy it. Someone is tossing
a big load of money on them (you know that when you see their ad in twitter
every day, and articles like this), specially in the last year. When that
happens, investors will want their return, no matter what.

People saying they respect your privacy, but... how do you _really_ know? Also
because "improved privacy" != "no targeted ads". They can still do massive
amounts of money from the data we provide.

At some point:

1) they would have to comply with some law somewhere, handling user data
(logs). 2) they may become the number 2 search engine. Spammers will target
them and they would have to start doing some behavioral analysis on "what
links worked well to those kind of users" to fix that.

Are they so transparent and well intentioned? Is their system so simple, so
innocuous and filled only with anonymous data? Fine, they should Open-source
the engine and servers, prove that they are using the same code we see, give
us RO access to the DBs, and the equivalent of a MacDonalds kitchen tour.

Otherwise, they are just relying on nice words.

~~~
Vinnl
> how do you really know?

You don't _really_ know. However, when your entire USP is being privacy-
friendly (and really, that's the primary feature that Google can't copy), it
would be incredibly damaging if word got out that that wasn't true. And we can
be reasonably certain that, if it wasn't true, word _would_ get out.

Also note that DDG explicitly says they don't do user tracking. So while ads
are targeted in the sense that you'll see ads relevant to the search term
you're using (and your location and other data attached to the query), they're
not keeping a profile of you and targeting ads based on that. In other words:
there should be no significant user data for them to hand over.

I'm not sure why they would have to become the number 2 search engine at some
point, although regular search engine manipulation does already seem to affect
them sometimes. I don't see why they would have to track users to combat that.

Sure, open source would be nice. But right now, we do have reason to assume
that they're at least significantly better than Google, without having to
sacrifice a lot in search result quality.

~~~
scoutt
> we do have reason to assume

> word would get out

> no significant user data

These, as you say, are assumptions. That's why I don't (still) buy it.

They are in "sell" mode right now. They would say anything to gain traction,
and it's working. That's why they are pushing hard and investing a lot.
Remember it's about making BIG money through an advertisement-based business,
what could possibly go wrong?

Imagine that you are magically handled the DB for the searches done today.
What would you can possible learn from that information? Perhaps you can't
track what searches did HN user Vinnl, but the info has surely a value. They
may not be honest about what are they doing with that information.

~~~
Vinnl
Absolutely those are assumptions - hence my first sentence. That's still more
reliable than trusting Google, about whom we don't need to make assumptions.

Another assumption I make is that I don't expect then to seriously displace
Google any time soon,but rather remain a player that fills the niche of
private search. If that ever appears to change, we can always adapt - let's
not make perfect the enemy of the good :-)

------
romanovtexas
Why is this suddenly on the front page?

~~~
extropy
This is a Browser from DDG, not their search engine.

It claims to block trackers like Google and FB, and provides other privacy
related features.

Does not say what it's built on... Probably chromium.

~~~
ickler9
lol I know right, same with Brave.

------
skarz
I believe in everything DDG stands for but just earlier I did a search
comparison to see which search engine provided the most helpful results. I
searched 'asus block third party firmware' (no quotes) and objectively I have
to say that Google provided the most helpful results. Search yourself and see
if you come to the same conclusion.

------
gortok
Missing features I wish DuckDuckGo had (and reasons why I manually type
google.com even though I have DDG set as my default browser: \- sports
searches. If I search for “Washington Capitals”, I want to know when they’re
playing next and what channel it’s on, as well as the results of their past
game. This goes for any time I search for a sports team. \- searches for
dictionary terms should one-box the definition (for instance, today I looked
up mortified with “mortified definition”). I should see the one-box of what
I’m looking for. \- one-boxing in general: stack overflow answers,
definitions, calculations (feet to meters, grams to pounds, etc), sports, time
zones, cities, monuments, etc.

The search results from DDG just feel “off” compared to google search. I want
to like DDG and I keep attempting to use it; but it’s failing at making
relevant information immediately available at my fingertips.

~~~
floatingatoll
If you're willing, consider using the 'Send Feedback' link in the lower right
corner of the DDG results page to inform them when you were 'reaching' for a
given helper-box and didn't get what you were hoping for.

------
cygned
I switched to DDG for two reasons:

\- Privacy

\- It doesn't try to be smarter than me

More often when I use Google to search (e.g. for research), it decides to
ignore one or multiple words, yielding irrelevant results. It's fixable, I can
quote them, it even offers to do that, but it drives me nuts.

------
Kiro
As usual most of the comments here are "I made the switch and couldn't be
happier" and have nothing to do with the actual submission. Therefore I feel
obligated to post my usual rant about DDG just being a wrapper for Bing.

~~~
chappi42
Bing or not. For me important is that it is outside Google's reach. This
prevents aggregating search (history) with e.g. gmail, contacts, location etc.
Also important is, that DDG now works reasonably good in most cases.

~~~
Kiro
Thank you. I support that. What I don't support is people saying it's a false
claim when DDG is completely transparent about it themselves.

~~~
FabHK
Does Bing offer the same privacy advantages (no tracking, no history based
ads, etc.)?

EDIT to add: I think nobody disputes or cares that most results come from (or
equal) Bing results, as long as they're good enough.

~~~
johnmarcus
DDG basically acts as a vpn proxy. Bing sees all the traffic as from DDG the
same, they can't differentiate the individual requesters. Assuming DDG does
what it says it does anyway.

~~~
FabHK
Right, so that's a valuable service in itself, as far as I'm concerned.

------
dymk
How does DuckDuckGo make money?

~~~
fisian
The ddg CEO (and others) have answered this question here:
[https://www.quora.com/How-does-DuckDuckGo-make-
money](https://www.quora.com/How-does-DuckDuckGo-make-money) tl;dr: They serve
ads based on keywords and not by tracking your interests.

~~~
thecatspaw
So how does this fit into it?

~~~
btian
How does what fit into what?

It's possible to serve ads without being creepy if that's what you're asking.

~~~
thecatspaw
No, I meant how does this extention/mobile browser generate money for them?

~~~
btian
It's marketing for their search engine

------
paul7986
I started using DDG everywhere in December after reading a story how Google
tried to steal a MIT researcher's work.

I thought they "Do No Evil," were all about corporate and social good? That's
the image I once had!

------
En_gr_Student
Google built things that circumvent it.

I love how commercials "follow you around". If I search for diamond rings in a
browser on one computer, they suddenly materialize everywhere.

I tried it with Duck-Duck-go, searching for something I nearly never search
for, something such that the ads follow you around. I just searched in DDG,
but did not go to the end website. I then resumed non-DDG browsing, and those
came up as ads. I don't know if they are looking at image caches, or loading
javascript libraries.

They have a way around it already, and it runs.

------
imhelpingu
I switched my browsers to using DuckDuckGo as the default search engine and
almost miss never Google at all. Any time I do miss Google, I just manually
navigate to Bing and use that instead.

------
foxfired
I deliberately look for DNT (do not track) header and don't load any analytics
for those users. As far as I can tell, the ddg app does not send those
headers, which could be helpful.

------
iwakura
>improve your privacy by downloading another app I don't see how piling even
more technology onto privacy unfriendly internet habits helps. You're not
going to get more privacy by using this on a site like Facebook. The real
solution is to simply remove them from your life. See if there's something you
can remove to improve the situation first instead of adding stuff.

------
MYEUHD
If you're looking for privacy, you shouldn't use DDG as it's based in the US.
Consider searx or startpage instead

~~~
hhanesand
What’s so bad about being based in the US?

~~~
egwynn
Might just be that US companies are known to be subject to National Security
Letters

~~~
bluGill
Not really a worry because they cant get what ddg doesn't have.

~~~
solarkraft
Is there even evidence they don't keep anything?

Edit: Okay, you can't really have evidence of absence, but good reasons to
believe they don't log?

~~~
bluGill
They state all over in their website that they don't log.

Though I have no way of verifying they don't keep logs, if I discover they do:
at least I can sue them for it.

------
KangLi
I have been using it for the last month, thanks to HN, but also those who
contribute. :D

------
dang
We changed the URL from
[https://duckduckgo.com/app](https://duckduckgo.com/app) to the page that
explains what that app does.

------
webmobdev
Why would I use another AMERICAN / Western search engine? I personally feel we
would be better off using Yandex (Russian) or Baidu (Chinese) search engines.
We need more COMPETITION to reduce our reliance on parasites like Google /
Microsoft / FB etc and thus force the industry to reevaluate their business
model on how they make money from us.

Yandex has a pretty decent search engine, and also helpfully provides a link
to Google / Bing too, in case one isn't satisfied with their search results.
This is smart of them as they still get data to improve their search engine,
but also don't leave their users disgruntled when the search results aren't
relevant.

~~~
bad_user
I agree about being mindful about using services of US companies, possibly
preferring alternatives, however using a Chinese or a Russian alternative
instead is just plain stupid.

Two reasons:

1\. The US is a functional democracy, with a bill of rights and privacy laws
which aren’t perfect, but exist; California even has its own version of the
GDPR

2\. They have strong trade agreements with the EU and if you’re an EU citizen
this matters, as companies found to violate the GDPR will get screwed; GDPR
which also makes the export of data very complicated, so US companies are
increasingly keeping EU data on EU servers

Speaking as an EU citizen, the NSA is not my enemy. But companies like
Facebook are. So for me a company like DuckDuckGo is still acceptable because
without privacy, they offer nothing of interest, so they won’t do anything to
jeopardize their reputation.

Speaking of which, DuckDuckGo can exist in the US, but not in China or in
Russia, both being jurisdictions that are ... challenging, to say the least.

If you insist on not using US services, then the only alternatives worth
looking at are in Europe, because we have strong privacy laws and we aren’t
being led by dictators. And you’d better not look at a “five eyes country” ;-)

Here’s one: [https://www.qwant.com/](https://www.qwant.com/)

~~~
webmobdev
> however using a Chinese or a Russian alternative instead is just plain
> stupid.

No, it is not. By using non-american alternatives, you ensure fragmentation of
your personal data, thus making it harder to build a better / more accurate
profile of you.

Moreover, I personally don't like the fact that using DuckDuckGo still helps
the other major search engines - they still get data from DDG that helps them
improve their search engine, thus contributing to their monopoly.

> The US is a functional democracy ...

Good for the Americans, then. Not for us who live elsewhere. The US government
and courts have repeatedly applied different legal yardsticks when it comes to
a citizen vis a foreigner.

> as companies found to violate the GDPR will get screwed; GDPR which also
> makes the export of data very complicated, so US companies are increasingly
> keeping EU data on EU servers

I don't see why you think this doesn't apply to Chinese / Russian businesses
too. Ultimately if they want to do business in EU or elsewhere, they will have
to follow the law of the land. Right?

> Speaking as an EU citizen, the NSA is not my enemy.

I disagree. The Five Eyes spying program is designed to indirectly spy on the
citizens of their country using each others government agency, and sharing
that data.

> Speaking of which, DuckDuckGo can exist in the US, but not in China or in
> Russia,

And this brings another important aspect on this debate - we shouldn't be
trusting private companies to protect our privacy rights and instead should be
pressurizing our own government to legislate laws on this.

Most Americans somehow seem to naively believe that Apple and DuckDuckGo (for
example) are working more to protecting your privacy, whereas all they are
doing is slowly trying to gain your trust to get you to share more data with
them. And ultimately, like Google betrayed all of us and went fully "evil", so
will Apple and DuckDuckGo.

(And notice that they have already started being more invasive).

------
rb808
I use bing. I dont really mind that someone is monitoring my searches and
tracking my usage. I just dont want Google to dominate, so hopefully using
bing helps to balance the world.

------
zokula
Startpage.com is better and has better privacy and search results

~~~
ForHackernews
You can use !sp from DDG.

~~~
przmk
Or just !s :)

------
la_fayette
DDG is absolutely great! I am not sure if they are a profitable company yet?
It would be great to have different players on the www again, not just
monopolies...

------
dvcrn
DDG gets simple things right, but for more complex queries I still have to
fallback to google sadly

~~~
pmoriarty
Can you give an example of such a complex query which performs better on
google than DDG?

------
marcrosoft
I want to use this but the scroll responsiveness is slow and it lacks a solid
way to refresh.

------
yeahitslikethat
How do I make ddg the default on my old android phone?

------
agumonkey
ddg is nice for the bangs (although sometimes they drop some) and for very
simple queries

for the rest you're only one !g away from the usual

------
benkarst
I tried. No maps.

~~~
johnmarcus
try again. they just incorporated apple maps

------
oth001
Startpage.com ?

------
lota-putty
searx anyone?

------
the_other_guy
DDG has the most aggressive and adversarial marketing by an internet company
I've ever seen that's only matched in intensity by Brave browser's company. Is
Gabriel trying to sell before the end of the business cycle?

