

DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine for the past 7 months - prakash
http://www.cloudknow.com/2010/04/duckduckgo-as-my-primary-search-engine/

======
nfnaaron
I've been using it for a week, I like it.

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.

<https://duckduckgo.com/bang.html>

Well done.

~~~
krainboltgreene
_features that are generally good for you_

 _\- Less data about you collected by Google._

How pretentious of you.

Edit:

    
    
      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

~~~
nfnaaron
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.

------
nfriedly
The only thing I missed after switching to DDG was the auto-suggest feature,
so I added it on myself: <http://nfriedly.com/stuff/duckduckgoogle/>

------
magv
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.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
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!

~~~
epi0Bauqu
UPDATE: 1 is done. 2 turned out to be a bug, which is now fixed, i.e.
[http://duckduckgo.com/?q=r6rs+vote&v=](http://duckduckgo.com/?q=r6rs+vote&v=).
Thx again for pointing it out!

~~~
magv
What about kelvin hobles?

~~~
epi0Bauqu
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.

------
pak
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.

------
ssp
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.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Thx for the feedback. Will do on !g at the end.

------
crux
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.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
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.

~~~
crux
2) Yes, definitely. 3) I'll start keeping track of what does and doesn't work.

------
samdk
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.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
A data point for you:

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.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
What system? It does still require JS, but it should work on IE6.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Konqueror 3.0.3 on KDE 3.0.3 on SuSE 8.1

Well, you did ask, and I did warn you it was old ...

~~~
someone_else
And why would you want to use those? Ancient hardware? But if so, is there a
reason why you should use ancient hardware?

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Yes, ancient hardware. Some people don't have a choice as to their hardware.

------
kaddar
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.

~~~
kalid
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.

------
TorKlingberg
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.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
It was on TC the other day. Does that count? Or how about this:
<http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/cnn.pdf>

------
startupcomment
Nice job, Gabriel. I plan to start using DDG. I also am enjoying your work in
progress on gaining traction. Many thanks for undertaking it.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Thanks! For those of you who don't know what he's referring to wrt to
traction: <http://tractionbook.com/>

------
njharman
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.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
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).

~~~
hasanove
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.

[http://duckduckgo.com/?q=news.az&v=](http://duckduckgo.com/?q=news.az&v=)
[http://duckduckgo.com/?q=www.news.az&v=](http://duckduckgo.com/?q=www.news.az&v=)

------
helwr
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.

Summary: Not usable (yet).

~~~
epi0Bauqu
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.

~~~
krainboltgreene
Not only does it not show my LinkedIn profile, but doesn't show: My Google,
Blogger, Tumblr, Stack Overflow, or Facebook profiles.

Google does all those except Twitter and Tumbler (Stack Overflow is on the
second page, sadly).

Search: "Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene"

I'm certainly not an important person but this is a very specific search.

Edit: HA! It actually shows one of my LinkedIn "friends" 30 listings down.
Awesome.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Weird bug. Your LinkedIn should be first now.

------
MikeCapone
Sounds good, but one thing I'd like to know is if the author of that article
has any affiliations with DDG.

~~~
prakash
none. I wrote it since I really like DuckDuckGo.

~~~
MikeCapone
Thank you. In this day and age, I think we should all be a bit skeptical of
glowing reviews.

Thanks for taking the time to post this.

~~~
prakash
no worries :-)

------
elblanco
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.

------
dzorz
Unfortunately it doesn't work nearly as well as Google for some foreign
language queries.

~~~
senko
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.

------
jcromartie
What happens when DDG gets more popular? Google or Yahoo (or whatever APIs
they depend on) could pull the plug, and then what?

Interestingly, DDG (as it is) could never replace its "competitors."

~~~
heyitsnick
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.

------
GrandMasterBirt
I tried it and on first day basically what would take 1-2 google queries
(simple) turned into 5+ DDG + not found what I needed.

I love the idea, features, privacy, but it really does not work for me. Maybe
I need some usage tips??

Edit: I'm goona try out this !bang stuff

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Thx. I'd appreciate you sending me specific queries that didn't work for you.
Feel free to email me any time.

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
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.

------
rogermugs
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....

~~~
epi0Bauqu
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.

