Do we have to call it a dupe whrn it's 10 months old and still super interesting?
Qwant Lite (https://lite.qwant.com/) loads much faster initially and the UI doesn't jump around, but it's slower to load search results. It also features the objectively false tagline, "The only search engine that respects your privacy."
I think I'll stick with DuckDuckGo, thanks.
I have a old schoolmate working there who's always been genuinely interested in protecting other people's privacy. To me that tagline is just sleazy marketing.
All the benefits of using Google, DDG, StackOverflow, and all sorts of different search engines without the privacy issues.
Pretty cool search engine, my tests so far give results in the same ballpark as DuckDuckGo.
Qwant isn't even that close. The results are absolutely poor across a number of different queries.
We expect the answers to be correct. Google can use everything it knows about me to turn an abstract term like "giants" into SF Giants or New York Giants, but when I explicitly enter "san francisco giants" as part of a query and still get poor results, that is a failure.
html5 working draft
when new york city was founded
us consulates in germany
can i haz cheezeburger
there is no spoon
tyger tyger burning bright
I'm not sure matching Google, but a little worse, is best objective.
Don't know what you tried, I just tried it on a number of searches like:
Logging framework .net
Edward Snowdon (misspelled)
Not only was it fast but it delivered good results as well.
Will try it next week with some of the stuff Google struggles with now: respecting when I use doublequotes etc.
Edit: the speed difference might be related to the fact that I am in Europe.
That's a really defeatist way of entering a new market--"our competitor is the gold standard, so instead of trying to be better than them, we'll measure our success by how closely we can imitate them". It's like Pepsi and Coca-Cola, which I also always found strange. Why advertise Pepsi as tasting just like Coke? Why not advertise it as tasting _better?_
> Qwant isn't even that close.
I don't think that, by itself, says anything about the quality of their search results.
That's exactly what they did. Remember the Pepsi Challenge?
Now you've got me wondering if I misunderstood the commercial as a child and have had a tainted perception of Pepsi's marketing my whole life because of it.
This is not surprising as Pepsi is much, much sweeter so in small doses it does tend to be preferred. However, when given a full glass, many go back to preferring Coke.
I don't know if there is a name for this kind of user-hostile behavior, but I wish more people paid attention to it.
I also really don't like the lack of data density. The news doesn't make any sense in most cases.
If history showed us anything is that we need a lot of competition in this area
They also could have harder time linking to news sources.
They may have some advantages by not being bound by US legislation, though, but I can't easily name any such advantage.
is a more familiar (and in my opinion, better) interface.
I think the thing you should be targeting here is getting the website and initial results to load in a single TCP packet. Because right now it doesn't feel like google. It feels like bing. (Except that somehow bing loads faster than qwant, maybe due to better CDS?)
if you go in local storage there's a suspicious h_user with a numeric id
sure it's not technically a cookie, but still..
No delay, and a search for 'kubernetes' brought up kubernetes.io at the top of the listings bar the top bit with the 'freshness' thing, which I don't understand tbf.
Second search for 'kubernetes ingress' brought up the kubernetes.io concepts page for ingress - which is better than what I get from Google occasionally, which is the actual doc page for 3 versions ago.
From this cursory search it isn't that bad. I generally swerve towards Google on most things, but this has been a better experience than DDG or Bing for me.
I believe it's the searchengine. There is no reason why the query, 'steamcommunity <my_username_here>' shouldn't return my profile. And after investigating the porn links, I don't see why Qwant would direct me there.
What you should be concerned about is that other people searching that handle, even in Google (with the nanny settings off), might be getting porn.
I haven't switched off Google yet for a variety of reasons, but I occasionally use DDG to have a better idea of what the "real" search results are for a term.
Web servers could index everything they serve, and clients could use a standardized protocol to query their neighbors (and their neighbors and so on) to look for all instances of a phrase or image.
Throw in some distributed machine learning into the mix to make everything sound cutting-edge.
But the hard problem in a search engine is not crawling and indexing, it's ranking and filtering.
If you don't give me an easy option to switch to google or something similar or tell you where exactly to look for results, you are not an option (for me)
They should really make those more visible :)
Without that, I don't see Qwant as something that distinguishes itself from other search engine companies, and is not something I'd recommend to anyone.
Also, I think you should perhaps reconsider whether it's a good idea to have Donald Trumps face on your front page, no?
"Our algorithms display the people who are most talked about by the media. It is not the result of an editorial choice by Qwant." This shows when you hover over the (i) on the personalities. I sincerely hope they keep it this way, as we have enough internet outlets letting us know what their politics are. I'm even a bit dismayed they have to disclaimer it, and I have doubts that disclaimer would even exist if DT was not the first person pictured.
I'm going to make a charitable guess and says that's probably due to news articles and search hits more than any political leanings.
main interface is horrible, not gonna default to "lite" just to use a thing.