Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
DuckDuckGo Traffic (duckduckgo.com)
1145 points by patrickbolle 5 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 375 comments

I just discovered a directory with all those 'goodies':


To use them you can take a look at the file and search for the term 'triggers' which should give you a hint.

Edit: Goodies seem to be just one category. The other categories can be found here: https://duck.co/ia

One thing I'd really like to see is translation.

Being able to write "tengo hambre en ingles" in Google and have it give me back an translation box I could interact with is awesome.

I imagine they could use Bing translation or something?

Does DDG have an equivalent of filetype:pdf?


cats filetype:pdf PDFs about cats. Supported file types: pdf, doc(x), xls(x), ppt(x), html

They can also do cool stuff like currency conversion:


And generate passphrases:


My killer app is the bang commands: https://duckduckgo.com/bang

!hn for hacker news !a for amazon !w for wikipedia !imdb for imdb !reddit for reddit !wa is the best for calculations and other weird stuff (ex: type in a date and find out what day of the week it was)

Bang patterns are awesome!

Tip for non-English speakers

!wen for English wikipedia if your default language is something else.

I use search keywords directly in my browser's address bar. Isn't going through ddg always going to be slower?

Well, if your browser's set search engine is DDG, !bangs can be used in the address bar. They're just shortcuts to other search engines. For example, if you wanted to search for Matt Damon on IMDB, you'd just type "!imdb matt damon" in your address bar and it'll forward the "matt damon" query to IMDB's search.

More specifically, typing "!imdb matt damon" will simply forward you to the following link: https://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=matt%20damon


More examples:

!a soap => https://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywo...

!hn duckduckgo => https://hn.algolia.com/?query=duckduckgo&type=story&dateRang...

> typing "!imdb matt damon" will simply forward you to the following link

In Safari, typing "imdb matt damon" and hitting the down arrow before enter gives me the same result. Do other browsers not have site search built-in? It will also pick up search fields on any site you browse you instead of requiring it to be added to some central repository.

And I use Spotlight for calculator and unit/currency conversions. Seems wasteful to roundtrip that kind of stuff online.

Too bad usually the general search engines are smarter than individual sites' search engines, I don't get how it's really useful than not having the bang.

I don't think Firefox on Android supports this. On Desktop it's quite useful for when you want to search a site you don't have a shortcut for. Guessing the shortcut has usually worked for me.

Also, when your search didn't give you what you were looking for, you can just prepend e.g. !g to search on Google, which for me is slightly faster than to copy the query, go to the address bar, enter "g" and then paste.

Android Firefox supports both keywords for bookmarks (with %s substitution in URL) and bang searches on DDG from the address bar. I'm happy to discover this today :D

Yes, and it sends the data to ddg, but they have tons of keywords ready to use. I usually set my most used keywords directly and let ddg take care of the rest, best of both worlds.

same. yes we save a few milliseconds with every query that we perform;)

!wa Calories in a cubic lightyear of cheese

= 2.4*10^54 Cal

Interesting question: does a black hole initially formed of a cubic lightyear of cheese retain its calorific content?

I'm going to say no, because the black hole will be more dense than a neutron star, where chemical energy (and, more generally, chemistry) can't exist because protons and electrons fuse into neutrons.

The energy still exists, presumably, but claiming that's relevant would be like claiming a cheese at the top of a hill (potentially about to be rolled) has more calories.

In a previous life, I spent a lot of time backpacking, and half-jokingly made a point of stopping to eat/drink before bigger climbs. More fuel in the furnace, and less to haul up in the pack.

In that context, the cheese at the top of the hill really does have more calories or value or something along those lines.

Google's currency conversion also includes a chart:


Not seeing any passphrase generation though.

When it comes to password, you're better off using some offline tool.

Why? Because some high powered adversary is spying and decrypting all your internet traffic to find a passphrase you may or may not use in its entirety?

DDG should be fine to be trusted but you don't know what kind of code produced it.

You need to worry about where the produced password is stored, how random it is and you can't prove any of it.

Generally, you can't just decrypt your traffic... there are other attack vectors.

Our instant answers are open source. You can see the Perl used for the passphrase Goodie here: https://github.com/duckduckgo/zeroclickinfo-goodies/blob/mas...

We’re not storing these generated phrases anywhere.

> When it comes to password, you're better off using some offline tool.

It can be useful for low risk scenarios.

(Ex: setting up a new netflix passphrase to share with a new partner)

If you like DDG's bang commands, you might want to check out Riot.im - it supports autocomplete for DDG searches and bang commands (and as far as I'm aware is the only IM client to do so)

/ddg <query> to try it out

The currency conversion seems to have improved. It used to require the currency and number in a specific order with specific spaces to work. Now it works with any order and spacing.

I absolutely love those extensions. Another two I discovered by accident:



I just hope the search result quality will improve over time as right now, I still use !g for about 10% of my searches.

Those are neat but basically intercept traffic to websites that could easily do that sort of thing. Maybe a Hacker News user made a color picker as a side project. It would be monopolistic behavior when done by major companies.

Not really.

Color picker is a native element of most browsers.

Calculator is a CompSci 101 project.

If you're counting on either for traffic, you need a better business model.

On the one hand I see the issue too, but on the other hand, it is very useful, and it looks like those tools are some kind of open source collaboration:


I don't know who controls the contributions and decides what is going to be included in the final result, but so far it looks just fine to me. After all, they still present the normal search results below the tool.

Probably said HN user should just make a better color picker then. One that provides something that others don't.

It's nice to protect the little guy but in this case.. it's just too much.

> It would be monopolistic behavior when done by major companies

Right. And when done by non-monopolies, we call it "competition".

What if I made a color picker that competes with your other HN-person-color-picker? How does that work? If my color picker gets a search engine feature, am I unfairly intercepting traffic from DDG?

Google also has a calculator and a color picker. If you want to be mad at someone taking traffic that would be Google since they have 1000x the volume of ddg.

I have been using DDG on my laptop for a while, now. These are some great examples of what it can do that I never knew! Thanks for sharing. That said, I have regularly made use of !g when the results were absolutely horrid. Often, it is when I am looking for something frustratingly specific that is named frustratly generic. So while I understand DDG's results, Google (scarily) understands me and gives me exactly what I want even for those only-a-geek moments.

I have a colleague who uses DDG but they frequently have to use !g to find relevant stack-overflow answers. It's not clear whether DDG is simply ranking them lower than they ought to be or if it's just google's personalisation algorithm understanding which SO answers are relevant to our job / stack.

You can always open an incognito window to see if it's personalization affecting Googles results.

Surprisingly, I find the only substantial signal personalization uses is on your current location, and on results you have clicked before.

Search for 'pizza' for example, and the results will be all companies that are in your country, even if you search on Google.com.

Is there a way to verify that a search result set is “unpersonalized?” I wouldn’t put it past Google to be able to track you even into an incognito window.

Even the most paranoid don't think it's profitable for Google to track you through Tor, even if they've found some exploitable weakness. Try your search via Tor. Browser fingerprinting will get them little distinguishing information beyond what they get knowing you're coming from a Tor exit node.

DDG has a specific SO bang, so going via google is a clue that your colleague may be poor at basic searching and not understand the tools which they use.

That's rude and that's not it, it's the fact that google knows which SO questions are relevant.

If valid criticism is rude, we're all doomed here on HN. The parents point is valid. If you don't like it, that's fine, but rude it was not. Google doesn't know anything more than DDG, so you're just plain old wrong on that argument.

> your colleague may be poor at basic searching and not understand the tools which they use

I don't know about you, but this is pretty rude.

A babelfish for cron! It seems years too late in some ways, yet I have a funny feeling it will remain relevant for many years to come. Thank you.

For a while I committed to at least using DDG for sanitization/anonymisation of my Google searches with bangs:

  !g <query>
There is always value in trying other engines, but it's come such a long way since I've first started using it exclusively about four years ago.

How does that sanitize or anonymize? It's just a redirect, so they still get your cookies, customize, serve ads etc?

Try startpage.com to actually prevent google logging your information.

That's !s in DuckDuckGo, FWIW.

For "qr hello hn" https://www.google.de/search?q=qr+hello+hn shows the perfect result below while DDG does not have it:

> Show HN: QR codes - my mini project | Hacker News > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2378735 > Mar 28, 2011 - Hello HN! Check out and comment on one of my mini projects: http://coderqr.com. It's a website for the QR-uninitiated crowd to quickly make QR ...

The irony is that currently both google and ddg show this very thread as the top result for that search. DDG also happens to include a qr code for “hello hn”.

You can also get random GUID: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=guid&ia=answer

Yes,there was a time when results were not good enough,these days I only use google if my query isn't direct or if a I need to search for individuals(due to how little they care about privacy,searching email addresses anf names is still ideal in google)

Ddg also has 'bangs'. For example !whois looks up a whois record,!b searches it in bing and !translate translates via google translate. They havr many more :-)

That's cool, I had no idea DDG had that many 'extensions' (or whatever they call them.) Is there a complete list somewhere?

I meant the 'goodies' like the calculator.

JepZ posted this link above https://github.com/duckduckgo/zeroclickinfo-goodies/tree/mas...

How about the Instant Answers list on DuckDuckGo Community? https://duck.co/ia

It has a filter for the goodies along with other good stuff.

DDG is a most important project! But I like GCHQ Cyberchef for this kind of thing, but also the node REPL or browser tools console REPL are good. Nice to have everything in one spot versus different tools based on search input.

For those like me, who didn't know: https://gchq.github.io/CyberChef/

Im always pleasantly surprised when I do a search expecting to have to click a site to get the answer, only to have ddg show me the results(a lot of time with a nice widget)

Try to search for "duckduckgo t-shirt" ;-)

Although I want to, it's hard to justify shipping price of 17$ over t-shirt price of 10$.

The biggest problem is that once everyone switches, it will get manipulated like Google and the cycle will repeat :(

The crontab parser is a thing of beauty

Nice, very tempted to give it a try. How do you find the ddg search experience on mobile?

I switched to it on Firefox mobile, works well enough for day to day stuff IMO. And if you need to quickly do a Google search you can use the !g bang operator as a prefix and it will redirect to google.

OK, that crontab one is pretty great.

the first and the last examples don't do anything for me :/

I have recently switched to Firefox, and have been using DDG now for some time both on desktop and mobile.

In my experience Firefox + DDG is a viable alternative to Chrome + Google Search.

Occasionally I still need to go for google, but for about 98% of the time I'd say DDG is a no-op drop-in replacement for Google. I highly recommend this browser & search engine combo - DDG is great now, and Firefox is now decent again after a while in the wilderness.

Firefox also has some neat extensions like Google Container [1] that sandboxes all google cookies so you can still login to Gmail etc, but the cookies are not available for tracking elsewhere (e.g. analytics). I've recommended this add-on a lot recently - I've got no connection to it, just a satisfied user.

1 - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...

I have serious issues about DDG search results when it comes to accuracy.

For example, when I want to search for the documentation for the Ecto library in Elixir, I search for "elixir ecto" on Google:


Top result is what I want. Second result is the Github page. Third result is the wiki on Github.


This is what I get for the same search result on DDG:


Totally irrelevant results. Why isn't DDG able to deduce what I'm actually searching for?

Even when I search explicitly for "elixir ecto docs" I still don't get the results I want:


So yeah, DDG is basically unusable for me, at least for these types of use cases. I get the privacy benefits but IMO if a search engine is failing at its core job then everything else is pointless.

Yeah I mostly try to use DDG but I find that if my query has any implicit grammar (eg phrased as a question, or contains verbs) and not just independent search terms, then Google will get it and DDG won't find it at all.

Lots of !g and I don't try to use it on mobile yet.

I'm confused. When I run your DDG query, the first result is the github page, and the second result is the docs. So same top two as Google, but flipped. I find that acceptable. Maybe one of us is in some A/B bucket?

This is what I see: https://imgur.com/gallery/wMoC0IF

Both on computer and iPhone.

Here is what i get clicking on your second query. https://i.imgur.com/2ZfvuDh.png

I expanded the boxes in the top right, but it seems clear it gives the "correct" results for me.

I wonder why the results are so different.

Very interesting. I see almost what bgaluszka sees, but the first two results flipped. I know they basically blend a couple search engine's results together, so they must experiment with different combinations.

This is the reason I've somewhat recently switched to Searx - I've not had to run any !g searches, as I did when I was using DDG, but my privacy remains intact.

"elixir ecto" on a public Searx instance: https://www.searx.me/?q=elixir%20ecto

Exact same reason here, I kept getting irrelevant searches on DDG while getting better hits on Google or even Bing. So !g and !b kept occuring...

Searx is much more liberating, I can do searches multiple searches in one - and also do code search on github, gitlab etc.

This is where !g comes in handy. In my experience how you search ddg is a bit different from how you search google and it may require some time to get used to but for me what ddg offers is far more interesting than what google does e.g. consistent results, privacy, ability to forward my search request to other search engines.

There's also !s, which will search using startpage -- all of the google results and none of the google creepiness.

Consistency? Another commenter (greysonp) says he got different results with my query.

How is that “consistent”?

I see the same thing as the other two posters so I'm very curious as to why you get what you get.

I tried the query several times and got a few slightly different results, at one point getting something similar (but not identical) to enraged_camel's results. Most of the time it shows me what everyone else is reporting, but "consistent" might not be a good description here.

That is interesting, although I seem to be getting the same result as him (I've replied to your other comment).

> In my experience Firefox + DDG is a viable alternative to Chrome + Google Search.

Yup, Firefox is better than Chrome (especially with tree style tabs on the side) and DDG isn't really as good as Google so, when you average things out, these are comparable combinations.

I don't think they do.

I'd rather use a bad browser and find what I need on Google, than use a good browser and get sub-par search results.

I used to think that.

However on a search engine like DDG I now search without worrying of being tracked.

For example I’m researching obesity and diabetes. Do I want Google to know that? Do I want them to infer my potential illnesses from my searches? Hell no and I don’t care how good their search results are.

In my experience DDG is poor when the query is vague. But adding a word or two to make the query more specific helps DDG give results that are as good or better. You eventually get used to it.

Also fun fact but I deleted my entire history from my Google account, going back 15 years or so. Immediately afterwards Google’ search started giving me visibly worse search results.

So Google is being smart by doing your profile based on your history. That seems great at first but when you realize they’ve got more than a decade of data on you and that they know every problem you’ve had (like in my case, they know that my son was born prematurely for example, or that I used to smoke and many other personal issues I can’t share), it should freak you out.

People not worrying about this are either very young and thus don’t have baggage or haven’t thought this through.

The results aren't all that sub-par. For technical questions specifically, they're actually (anecdotally) much better. And the favicons besides the results are a godsend. The only thing I use Google for these days is when looking for something like a company in my area. Because of all its knowledge, Google knows I probably want the "Radio City" in my country, not the one from Toronto or whatever. But those cases are rare predictable, so I prefix it with !gsi without even thinking about it.

I have a very serious question about privacy that I dont want to be judged for.

Should I switch if I do nothing wrong? I stopped downloading illegal videos and my porn is tame.

What bad things can google do to me if I'm a user that doesnt care about privacy for myself?

I think there are a ton of very well-spoken arguments for why everyone, yes even those who "do nothing wrong," should care about privacy, and I would encourage you to look at those. Mostly because the people who publicly speak about this are much more eloquent than I, and have thought much more on the topic.

That said, I think it boils down to this: we all want privacy, but digital privacy is a hard problem because we are not "wired" to understand it. Humans are not good at interacting with systems with perfect memory, huge computational power, and extremely insightful statistical modeling capabilities.

This affects us differently than interacting with a person. Now, a machine can categorize you automatically based on political beliefs, religious beliefs, friend networks, conversational style, etc. This can be used to target you for (arguably unethical) influence via surgically targeted propaganda, or to retroactively mark you as a dissident in a tyrannical regime based on a comment you made off-hand years before the regime took power.

Left unchecked, these invasive tracking systems could be used for a myriad of unethical purposes. And even if you "do nothing wrong," it's important to remember that in most legal systems, it's very difficult to lead a normal life and never break any laws. Add to that the very, very long records these systems are capable of keeping on you, and I think it's clear why many people, myself included, wish to minimize our presence on platforms such as Google.

I think, especially with regards to your opening paragraph, that some references would’ve been great here. Anything in particular you could point to?

I think it’s worth while, even just to prevent our privacy from continuing to erode.

Also, who knows what changes in the future? Maybe something you do online today seems harmless but gets you in trouble in 20+ years.

Some people do have things they want to keep private. If only those people care about privacy, then they eventually stick out like a sore thumb and that’s not fair. It’s not always bad or malicious. Diseases, traumatic experiences, conditions, things you should be able to get help with or information on without Google or some other company profiling you.

> Should I switch if I do nothing wrong?

Who decides if you do nothing wrong? Think about that seriously - who decides what is right and wrong?

Also - if those 'powers that be' decide you have done nothing wrong now, what about in perpetuity? What if in 5 or 20 years who or what you are itself is simply deemed wrong?

These arguments aren't fictional. Being gay and Jewish are just two unchangeable traits that have seen persecution in living memory. Let alone countless others.

Perhaps the Rohingya would be a very recent example.

Be cautious that your own sense of 'right and wrong' in the here and now doesn't cloud the reality that you are beholden to those with actual power to agree with your behaviours and traits - and that those powers can (and will) change over time.

Would you feel comfortable posting your last 100 searches here? What about on a list next to your front door?

Even though you are "not doing anything wrong", perhaps you did a search on that funny looking rash you noticed the other day, or that trivial programming question you needed to look up the answer to.

For me, it is about keeping control of my information. And the best way to control it, is for it not to be collected.

Privacy is not secrecy.

You might want to search for a new job without it influencing searches that may be visible to a current employer.

You may want to search for health topics without it becoming associated at life insurers on the ad network.

You may want your teens to be able to search bullying and sexuality without Facebook or Google tagging those to their profiles, in perpetuity, or worse advertising and retargeting the topics to them.

> Should I switch if I do nothing wrong? I stopped downloading illegal videos and my porn is tame.

Do you still close the bathroom door, even if you are not doing anything wrong in there?

That's privacy.

For me it's mostly that the ads are getting too good. Like, I look at raincoats on some site, then that site's raincoat ads follow me around for the next two weeks. I'm trying to be frugal and not buy more stuff that I don't need, but the ads actually get to me after a while. Adblock helps, but sometimes I have to turn it off for my work (web development).

Should I care about free speech if I have nothing controversial to say?

I find this to be the most compelling argument, because it cleanly positions privacy advocacy as a charitable rather than selfish act.

I believe that individual privacy as a social norm is a prerequisite to free speech, that free speech is a prerequisite to democracy, and that democracy is a prerequisite to fairness in the world.

Advocating for your own privacy is worthwhile if only to provide herd immunity for others less privileged than you, and to send a message about how you wish others would act; to demonstrate popular demand, and to lead by example.

Google has no business keeping a record of each and every one of your searches, tied to your account, but they do it anyway, and they are increasing the tracking by combining the gmail and browser login.

You may start searching for divorce lawyers at some point, and your spouse might stumble upon that.

These search histories could also be obtained with a subpoena, for reasons totally unrelated to you.

Chrome can no longer be safely used to login to google sites. Just because you don't care about privacy now doesn't mean that you won't later.

Do you lock your doors at night? Use curtains or shades on your windows?

Even if you do nothing wrong, would allow streaming cameras and hot mics in your house? How about leaving the door open to allow anyone on Earth to freely enter/exit your property?

Would you want an advertiser to recommend your porn to your love interests? Coworkers? "Popular in your social circle: bukkake MILFs!" We're not quite there yet, but we're close.

If I could guarantee you that I wouldn't send anything, would you agree to give me, a stranger, your email password?

They're still collecting that data regardless. I would rather use DDG for that purpose alone.

I have a very similar experience. Switched to using Nightly with DDG, and I'm in IT so I search quite frequently. The browser is super fast, and container tabs are amazing. I'm able to find nearly everything I need, and only use Google as a last resort.

I like being able to contribute to a good project (by using Nightly I believe you submit some telemetry, a small contribution).

Regarding that add-on, I've become a huge fan of this:


The concept is: create additional Named containers, and assign domains to always load in X named container

I've been using DuckDuckGo for more than a year now and barely use other search engines. It's the default on all the devices that I use.

I am so happy to be a user and be part of their growth as well.

The only thing that could improve it would be searches in other languages, I still don't get a good result when I search in other languages such as Russian, Persian, Arabic, etc..

Thank you DuckDuckGo for the great service <3

Same, very happy using DDG. I hope they're becoming profitable.

The one thing that I have to go back to Google for is when I want to search just one specific site (usually Stack Overflow, I guess). Google has the `site:example.com` feature. I don't think that's possible with DDG.

EDIT: Apparently it does work! Thanks, I'm pretty sure it didn't when I started using DDG. Maybe I'm just an idiot.

!so searches stack overflow, !im images, !g google, !w wikipedia etc. Take a look at bangs: https://duckduckgo.com/bang there's thousands of them.

For me, bangs are the actual killer feature. Because when I set DDG as my default search engine in my browser, I get to use bangs at the address bar.

So for example rather than having to use Wikipedia's or Stack Overflow's search bar to find something, it's just Ctrl+t and "!w <term>" or "!gi <term>".

On Windows this is quite 50-50 -- you're likely holding the mouse anyway. On Unix machines with more keyboard-oriented UI, with say a tiling WM, things like bangs at browser address bar are a godsent. Of course it is nice on mobile too -- direct queries rather than hoppping around using clumsy touchscreen.

There are likely browser extensions for this though, but none of them set DDG as their default search engine -- so just doing that manually also gives you the bangs so in my book DDG wins here ;)

Firefox lets you set up search keywords, which to match the same thing. They used to be hidden away, but more recently they’ve got promoted a bit and are quite easy to set up.

Firefox search keywords are awesome! They can be much shorter than bangs because there's no need to avoid name conflicts with thousands of sites you aren't using. Plus, no exclamation mark, and you can use them for sites at work which aren't publicly visible.

I don't get it, I've been using the native equivalent "forever", aka keywords, you just get to set your own, and don't need to use ! (but you can't put them at the end, which has utility on DDG).

That's a good point, thanks for reminding me about bangs. The one issue with them is that they're assigned by DDG (i.e., not free-form). (I don't think there was one for Stack when I started using DDG, and I never thought to check back.)

Such a good feature!

> Same, very happy using DDG. I hope they're becoming profitable.

It's my understanding they are profitable, a large chunk being things like Amazon referrals (nontrackable).

They may not have as many users but they also have much lower overhead since they don't need vast teams of engineers working on new ways of slicing and dicing data.

It does in fact support "site:xyz.com" queries, and displays a UI reminder that you're limiting results to that domain

Nice, thank you! Either I am an idiot (entirely possible), or this was added at some point and I never re-tried.

It's true, English language results are good enough for me but I have to switch to Google when I want to search for something specifically in French.

I’ve also been all-in on DuckDuckGo for over a year now. I feel like it always gives me good results. I only speak English, but better support for other languages would be fantastic for those who can benefit from it.

I mainly search in English as well, but when trying to find local news, books or part of a song lyrics in different language it doesn't perform as other search engines would perform.

So, I set Firefox to use DDG rather than Google as its default search engine a little while ago. And, reading this discussion, I realised that I'd like to see a complete list of "bang" searches DDG knows how to do.

Putting "duckduckgo bang" into DDG itself produces results that are ... not helpful. At any rate, nothing on the first page looks like it has any chance of answering the question.

But "!g duckduckgo bang" gives me https://duckduckgo.com/bang as the first hit (this is a high-level description of the bang feature), followed by https://duckduckgo.com/bang_lite.html (which has the actual complete list right there), followed by someone's list of the 25 allegedly-most-useful DDG bangs. Most of the rest of the first-page hits are also informative -- they're things like Reddit and HN discussions of the bang features.

I think this is actually the clearest case I've seen since switching to DDG where Google had demonstrably more useful results. Which is kinda ironic.

I've asked that query. DDG showed a gray panel at the very top of the resut page, saying "Search thousands of sites directly from DuckDuckGo. Learn more about !bangs (or submit a new one!)"

Huh. It's there for me too, now I actually look. I guess I've learned to ignore banner-shaped things at the top of web pages.

[EDITED to add:] Actually, I seem to get it for "duckduckgo bangs" and for "bang duckduckgo" but not for "duckduckgo bang". But I'm not sure it's consistent from one search to the next. Anyway, I think the reason I didn't see it before is that it wasn't there, not that I'm banner-blind.

I actually do get it for "duckduckgo bang". Maybe they're hotfixing it, or maybe some self-learning algorithm decided that this was close enough to "duckduckgo bangs"? Shooting in the dark here.

Wow looking at that bang list (which is ridiculously huge) I finally understand why ddg is superior to google.

Google is doing it's best to take all the knobs and dials away making you reliant on it guessing your intention correctly. Which is pushing us into a monoculture (the ignoring of important keywords is getting more egregious)..

Anyway ddg is doing the complete opposite, I feel like I can actually find anything if I use it properly (but like with any other tool you need to learn how). I have it set as the default on some my machines but it's clear I haven't been using even half of it's potential.

I'm baffled, that's a list of thousands keywords that you won't ever be able to learn nor revisit to find what's new, and it makes you think it makes ddg superior to another product? What if it were 100 times longer, would it make it even more compelling?

Looking at the list makes me think that parsing of simple sentences is the way to go (like "translate xyz from swedish to russian") or the site:someurl filter from Google, not having a keyword per site or per language

The point of bangs is to make searching your favorite website really fast and easy. Find your favorite website/search and remember the bang for that, and you can search it from DDG with very few keystrokes (the biggies have fewer letters, so bangs end up roughly Huffman coded).

But you can also use site:wikipedia.org syntax in DDG to search any particular website, just like in Google.

So don't criticize bangs for not being good at everything "site:" allows you to do, they're different tools; use the right tool for the job. DDG gives you many of the same tools that Google gives, but adds many other tools.

And DDG has shown willingness to add more tools; just find/remember the (small) subset of these that helps you out, and someone else can find/remember those tools that help them out, and you each have good user experiences.

!bang is more helpful I think

!bang hacker news

!bang stack exchange

!bang hoogle


I wish this had better branding. You can't say "just DuckDuckGo it". It has to have a single, or at most a double-syllable name that is easy to remember. Like Google or Bing.

But maybe it's part of some sort of strategy where in the early years the branding is weird in order to gain notoriety, and then change it when the timing is right.

I think right now this is probably slowing growth. I wonder how much would duck.com cost.

I wonder if we can’t just all move toward “search”. It’s usually obvious from context, and with more and more search engines (whether they be whole-web or isolated to a given social network), it seems like a viable alternative.

I'd rephrase that as moving back toward search.

Google wasn't always there, and even after it became popular, some time passed before the name was used as a verb.

Personally, I Ask Jeeves to Lycos it.

People get creative if they want to. I can imagine people saying just duck it. Or "see if you can find a quack." (ok that one probably not)

Point being, if it really gets wildly popular it still might be translated into a verb.

“Just search it – and use duckduckgo”

Maybe we should separate the ideas of the search space (the web) and our access to it (the search engine). The destinations will exist whether google or whoever points to them or not. By making that distinction more obvious it might encourage people, when selecting their search tool, to consider the effect of corporate bias on search results.

“Just duck it“?

"let me just duck that for you"

I'm in!

- Can you duck it for me? - Go duck yourself!

Waddle it

i personally think it would be best to get away from having to have a verb that matches the search engine name.

there are quite a few search options out there these days so telling someone they should specifically search with X when their favourite is Y is being a bit too pushy for my liking. (i still mention ddg sometimes if i think they are using google or something similar)

the other thing is that DuckDuckGo might not always be around or might not always be the best. some new shiney search engine might come along in a few years that is miles better but then everyone would have to start using a different verb when they were only just getting the hang of the last one.

with the old reliable "look it up" or "search for it" you dont have to worry about these problems.

and anyway, did google become the best search engine because it had a good noun or was it because of other reasons? i would personally just like to see DuckDuckGo just focus on making the best search engine they can. that way we wont have to rely on a noun being the only thing stopping it from succeeding. if its one the best people will find it regardless

Duck.com is owned by google. No amount of money would be able to obtain that domain for a competing search engine

Agreed. Duck.com redirects to on2.com which, surprisingly, links to DuckDuckGo.

> If you meant to visit the search engine DuckDuckGo, click here.

I wouldn't have expected that from Google.

I do find it interesting that duck.com contains a link to DuckDuckGo.

"duck it" works great.

'let me duck that for you'

Sounds right.

It's hard to get attention of average people with a weird name like that and the logo. Not to mention the abbreviation even feels longer to say than Google fully.

This is the shorter one ddg.gg

Why not "Just F-king Duck it."

Just DDG it

Pronounced dudge it when spoken, not typed.

A really underrated feature of DuckDuckGo is the number/quality of search cards[0]. A lot of Google's search cards just kind of pull from whatever the top result is -- but DuckDuckGo's all have specific algorithms which makes them more predictable.

With Google, I have to take an extra second to think about why they're showing an answer at the top. But if DuckDuckGo inlines an answer from StackOverflow, I know what the algorithm is --> Get top-rated StackOverflow result, get highest rated answer, inline the first X paragraphs, give a button to expand.

I still occasionally use !g for some searches if I strike out finding answers on DuckDuckGo, but I'm at the point where I generally prefer DuckDuckGo's answers. It's really tough to explain what's different about them, it feels like DuckDuckGo has a different "style" of search results or something. Even when I'm using Google, I usually have DuckDuckGo open next to it, because Google and DuckDuckGo feel like they cover different ground.

It's just that by default, the ground that DuckDuckGo is covering feels more relevant for just very quickly getting information and then getting out (especially with the better search cards).

[0]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=javascript+char+codes&t=canonical&...

> I know what the algorithm is --> Get top-rated StackOverflow result, get highest rated answer, inline the first X paragraphs, give a button to expand.

Google couldn't do that due to past court decisions about the maximum they can show being 'snippet length' without getting further into disputed copyright territory.

I expect they're working on AI tech which can read the whole web and directly answer your questions rather than having to use an extract of a webpage at all.

> I expect they're working on AI tech

But that's exactly the problem. Google already will try to auto-answer some questions that you ask. But the way they do it is completely opaque.

So I have no idea a) when they'll suggest an answer, and b) why they'll suggest an answer.

When I see an answer on DuckDuckGo, it's consistent. I immediately know how much trust to put into it. I don't have to look for the source and try to figure out where it sits on that scale. What's even better is that over time with DuckDuckGo, I get better at phrasing queries in a way that I know an instant answer will pop up. With Google, because they probably already use a bunch of weird AI in the background, I have never been able to predict whether or not a query will pop up a card, so I can't actually rely on getting an answer quickly in advance.

These are tiny things that shave time off of my searches. I often use DuckDuckGo's StackOverflow cards as language references -- to be able to say, "hey, jog my memory with a really quick example of this syntax."[0][1] I want to know details like the source of that answer before I search it.

AI tech will never be as good as having a consistent algorithm for this -- because even if it got to be as good as a person going out and looking up the answers for me, a person is never going to be as good as a consistent algorithm. This is what people don't understand about natural language interpretation -- they think that there's some theoretical end-point where a computer will be as good at interpreting commands as a human is. But they forget that giving a human commands is already slower and less reliable than giving a computer commands. Having a digital assistant be ridged and predictable is a strength, not a weakness.

[0]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=js+send+a+network+request&t=canoni...

[1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=stackoverflow+linux+find+filename&...

> I expect they're working on AI tech which can read the whole web and directly answer your questions rather than having to use an extract of a webpage at all.


I've also found that DuckDuckGo's search cards are just more reliably correct.

An example I ran into a few days ago: As it turns out there are two "Brent Lee's" in music. This one [0] and this one [1]. If you search Brent Lee on duckduckgo you get the first in the card. If you search Brent Lee on google you get a card that appears to be about one person but includes a mix of information about the first and the second.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Lee

[1] http://www.brentleemusic.com/

DDG, if you're reading this:

I want to make the switch.

But typing "!g" when a search does not return what I want is too clumsy. It requires 7 touch-events on mobile (including focus and space).

Please make that simpler, and I will switch.

(My suggestion would be to have a "!g" button at the bottom of the search results. Perhaps make it optional, depending on user-settings; I don't mind a cookie for just that.)

>typing "!g" when a search does not return what I want is too clumsy. It requires 7 touch-events on mobile (including focus and space).

Part of the issue is you search differently with Google. Most users treat their keywords as circles in a venn diagram - the top result being the center.

Try being a little more explicit with DDG. Add the year a movie came out, the first and last name of a person + their title if it's a common name, things like that.

Also an aside, "!s" routes through startpage, which proxies a google search for you - much more private but still leveraging the Pagerank algorithm.

What you describe is a clear regression to pre-Google days where searching was kind of dark art. DDG really needs to improve its usability and try prioritize the most relevant results without specifying extra keywords. Yes, it is impossible to be level with Google in this game. But DDG can surely do much better than now, without any intrusive tracking. E.g. when I search a restaurant by its name from an IP address in Europe, why do I get results with restaurants in the USA? Or when I search for a name from a university IP address, why instead of the researcher with that name I get the name of a second rate sportsman?

Searching Google is the real dark art these days, especially if you don't use personalized results. I am constantly frustrated by Google straight up ignoring my most important search terms.

At least with DuckDuckGo I know that it's searching for what I told it to, rather than searching for something easier to find, which seems similar to a machine, but completely different to me.

What annoys me with DDG is that it treats a list of words as logical OR; the help page states that

Dog Cat

Will return results for Dog OR Cat

To force to AND one has to quote every word, thus:

"Dog" "Cat"

Which is tedious especially on mobile.

I don't know why they think people would want to default to OR.

> I am constantly frustrated by Google straight up ignoring my most important search terms.

However, on Google you do get an identifier next to the result that shows whether your term is missing from the page or not which allows for weeding out "unrelated" results relatively quickly. It also has the "must include" link so that you can narrow your searches without having to retype the query.

Doing the same search on DDG just shows some results but it's not clear whether my specific terms are on the page or not.

Same here. I often have to switch to "verbatim" results. I hate their too clever "we guessed what you're really searching for! here you go!" results...

Not analyzing IP addresses to deliver more relevant results seems pretty aligned with that whole "respecting your privacy is our main selling point". I gladly add another word to my queries if that keeps DDG from taking a step towards where google is today.

A couple of months back, everybody went ballistic when the EU GDPR declared IP addresses as "personal data". Can't recall any posts/articles that were actually defending this GDPR provision—if you can point us to one, I'd love to read the counter-arguments.

So I believe that there is a consensus that using IP addresses to improve search results would be fair game for DDG. It's also consistent with the DDG promise: "we don't track you".

OTOH, not using them has only marginal effect on user's privacy: (a) DDG doesn't serve ads anyway, and (b) the metadata of user's online activity are still available to three-letter agencies to analyze.

as long as they aren't being stored, it shouldn't matter. You could just read user's IP, use that to filter results, then throw it away

Also IP by itself isn't really that much of a privacy problem. It only becomes a problem when it's used in the process of delinkage of more sensitive information

It's better if the engine does analyze IP to bring relevant information but not keep it related to search history for later analysis.

Bringing all the result pretending everyone lives in US sounds like a crappy strategy.

Also consistency is to be valued. Example: if I say to someone else over the phone to search for "X", then I usually want them to see the exact same search results as I do.

True. As other users noted, when using DDG you have to be more specific simply because DDG doesn't have as much information about you as Google has.

But ... this also means that a DDG search would work well on Google. So a revert-to-Google button could help people make the transition. I suppose that people will become more and more specific in their queries until at some point they never need to hit that "!g" button anymore.

I find that DDG has as good as Google results, but it "speaks" differently. I was with you, but the more I use DDG the more I find my queries adapting to DDGs style. Now when I end up using Google, by accident on other people's devices, I get bad results because now I am used to searching in a DDG way and not a Google way.

This is interesting, can you expand at all? I have a similar sense, but can't really articulate the difference.

Not the person you replied to, but: Google invests tremendous wealth into guessing what you mean based on what it knows about you and what it knows in general. That's how you can type in a generic word that's also the title of 300 different movies, books, and TV shows, and still get exactly what you expected (usually).

DuckDuckGo is Google before it started down this path. You have to be specific. The more words you provide, the smaller the set of possible answers, and the more likely your answer is at the top.

Google, these days, tends to report the same number of results no matter how specific you get. It used to get smaller the more words you put in. It's a philosophical difference. Google assumes you only have a vague idea of what you're looking for and is increasingly confident it knows best.

DuckDuckGo starts with the same assumption, but trusts you to refine your own query without the help of a global network of patterns acting on data. That doesn't work too well on Google now. You're just as likely to trigger an anti-bot check refining queries as you are to find what you're looking for.

It's for this very reason that I find google annoying when searching for programming solutions - if I'm switching between languages often, it "learns" that I'm focusing on C# problems and always bubbles those to the top, even though I may have been looking for a Typescript solution.

DDG is far from perfect in this case, but at least you can refine the search per website without having to add a keyword to the search. By the way try doing some search for programming languages that choose a poor name for a bit of a laugh (I am looking at you Rust and Go).

I am developing https://jivesearch.com/, which is basically an open source version of DDG. We've got that right underneath the search results. Defaults to !g, !b, !a, and !yt but you can change it to whatever !bangs you want by passing in the b url parameter (eg "https://jivesearch.com/?q=bob+marley&b=w"). Would love your feedback!

Looks nice! But ... the "!ddg" button is missing ;)

Fair point. I just added it. I noticed they don't have a Jive Search !bang ;).

Why make it Google-specific? What if DDG could suggest from a range of other search engines that might give you better results based on the nature of your query?

Having buttons for "try this search on [Google] [Yandex]" could be useful data to collect for improving the search results.

Yes, however Google's results would be different for everyone, based on what Google knows about you.

Because you want to make the transition easy.

Some sort of a setting for displaying 3-5 frequently used bangs below the search bar would be nice.

Not to try and derail the conversation, but "!sp" uses startpage, a proxy that searches google on your behalf so google doesn't get to track you.

I think there should a be a set of customer configurable (!!! Please no automatic assignment based on ML) buttons that add desired bangs to a search.

I've been using DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine for almost a year now. I still need to resort to !g for about 1/3 of my queries, which is less than it used to be, so the quality is definitely improving.

One weird thing that I noticed is that every so often when I'm in a Google SERP (e.g. in a friend's phone) and I'm not fully satisfied with the results, I add in !g, only to realize that makes no sense. So I wonder if there's a subset of queries that DDG produces better results for, or if Google's search quality is declining.

If anyone from DDG is reading this: Please add the ability to (voluntarily) personalize search results via a cookie, just like you do for the interface theme. Something like "Programming Language: JavaScript". That way ambiguous queries (e.g "array reverse") can be associated with the specific context without having to type it every time (e.g. "array reverse js")

DDG cannot provide personalized results, because the service they are using to get results (from Bing) does not provide that feature.

That's not necessarily true. They could use a classifier to figure out the subject of the query (e.g. programming, cooking, travel) and then modify the query sent to Bing or whatever backend they use. Bonus points if they actually expose this on the UI, in a way that allows you to remove the personalization

"array reverse [JavaScript x]"

"camping sites [Near Lake Tahoe x]"

That's not personalization, that's query classification. Of course Bing already does this.

What is the personal, private information they could be monitoring for, that would allow them to rewrite better than Bing ?

They wouldn't be monitoring. You'd explicitly tell them what personalizations you want, and that would be stored in your machine via a cookie that you can delete at will (just like the color scheme/font)

It could either be a power user setting hidden away (like color scheme currently is), or it could be exposed on the SERP interface via a prompt: "Set JavaScript as your default programming language?" "Set vegan as your default diet?" etc

They already do something like this because if you search "array reverse" or any programming question then you get a Q/A tab with stackoverflow almost always at the top.

That's what blekko did with slashtags, and you have to have your own index to do a good job of evaluating those queries.

DDG is not a standalone service?

No. These are Bing results.

I do agree with the comment on needing a way to specify a topic, however, in my experience of 4-5 years on DDG, I have nothing but grief with Google search. It tries too much to guess what I am looking for on the internet and ends up being unhelpful and frustrating.

I use DDG on my phone, still Google on my desktop.

While there are a lot of things to like about DDG, the searches are still pretty rubbish.

What's worst about DDG is that it is absolutely useless at location searches.

The one that really bugs me is "Nottingham Weather". Location set to UK, yet it returns the weather for White March, MD

Nottingham, population 700,000, but somehow a road in White Marsh, MD, America, population 9,513, is the result it shows.

If I'm searching a venue, pub, club, etc. with United Kingdom set, it usually returns US bars or venues with the same name.

Anything technical Google is also much better at filtering the dross and returning something meaningful, though that might be because it's learnt the programming languages, etc. I use.

The UK location came up first for me. Have you tried it recently?

Yes, do you have quick answers turned off?

I was just using the default mode. I've only used ddg once, so I should have no settings.

Alright, I'm going to give it another go. Tried a few years back and ended up !g to the end of almost every search

I liked all the other functionality a lot, but the results themselves just didn't work for me.

I find that duckduckgo is more easily tricked by SEO compared to google when it comes to long searches. Other than that I use it exclusively. After a few months of use I've gotten to a point that I subconsciously know which searches will need a g! before I even search them( I've confirmed this multiple times as well).

I've noticed recently that there are already sites trying to game DDG and their results show up among first for some obscure searches, but nowhere else. I guess that's price for popularity.

Its a sign that DDG's search traffic has value, which is a great change from just a few years ago.

I tried to use DuckDuckGo, but even still I feel its results are not up to par with Google, despite Google's results sliding in quality year after year. Qwant has been a decent supplement, the results for general queries are good and on the more specific ones (part numbers, key terms from papers and articles) its equal to or better than Yahoo/Bing.

On specific queries, Google has really dropped the ball. Part numbers get ignored or rewritten, and results are just plain missing (despite other search engines having those key results).

You could write a very helpful blog post about this.

You think? Maybe I should look into how to make a blog since it has been in my mind for a long time but I'm not into the IT industry in any extend so I don't know how to do it. I'll keep tabs on my searches for a few days to see what I actually search with google or duckduckgo.

Can you give a few examples of those?

The last one I can find from my history is this:

I was looking for a company developing intraocular lenses that are better than a healthy human one but I couldn't remember the company's name. My search was

artificial lenses better than human

Google gave me the company name on it's 3rd result description but duckduckgo gave me irrelevant stuff all the way down. That was yesterday. Today duckduckgo gives me the company name on the description of the second result. So it's pretty volatile I guess.

Why does google allow !g? They are competitors after all?

Edit, ok, I see it redirects the user to Google.com

This isn't really any different than StartPage. What I find a good search-flow is that instead of doing a !g [search] I just use !sp [search], instead. That way you don't land on Google for the search at all but you get the entire list of results and StartPage has a better stance on privacy.

Regarding DDG on general, I've been using it exclusively as my first search provider and it has ramped in quality searches at a nice clip. I find myself bouncing through to the above search-flow less and less over time and I'm now in the process of deGoogling other things.

Keep donating to those privacy focused services where you can! DDG is a prime example of showing how these services can exist without an agenda, other than customer oriented features.

> Keep donating to those privacy focused services where you can!

As good a moment as any to publicly express gratitude to the donations DDG has provide to us (Terms of Service; Didn't Read) and several other privacy-focused projects, which has been of great help.

Because it's traffic they can serve ads to. Why wouldn't they? It's 100% win for them. They're getting someone who is dissatisfied with another search engine to try and win them over

It's a win, but not a wash, because they cannot serve highly targeted ads, which means they probably can't charge as much and people are less likely to click on.

Try to create a separate google account, use browser profiles, and this particular account only for searches in a specialized field (say CS, IT etc...). Than start looking at the ads you're getting. Google can't do that if the request comes from ddg.

Lack of certain information is a valuable data point. Privacy-conscious searchers are served by many small but profitable niche industries.

It doesn't proxy the request to google, it issues a redirect to google and your browser does the request, with all its cookies.

So what's the point of using ddg instead of google if you do this?

It's just a quick way for the user to also try Google. I usually do search in DDG (default search) if I don't get good results I append !g to get results. Most often though Google doesn't give me much better results.

Well, it just redirects you to google, so google can serve you ads etc

A better question is why they allow startpage.com (a.k.a. !s). I think at this point, fighting scrapers is just not worth it. But I predict one day someone is going to write a client-side desktop app that scrapes all this stuff and presents it AOL-style, it'll get popular, and all the sites will freak.

All of the bang commands are probably a great way for them to get feedback on what they're not giving good results from. Very targeted training data.

One thing that helped me: switch to the "Basic" theme, which makes the search results look like Google's. It's remarkable how much can make the same results seem better. I spent a while with this theme when first switching, and it helped me realize just how much I'd mentally associated "good results" with "looks like Google results".

They have improved a lot over the past couple of years, I use it as my engine of choice these days. For really obscure problems, the results on Google are still better, but about 99 percent of time, DuckDuckGo is en par with Google by now.


I use https://www.startpage.com/ as fallback when duckduckgo fails, because it gives the same results as Google. You can use searchstring !sp in Duckduckgo, to switch to Startpage.

...and you can use Bing as a backup to DuckDuckGo, because there is a search provider agreement in place with Microsoft.

The results between Bing and DuckDuckGo are usually identical, but I haven't checked in a few months. I wonder if the metacharacters work the same on both sites.

It's also nice that Startpage finally stopped blocking Tor browser. I use it much more now.

I changed my default from Google Search to DDG in February. Surprised by how little I’ve noticed the change, after nearly 20 years using Google.

It feels more like the old Google that wasn’t stuffed with ads, and I find it superior for programming queries (aside from Angular 2+ docs).

I still type in google.com and perform queries there a few times a week. I also turn to Google Images for copyleft photos, as DDG doesn’t seem to support filtering by license yet.

I'm really amazed by the adoption of DDG by HN crowd. It's totally unusable for me. I can barely find stuff and I have to resort to google in 95% of cases. Do I have to relearn how to goo.. scratch that, duck duck go stuff?

Do I have to relearn how to goo..

Sort of, yes. See other comments around here as well. It's like Google without the backend which knows your habits and bubble and tries to be smart (and succeeds, often) and figures out what you want to search for despite you being a bit vague. DDG doesn't do that so, like in the old days, you have to be specific. Like if you talk to a person and ask a question: you also don't ask 'pasta?'. You ask 'where can I buy pasta' for instance.

I am with you on this. I find DDG completely unusable. The kinds of things that I search for are generally daily or weekly recent items and DDG never gets this stuff indexed quickly enough. Not even from the largest papers.

I am sure it’s fine for more evergreen content like SO, but for current news it’s awful.

I am with you on this. I find DDG completely unusable

Ha but my point was just to explain how it works. I've been using DDG for years and find it extremely usable :)

It's been at least a year since I gave it a serious go, but despite being onboard with the effort I just ended up adding !g to every search and wasn't feeling idealistic enough about search to do that.

It has improved (UX-wise at least), I've used it occasionally, hope it's also getting better with search -- Google is certainly getting much worse.

I think where Google really shines (in addition to its personalized results) is tackling _vague_ searches with ease.

The other day, I couldn't remember what the title of a food-y documentary show I had watched on Netflix was - so I googled "netflix food show asian host." It's the first result on Google and a direct link to its Netflix page (as opposed to a blog or something). On DuckDuckGo, it's not listed at all. There's definitely room for improvement.

While 20m searches per day is impressive in a vacuum, it's more or less a rounding error on Google's numbers.

I've tried it, and wasn't pleased with search results. I'd consistently try vague searches, not find it on DDG, but it'd be the top result on Google.

I'll give it another swing, we need some viable alternatives.

https://jivesearch.com/. I run it and made an update this week that greatly improved our search results. 100% open source, has all the !bangs and tons of instant answers.

I've switched all my devices to ddg and Firefox. Automatically logging me into Chrome was just emotionally too much, even if it did not send a single extra bit to Google.

I miss the summary responses at the top of search results because they made Google much more of a reference. For example, defining words, quick view of Wikipedia results, etc.

I do still use maps, for now.

On the maps side of things, !osm searches open street map, which is not perfect but decent enough for many cases.

(Satellite data + reviews are lacking, but if you're like me and look up cities you see named in the news it gets the job done)

it gets the job done

and for usage like you mention it's also way faster than !gm

Ddg has a tab for meanings that works similar, it's one more click but I don't know in which conditions it appears. They also show Wikipedia entries on the side with links to both Wikipedia and the official site when there's one which is quite convenient.

Thanks, it does seem to show up sometimes but maybe I'm just so used to seeing it in Google that I notice when it's absent.

Ditto. I need a Blink engine browser for work though, so I ended up switching to Vivaldi for work needs and I don't know why I didn't switch before this sign in fiasco...

I think it's absolutely fascinating how different people's opinions of DDG are.

Personally I find it perfectly adequate and I literally never resort to searching on Google.

Lots of people in this thread agree, but lots of others totally disagree.

What is so different about different people's search habits that make it good enough for some but not for otherS?

+1. It's overall adequate for the average query but it falls completely flat too often where a similar Google search returns exactly what you're looking for.

Still use google for “150 usd to cad” conversions. Use it for translation. Use it for relevant news. Use it for accurate localized searches. Use it for finding relevant sourcing of companies. Calling DuckDuckGo a replacement of google is no where near right. Bing is more relevant. And people seem to hate on Bing. The only reason people love DuckDuckGo is because of the perceived privacy. But the NSA blows that right away.

It’s also far slower to resolve queries and returning information. Doesn’t work without JavaScript. Needs !g for a lot of things. Wish it could be a google replacement but traffic or not. It ain’t.

> 150 usd to cad

Works in DDG :-)

Never seen it work on mobile. Just tested it on Pc and it does work.

Works (for me) on mobile and I used it frequently in last couple of months. Firefox for android with ddg set as default search engine.

> But the NSA blows that right away.

Can you elaborate on this?

The servers used to return your results most likely made with intel hardware (known backdoors or open holes). Sophisticated, even mind blowing levels of encryption breaking and penetration. If you think your data is encrypted online, or that it can’t be traced at every step. You’re wrong. There is no privacy on the internet. The best privacy we all have is the power button.

Then you walk outside and facial recognition takes over.

Privacy is dead.

I don't get this kind of reasoning.

Google isn't the NSA. Even if the NSA see everything, they still see it if you use Google instead of DuckDuckGo.

But Google don't see anything you do with DuckDuckGo. There are only upsides to using DuckDuckGo.

My son saw me using DDG instead of Google, asked me about it and one week later I saw he had installed it on his laptop. He also tells everyone at his school about DDG.

About six months ago, Google began presenting unsolvable Captchas on iOS/Safari while using a VPN (Private Internet Access). DDG just works.

I'd tried DDG a while back and Google seemed massively better, but I've been more impressed lately.

The "bangs" feature never appealed to me much because I already have ~25 custom search engines in Firefox that I have keywords set to.

I've been trying Qwant (Lite) recently as a Google alternative, and it's pretty good, but I find myself searching for the things like "500 mxn in usd" or "30 days from 29 sep 2018, and Qwant doesn't answer these. It looks like DDG's "instant answers" does do this, so I'm going to try it again.

I also like the appearance options, such as setting your own font, so I can use Source Sans Pro, and that it shows a MapBox/OpenStreetMap map, but you can set it to open directions in Google (or Bing or OSM).

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact