• stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      With adblock enabled I feel like their results are often better than for example Duckduckgo. I recently switched to using DDG as my standard search engine but I regularly find myself using Google instead to get the results I’m looking for.

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Interesting, I’m actually the exact opposite. I always start with Google, because it’s usually good enough, but whenever it takes 2-3 tries to get something relevant, I switch to ddg and get it first try.

        • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          My issue is mostly with image search results. DDG’s images tend to be less relevant than Google’s. DDG also lacks “smart” results (idk the official term).

          For example when you search “rng 25” on Google, it will immediately present you with a random number between 1 and 25. On DDG you have to click on one of the search results and then use some website to generate the number.

          Or when searching for the results of a soccer game, Google will immediately present all the stats to you, while on DDG you will only find some articles about it.

          Of course it really depends on the kind of search and I’m sure DDG will regularly have better results than Google too.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Those kinds of things are what people often take issue with Google about. Well, the second one anyway. The first is arguably not a search and is instead a calculation, but I admit that’s a little semantical.

            The first however, is Google taking information provided by third parties, and presenting it to the user. It prevents traffic from flowing through to the original site, and is something actively complained about.

            • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              And I should care about that because? Google is sparing me from visiting a website that will harass me to accept cookies, complain about my adblocker, probably request to send notifications, etc.

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                The same reason we don’t let companies sell photocopies of books? This isn’t a take on piracy, to be clear. This is a take on one company stealing content from another, and serving it up as if it were their own. And when Google has a monopoly on search, that fucks over everyone but Google, including you.

                • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Extracting information from the internet that is freely available isn’t exactly stealing content. Haven’t you ever copied something from Wikipedia? Why would Wikipedia even exist if people can’t use and share its content?

                  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    You really don’t see a difference between a single user citing wiki, vs a billion dollar company going to great lengths to squeeze every cent they can out of everyone involved when looking up information?