@witchdoctor@lemmy.basedcount.com to Privacy@lemmy.ml • 10 months agoSearch engines comparedlemmy.basedcount.comimagemessage-square111fedilinkarrow-up1291
arrow-up1291imageSearch engines comparedlemmy.basedcount.com@witchdoctor@lemmy.basedcount.com to Privacy@lemmy.ml • 10 months agomessage-square111fedilink
minus-squareNobsilinkfedilink9•10 months agoGoogle is the default. How can you say that duckduckgo has good results if you dont compare them to google. Trash diagram.
minus-square𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏link2•10 months agoFully agree. We don’t even know what search query was used either, and what the criteria was used to grade seach engine. DDG’s results are perfectly fine to me - however for best results you shouldn’t structure search queries in the same way you would for Google IMO trying Google after using ddg for a couple years just shows some big weaknesses in the quality of Google’s results. Fake SEO clone sites et al ☹️
minus-squareNobsilinkfedilink1•10 months agoMaybe that’s why ddg doesnt click with me. How do i use ddg for technical questions that need some obscure forum posts from 15 years ago? I obly get stackoverflow and windows forums. Those arent helpful at all.
Google is the default. How can you say that duckduckgo has good results if you dont compare them to google. Trash diagram.
Fully agree.
We don’t even know what search query was used either, and what the criteria was used to grade seach engine.
DDG’s results are perfectly fine to me - however for best results you shouldn’t structure search queries in the same way you would for Google
IMO trying Google after using ddg for a couple years just shows some big weaknesses in the quality of Google’s results. Fake SEO clone sites et al ☹️
Maybe that’s why ddg doesnt click with me.
How do i use ddg for technical questions that need some obscure forum posts from 15 years ago? I obly get stackoverflow and windows forums. Those arent helpful at all.