I just tried it out. Wanted to find "phpng" that was released just now. Search returns results for "phong" and no way to force it to use the term phpng. Otherwise, it looks good and works as well as the other "older" one. Good job.
I don't know what you mean by 'released'. If we're talking about the same thing, it's a) a single mailing list thread and b) a wiki page, which google finds.
In my experience, the problem with code searches is the extra work you have to go to to force a precise search. The above example of phpng, for example. I'm totally fine with being told I might find more results with a slightly different search, but it's infuriating to not at least be given the benefit of the doubt that I know what I actually want.
Unlike the GP, this bothers me about google as well, though.
It looks absolutely beautiful! That really puts the interface of the Google search in a tight spot.
Only one remark: While I like the effect that the full URL shows up when the mouse is above a search entry I would personally prefer to see the full URL all the time. I would be very happy if you could add an option to change that.
Agreed. For example, search for 'anaconda python'. In google, the second result is very obviously the download page for anaconda. In DDG? Good luck discovering that. Just one example that popped immediately to mind.
For the love of christ, whatever you do, please don't ever implement "DuckDuckGo Instant®".
This auto-complete predictive suggestion list business isn't half bad, but there's nothing I hate more about Google than their bloody "Instant" features.
Are you currently seeing that option somewhere? I looked in the settings, but I did not see it there, and I do not see any other way to disable that functionality.
We were on the fence about autocomplete for a variety of reasons, but tried to be careful about minimizing distraction. It was too great a vector to introduce !bang autocomplete :). As always, please let us know what you think as it evolves!
Google Instant is irritating because I'm trying to type a search string into a field in the middle of the page, and as soon as I enter a single keystroke, my entire thought process is interrupted when the field I'm focusing on is thrown upwards to the top of the page, without waiting for me to confirm that I'm finished typing.
So I want to search for "apple" and guess what:
I type the letter "a"...
Now the whole page is disrupted, and I have to stop, and check the page, to make sure the sudden change is what I expected it to be. Is the page doing what I intended? I only typed one letter...
Did I actually type the letter "a", or did my finger slip and type the letter "s"? Wait, where's the field? Oh, it's up at the top of the page now... What was I doing? Oh, right, I was going to search for "apple"...
Why did the page change, when I wanted it to stay put, while I complete my thought? Why didn't the page wait until I pressed the enter key, to confirm that I was finished, and ready to search for the intended query?
Do I care about whether the page sends an ordinary post with a form submission, and reloads the page? No.
Do I care about whether the page sends an AJAX request, and is re-rendered by a JavaScript library? No.
I want the page to remain static and reliable while I perform my task. After I'm done typing, it can go crazy, and do whatever.
Having Image search is the best feature of all. Can we get a search page exclusively for images? I mean having that images popup occupy the entire page.
As for the rest, as long as the dark/terminal themes still work (there are small bugs), that's fine by me.
1. I search for "ng angular", which takes me to https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=ng%20angular
2. I've been to the top link before (http://angular-ui.github.io/ng-grid/).
3. I hover over the 'Visited Site' checkbox icon, and the hover text is obscured by the search area (specifically around the Image and Video tabs).
On a related note, I find the interaction with checkboxes a little bit confusing. They disappear on hover when the text shows up (seems unnecessary, I'm left wondering why my icon disappeared). You can also hover over them on unvisited links and get the same message. Personally I'd prefer to see them as static icons, only shown on visited sites. I can hover over existing ones to get a message "you've visited this site before", which is clearer than "your browser indicates...". They do send a very clear message and are a great addition to the UI.
Overall great job. Looks super clean, I love the image and video dropdowns... keep making it easy for me to use DDG!
Edit: also submitted through your feedback system. Just gotta grab those hacker news points while they're there for the picking right? ;)
Hi Yegg. Very interesting update. Two suggestions for places..
1) If I search "self storage columbia mo" I get place results but if I "search self storage 65203" I do not get place results. I noticed this does work for food using a more familiar zipcode like 90210.. but maybe still a little zip code work to be done.
2) What about when I search "thai" or "self storage" in general. DuckDuckGo is known for not tracking the user, but if I search something that with location information would most likely provide place results, shouldn't I be given some type of indicator that with just a zipcode or city name I could be given better results? That way you are educating new users while still providing them the results they need and the privacy DuckDuckGo is known for.
Bug Report: If i play a video in the webseite, stop it, go to the video grid and then replay it, i have an echo. Tested with Chrome on Ubuntu. I also sent this via the feedback button. :-)
The auto-suggest feature feels like a step backwards in terms of privacy:
- it indicates that there's a fairly thorough recording of searches going on, and acknowledges a reasonable possibility of keypress-by-keypress recording, and
- it doesn't work as well as google's version which accounts for local variation, and which formed part of my decision to reject google in favour of ddg.
Overall this feature creeps me out, in an "uncanny valley" kind of way. It makes me uncomfortable.
To be clear, we still don't collect or share personal information and auto-suggest does not impact that at all. I appreciate it may make you and others uncomfortable and we're sensitive to that, but it is not a change in terms of privacy. We simply do not associate queries with personal information (e.g. IP addresses) and in fact don't store any of it at all.
Not yegg, but if you store a database of queries, along with frequencies, you can do a prefix match on what's already in the search box and return that. I'm speculating that DDG does something that. It doesn't take any PII to do that unless the query itself includes PII. E.g., "websites operated by paul nathan" is pretty PII. :)
Saving - and now seemingly publishing - search queries is saving and publishing PII.
http://donttrack.us directly acknowledges that search queries can be used to personally identify individuals.
I therefore understood from the later statement on that site, "[ddg doesn't] store any personal information at all", that this would include search queries: ddg almost literally advertises itself on the fact that it doesn't save search queries. (According to the small print, I understood this wrong.)
It would be a shame if your explanation was the correct one.
By the grandparent's description, the difference would be that DDG is not saving the ip address and browser information associated with the search query. If they're only saving the frequency of each search query and nothing else, then there would be no way to see for a particular user/browser/ip address what search queries have been performed because that dimension to the data simply doesn't exist.
I think the difference here is that there is no association of the search term with a specific search. If they see a term, they simply add 1 to the counter. Of course, that is probably vastly simplifying it. Basically, your search is thrown into a pool with all of the other searches. It possibly never even has an id associated with it. Just a frequency number.
For example, say I start to type "movie t", it'll see that often times after the word "movie", "times" appears at a high frequency so that could be one of the suggestions. I don't see how this introduces a privacy issue unless they are saving the searches by some personal identification number (whether thats an ip, user id, computer, etc), which they specifically deny. Without the specific identifier, there is no way to say it was user A who searched for "movie times" 300 times in a row and not 300 different users searching for "movie times"
I'm not prepared to defend DDG in depth, as I'm not a representative. Nor is my research area inferring PII.
But I want to point out that doing a standard ddg search gives me `https://duckduckgo.com/?q=seattle` , which is a GET command, visible across the entire network as it percolates through, unencrypted.
That's a secure URL. HTTP requests and responses are encrypted, and nobody other than you and the server know what they contain. Nobody between you on the network can tell what URLs you're accessing over SSL.
I'm sure you realize this, but to clarify a bit for the parent commenter: Although the URL is encrypted, anyone watching the connections on the network can still tell what IP address you're connecting to and usually be able to infer the domain name from the IP address.
To state it simple terms: HTTPS protects the URL and all the contents of the connection, but does not protect the fact that you're connecting to a particular domain, the duration of the connection, and the volume of data.
Could this be a feature that is disabled by default, but that can be easily enabled if a user does wish to use it?
I don't know the best way to do this, but I'm thinking a checkbox somewhere near the search bar, or perhaps a prefix similar to "g!" that'll enable it for any further text that's entered, or something along those lines.
Fully agree, these were the same things that popped in my head when I saw it. Though I have to say autocomplete for !commands is an excellent addition.
Hi yegg, I want to express one wish I would like to see Duck Duck G0 maybe considering: I use duck duck go for its privacy, but it seems like duck duck go assumes I want absolute anonymity which is not necessarily right. I just want my own controlled privacy, and I want a good search engine that know me a bit. and I wish to give some of my privacy for that. what do I mean? if there will be an option to tell duck duck go what "categories" I'm interested in, so that it will use this data to give me better results I would love to do that. say, I can mark 'technology' and 'science' under my subject of interest and 'celebrity' and 'sports' under my subjects of disinterest.
Do you think something like that might be possible someday or it completely goes against your philosophy?
The Install in Chrome thing doesn't appear to work. Won't allow me to save even when the Keyword field is empty. Not sure if that's a Chrome thing or DDG thing.
EDIT:
Sorry, it looks like it installed the first time. I tried to do a search. It kept using Google. So I thought it didn't install. I tried again. The keyword had already been installed, so it didn't work. Turned out it was already installed and I had to manually set it as my search provider.
1) The checkbox for visited links. However, I think there should be an infobox (visible by default) explaining what it is the first few times you search. A link explaining how it works (for the privacy conscious) would also be good.
Things I don't like:
1) Moving the favicon below the page snippet. I think it should actually be up top and larger, since it's useful for skimming results.
2) Lack of color/contrast. Feels like someone sucked the life out of the site. This is important, because (for example) when I'm skimming results it's helpful to have the page titles (blue) stand out from the snippet (black).
3) Left-aligned results. I find it easier to skim the results when they're centered, rather than left-aligned. This is something people who have been using Google won't notice, but after reading DDG's centered results for a year or so, going back feels jarring, like I'm going out of my way to read them there. The center of the screen seems to be where I look first for content.
4) Larger header. Vertical space is precious, especially when you consider how much is already consumed by an OS menu bar, browser chrome (titlebar, address bar, bookmark bar, tab bar, status bar) and (on Mac OS) the Dock at the bottom of the screen.
First impressions are good. Looks clean, I like auto complete. I also like the autocomplete for shortcuts (!).
I've set it as my home page (was already using ddg for my main search).
Is there a way to turn off the links at the bottom under the search? Set as homepage, etc? I keep mousing over them and the popups are distracting. I understand why they need to be there for new users.
It is really beautiful. The minimalistic user interface is much more usable now. And the results for some test queries I ran were pretty good. Great work! I'm going to switch my default search engine for a few days and see how that goes.
Looks beautiful. My only criticism is that you could make better use of all the whitespace the the right on the search screen. Maybe expand the width of search items to fill some unused space + increase the number of search items above the fold.
Cool! We always received a fair amount of feedback about better local search and the redesign attempts to plug a few holes. Any feedback would be great; we're just getting started!
Plus image and video search! Really nice to have a clean image search interface with a clear download button. Do you proxy my search to youtube? What other sites are there?
I've always wondered. How do these guys hit google search so much without hitting limitations?
Google is pretty aggressive at banning bots, and I can't imagine Google have given a competitor API access or something like that. Proxies is out of the question for this scale too.
> This gives them the advantage of you only being able to see what Google Searches brought people to their site through Google Analytics
Search terms come in Google's Webmaster Tools. You can only get them in Analytics if you hook up your Webmaster Tools account to your Analytics Account.
It is true that it does promote analytics. However, one key feature of Google analytics giving privacy as a normal user is that you can never actually look at the profile of a user. You can look at stats such as 10/100 people used the "Best Hammers" search term, and that 80/100 people come from the United States. But you can't say look at X IP address and see where they come from, what browser they use, and what search term they used.
Guide: This room is the most popular part of our tour.
Milhouse: It's just like the other rooms.
Guide: Yes, but with one important difference: [looks over] Oh, they took that out. Yes, it is just like the other rooms.
I am a technican. I want to see the number of results. I don't like AutoSroll. I remember the page where i find a result, so i jump to the page, with endless scroll, i did not find things again.
The sign of clicked links is a good idea.
Mark a personal favorite site in combination with my search term would be a great feature. E.g. i remember i search something about nodejs but i forgot the sitename, my browser bookmark did not help me. But when i see my old search about "nodejs" and the favorite or clicked pages, that would be a great thing.
Forget google, if somebody want to use google, he can use google. So please implement usefull functions that help people with their daily work.
I think it looks better than the original, though. That giant red bar at the top, with a yellow box underneath always reminded me of the original ask jeeves search page, with its giant blue bar up top http://i.imgur.com/7LYUXre.jpg
You're not the only one, but I think this look will work better with people who are not me (people like me are already a pretty captive group for DDG), and who currently use other search engines. It's very trendy. I prefer growth for the search engine over the old look.
To be honest DDG's other results were pretty much garbage for this query, but in the end of the day it brought me a much more relevant page in it's number 1 spot without tracking me.
Maybe you trained google well. I have not used it much in ages
Your new maps need to have an on-map credit to OpenStreetMap, as that's where the map data comes from, and OSM's licence requires attribution. osm.org/copyright explains how.
That's not on-map, that's hidden behind a click. osm.org/copyright makes it very clear that the attribution needs to be on-map. You don't see Google permitting people to hide their brand away like that!
Apple's maps are not just OpenStreetMap - there's a lot of other data sources in it too.
For the OSM data Apple do use, I think it's quite old OSM data from 2010-2011 or something. As far as I remember, they used that because the license changed after that, so I believe that's under different terms.
Doctor_Fegg makes a good point. The OSM Legal FAQ states: "For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps." Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_lik...
If you are using DuckDuckGo for privacy reasons, I strongly suggest you use https://startpage.com/ instead.
DuckDuckGo isn't much better than Google; both of them hijack your links. This gives an opportunity to track what you click on. If you watch carefully your links go to "r.duckduckgo.com" -- this page also doesn't use SSL. For example:
I don't see it; links on ddg are always direct to me; perhaps it's only for advertising links or something like anonym.to to hide some referer you'd send otherwise. What browser are you using?
I'm using Firefox. I see a lot of r.duckduckgo.com entries in my history.
Edit: I can't replicate in Chrome or Safari but if I change my user-agent in Safari, it begins hijacking my URLs. The JavaScript is obfuscated so it's hard to tell if it's actually checking for Firefox or not. The function it calls is DDG.get_http_redirect
But the redirection is done over plain HTTP and not HTTPS. If you don't have a wildcard certificate, you could use /r?url=... instead of a subdomain.
Ideally, the best setup would be to use the "noreferrer" attribute on anchor tags. It's a relatively new standard but perhaps you could detect if it's supported and then use that rather than a redirector?
As I mention in a previous comment, if you are using the TOR hidden service (3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/) the redirect goes over a TOR exit node without https. Ideally it should use the hidden service so no exit node is involved, or at the least use HTTPS.
> StartPage doesn't hijack links, it (optionally) uses POST and you never send a referer header so traffic looks organic
... and looks like MSN Search results from 2006. Not just ugly and cluttered, which I don't mind too much, but dysfunctional too: no keyboard navigation between results nor editing the search query without using the mouse to focus the box. That is an immediate no-go for me.
I‘m not entirely satisfied with startpage either though. What we really need is a local search proxy that goes via Google/Bing however you like, e.g. 1) using clearnet without cookies and cleaning up links (Google, Startpage, Bing) 2) via Tor automatically falling back if you get captcha (with option to do the captcha if you don’t like results) 3) Like 1) except via some VPN/Proxy
The results from each source (or multiple) could be normalized and the local app can offer any kind of interface you like.
I’ll write it at some point, but if anyone wants to steal that idea — please do.
If you search using POST, that isn't a problem. Also, referer headers aren't sent to unencrypted links so if https://duckduckgo.com sent me to http://example.com they would not see where I came from.
Those two combined offer better privacy as no website can know what you were searching for and only secure websites know you came from DuckDuckGo. This setup doesn't give DuckDuckGo a chance to track what I'm clicking on.
POST-based searches are rather inconvenient, as there's no easy way of saving the search page. As far as I'm aware, referer headers are still sent to HTTPS links, even if the origin differs. So https://duckduckgo.com would still send referers to https://example.com.
But if you still don't want your clicks going through the r.duckduckgo.com domain, you can turn it off in the settings.
Presumably you also disable Javascript by default, right?
The contrast is too low. It is hard to read on my (relatively bad) laptop screen.
Popins only when your mouse is over something are frustrating. My mouse is not tied to my eyes! In particular, if you're scrolling with your mouse in the center of the screen, the pop-in happens a moment after you stop scrolling, which is distracting. Also, I don't like hiding information by default in general.
Additionally: there is no way to view the full URL for long URLs - they expand, but only to a point.
The top header staying put is bad from a screen real estate POV. I've got a widescreen screen, and as such I'm cramped for vertical space but horizontal space is ample.
Finally: having the right arrow to the left of the domain to search the domain, and the popin on the right saying "more from <x>" seems redundant.
I really like the simplicity of this version of DuckDuckGo. The only thing I'd change, is the color used for domains. I personally look at the domain (among other things) when I decide to click on a result, and having a more noticeable domain name would be extremely helpful allowing me to quickly make a decision about which results are worthy.
I mean that the guarantee from an US-based company that they won't track you is meaningless, because they can be ordered in secret court to hand over all their information with a gag order.
After that the only way for us to know would be a whistleblower. And even then we would only know that we are unsafe, not that we are safe.
Except DuckDuckGo doesn't hold that information in the first place [1]. So a request by the government for information on a user will have very little information.
Please don't keep it to yourself! What is this privacy-protecting search engine that you've been using that is immune to US or other intelligence agencies' snooping?
If they snoop your logs, but you have no information on your users then they will get nothing.
If they can snoop your traffic live than pretty much yes, anything US based is vulnerable, but at least my information is not being sold and traded between private companies.
Not every company in the US is actively colluding with the government. Assuming DDG is telling the truth about not keeping any logs, then its service should be no less secure than if it were situated in any other country.
One of the problem I see is that it appears that this version is that there is too much emphasis on keyword rich domain names. On one search query that I did just now, 14 of the top 20 search results for that had the keyword in the domain name.
A similar search (different city + keyword search), different city but same keywords as above, reveals 15 with the keyword out of 20 search results.
330 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 332 ms ] threadThere are still a lot known issues that we're still working through before we can make the transition. I'm sure this thread will uncover more :)
But as another check just revealed, DDG does not seem to index php.net very much, cf. https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=string+inurl%3Aphp.net
It also does not find any php related content for my real name, whereas google does, a lot.
Edit: my bad, it seems to be site: and not inurl:
Unlike the GP, this bothers me about google as well, though.
I forget the name of the other one, but there's another one similar to this too.
Only one remark: While I like the effect that the full URL shows up when the mouse is above a search entry I would personally prefer to see the full URL all the time. I would be very happy if you could add an option to change that.
90+% I don't need the Why and parsing over it to find the URL is distracting.
The image and video showcase is well thought out. It is digestible and smooth complement to the general search, well done!
This auto-complete predictive suggestion list business isn't half bad, but there's nothing I hate more about Google than their bloody "Instant" features.
Immediate disregard seems a little harsh.
My suggestion was to implement such an option.
So I want to search for "apple" and guess what:
I type the letter "a"...
Now the whole page is disrupted, and I have to stop, and check the page, to make sure the sudden change is what I expected it to be. Is the page doing what I intended? I only typed one letter...
Did I actually type the letter "a", or did my finger slip and type the letter "s"? Wait, where's the field? Oh, it's up at the top of the page now... What was I doing? Oh, right, I was going to search for "apple"...
Why did the page change, when I wanted it to stay put, while I complete my thought? Why didn't the page wait until I pressed the enter key, to confirm that I was finished, and ready to search for the intended query?
Do I care about whether the page sends an ordinary post with a form submission, and reloads the page? No.
Do I care about whether the page sends an AJAX request, and is re-rendered by a JavaScript library? No.
I want the page to remain static and reliable while I perform my task. After I'm done typing, it can go crazy, and do whatever.
As for the rest, as long as the dark/terminal themes still work (there are small bugs), that's fine by me.
Overall great job. Looks super clean, I love the image and video dropdowns... keep making it easy for me to use DDG!
Edit: also submitted through your feedback system. Just gotta grab those hacker news points while they're there for the picking right? ;)
1) If I search "self storage columbia mo" I get place results but if I "search self storage 65203" I do not get place results. I noticed this does work for food using a more familiar zipcode like 90210.. but maybe still a little zip code work to be done.
2) What about when I search "thai" or "self storage" in general. DuckDuckGo is known for not tracking the user, but if I search something that with location information would most likely provide place results, shouldn't I be given some type of indicator that with just a zipcode or city name I could be given better results? That way you are educating new users while still providing them the results they need and the privacy DuckDuckGo is known for.
- it indicates that there's a fairly thorough recording of searches going on, and acknowledges a reasonable possibility of keypress-by-keypress recording, and
- it doesn't work as well as google's version which accounts for local variation, and which formed part of my decision to reject google in favour of ddg.
Overall this feature creeps me out, in an "uncanny valley" kind of way. It makes me uncomfortable.
http://donttrack.us directly acknowledges that search queries can be used to personally identify individuals.
I therefore understood from the later statement on that site, "[ddg doesn't] store any personal information at all", that this would include search queries: ddg almost literally advertises itself on the fact that it doesn't save search queries. (According to the small print, I understood this wrong.)
It would be a shame if your explanation was the correct one.
I don't follow that DDG not being able to save anonymous queries disregards their stance on privacy?
Surely for the best experience you'd want DDG to do this anonymously.
For example, say I start to type "movie t", it'll see that often times after the word "movie", "times" appears at a high frequency so that could be one of the suggestions. I don't see how this introduces a privacy issue unless they are saving the searches by some personal identification number (whether thats an ip, user id, computer, etc), which they specifically deny. Without the specific identifier, there is no way to say it was user A who searched for "movie times" 300 times in a row and not 300 different users searching for "movie times"
But I want to point out that doing a standard ddg search gives me `https://duckduckgo.com/?q=seattle` , which is a GET command, visible across the entire network as it percolates through, unencrypted.
To state it simple terms: HTTPS protects the URL and all the contents of the connection, but does not protect the fact that you're connecting to a particular domain, the duration of the connection, and the volume of data.
I don't know the best way to do this, but I'm thinking a checkbox somewhere near the search bar, or perhaps a prefix similar to "g!" that'll enable it for any further text that's entered, or something along those lines.
Do you think something like that might be possible someday or it completely goes against your philosophy?
EDIT:
Sorry, it looks like it installed the first time. I tried to do a search. It kept using Google. So I thought it didn't install. I tried again. The keyword had already been installed, so it didn't work. Turned out it was already installed and I had to manually set it as my search provider.
one two three four ... one-hundred, two-hundred, three
1) The checkbox for visited links. However, I think there should be an infobox (visible by default) explaining what it is the first few times you search. A link explaining how it works (for the privacy conscious) would also be good.
Things I don't like:
1) Moving the favicon below the page snippet. I think it should actually be up top and larger, since it's useful for skimming results.
2) Lack of color/contrast. Feels like someone sucked the life out of the site. This is important, because (for example) when I'm skimming results it's helpful to have the page titles (blue) stand out from the snippet (black).
3) Left-aligned results. I find it easier to skim the results when they're centered, rather than left-aligned. This is something people who have been using Google won't notice, but after reading DDG's centered results for a year or so, going back feels jarring, like I'm going out of my way to read them there. The center of the screen seems to be where I look first for content.
4) Larger header. Vertical space is precious, especially when you consider how much is already consumed by an OS menu bar, browser chrome (titlebar, address bar, bookmark bar, tab bar, status bar) and (on Mac OS) the Dock at the bottom of the screen.
I've set it as my home page (was already using ddg for my main search).
Is there a way to turn off the links at the bottom under the search? Set as homepage, etc? I keep mousing over them and the popups are distracting. I understand why they need to be there for new users.
Great work and thanks for what you do.
Click on the "Look and Feel" tab, then change the "width" :)
You've struggled in the past with local searches and map inferences to non-address searches (think "Godwin Park Houston").
I threw those at next.ddg and the result back were very good. I don't see having to !g a query for these in future.
I'll edit as I use the beta in the next few days but first impression is "Hot damn, it works! Good job!"
Edit 1: There are still dot coms and business I search for that I don't get the "map this for me" option. Examples:
https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=cpap.com
https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=men%27s+warehouse (do I want a wiki article or do I want to find the ones close?)
https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=whole+foods
Edit 2: The UI is so clean and nice.
Loved it, very clean yet all the info is there
Plus image and video search! Really nice to have a clean image search interface with a clear download button. Do you proxy my search to youtube? What other sites are there?
EDIT: also, great response to browser zoom
Google is pretty aggressive at banning bots, and I can't imagine Google have given a competitor API access or something like that. Proxies is out of the question for this scale too.
I heave heard that they do use Bing and Yahoo search APIs, but this could be incorrect.
There are now random DDG stickers in various cities around southern Ontario.
I still have a few with me. I can send you some if you want (contact details in profile).
Godspeed duckduckgo!
This gives them the advantage of you only being able to see what Google Searches brought people to their site through Google Analytics.
Search terms come in Google's Webmaster Tools. You can only get them in Analytics if you hook up your Webmaster Tools account to your Analytics Account.
There's probably something similar for Chrome as well.
- I'd like some more focus on keyboard navigation. Make sure that everything looks good when tabbing, even if you've used arrow keys first.
- Anti-phishing: A long domain name will trim the end in the "More from ..." link. Instead it would make sense to trim the beginning.
- Needs better contrast.
I am a technican. I want to see the number of results. I don't like AutoSroll. I remember the page where i find a result, so i jump to the page, with endless scroll, i did not find things again.
The sign of clicked links is a good idea.
Mark a personal favorite site in combination with my search term would be a great feature. E.g. i remember i search something about nodejs but i forgot the sitename, my browser bookmark did not help me. But when i see my old search about "nodejs" and the favorite or clicked pages, that would be a great thing.
Forget google, if somebody want to use google, he can use google. So please implement usefull functions that help people with their daily work.
1. Old DDG: http://s388.photobucket.com/user/cubancigar11/media/snapshot...
2. New DDG: http://s388.photobucket.com/user/cubancigar11/media/snapshot...
There are so many problems here:
1. Poor contrast of font-colors.
2. Poor choice of font - bold doesn't really standout as much as it should.
3. Font spacing has increased which forces me to scroll down thus breaking my thought process.
4. Icons now take vertical space instead of horizontal.
5. Mouse-hover color change has poor contrast. On my desktop I can only see it through a specific unnatural angle.
http://bit.ly/1ur3zP2 vs. https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=medium+top+collections
1. medium.com/collections
2. medium.com/top100/may-2013 (what I would be looking for except it's from last year)
3. an article with the title "Top Medium Collections everybody should follow"
4. images (why here?) of... purses and drawer handles?(wtf? why is this here?)
5. List of Medium collections | Niccolò Brogi
At the side some advertising for something that looks like bird cages or outdoor lamp protectors from Google Shops and "Tops at Macy's"
DDG's:
1.Medium Top 100 for March 2014 (much more recent than googles and at 1st position)
Maybe you trained google well. I have not used it much in ages
Your new maps need to have an on-map credit to OpenStreetMap, as that's where the map data comes from, and OSM's licence requires attribution. osm.org/copyright explains how.
There is some OSM community discussion on the UX behind this here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21769
For the OSM data Apple do use, I think it's quite old OSM data from 2010-2011 or something. As far as I remember, they used that because the license changed after that, so I believe that's under different terms.
There might be some complaints/confusion about attribution from the OSM community, but overall really happy to see a major search engine use OSM maps!
DuckDuckGo isn't much better than Google; both of them hijack your links. This gives an opportunity to track what you click on. If you watch carefully your links go to "r.duckduckgo.com" -- this page also doesn't use SSL. For example:
http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip...
StartPage doesn't hijack links, it (optionally) uses POST and you never send a referer header so traffic looks organic.
Edit: I can't replicate in Chrome or Safari but if I change my user-agent in Safari, it begins hijacking my URLs. The JavaScript is obfuscated so it's hard to tell if it's actually checking for Firefox or not. The function it calls is DDG.get_http_redirect
It has no privacy impact since we do not store or collect personal information.
But the redirection is done over plain HTTP and not HTTPS. If you don't have a wildcard certificate, you could use /r?url=... instead of a subdomain.
Ideally, the best setup would be to use the "noreferrer" attribute on anchor tags. It's a relatively new standard but perhaps you could detect if it's supported and then use that rather than a redirector?
https://www.webkit.org/blog/907/webkit-nightlies-support-htm...
... and looks like MSN Search results from 2006. Not just ugly and cluttered, which I don't mind too much, but dysfunctional too: no keyboard navigation between results nor editing the search query without using the mouse to focus the box. That is an immediate no-go for me.
I‘m not entirely satisfied with startpage either though. What we really need is a local search proxy that goes via Google/Bing however you like, e.g. 1) using clearnet without cookies and cleaning up links (Google, Startpage, Bing) 2) via Tor automatically falling back if you get captcha (with option to do the captcha if you don’t like results) 3) Like 1) except via some VPN/Proxy
The results from each source (or multiple) could be normalized and the local app can offer any kind of interface you like.
I’ll write it at some point, but if anyone wants to steal that idea — please do.
Those two combined offer better privacy as no website can know what you were searching for and only secure websites know you came from DuckDuckGo. This setup doesn't give DuckDuckGo a chance to track what I'm clicking on.
But if you still don't want your clicks going through the r.duckduckgo.com domain, you can turn it off in the settings.
Presumably you also disable Javascript by default, right?
The contrast is too low. It is hard to read on my (relatively bad) laptop screen.
Popins only when your mouse is over something are frustrating. My mouse is not tied to my eyes! In particular, if you're scrolling with your mouse in the center of the screen, the pop-in happens a moment after you stop scrolling, which is distracting. Also, I don't like hiding information by default in general.
Additionally: there is no way to view the full URL for long URLs - they expand, but only to a point.
The top header staying put is bad from a screen real estate POV. I've got a widescreen screen, and as such I'm cramped for vertical space but horizontal space is ample.
Finally: having the right arrow to the left of the domain to search the domain, and the popin on the right saying "more from <x>" seems redundant.
Just my personal thoughts.
After that the only way for us to know would be a whistleblower. And even then we would only know that we are unsafe, not that we are safe.
[1] - https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
A similar search (different city + keyword search), different city but same keywords as above, reveals 15 with the keyword out of 20 search results.