to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > This is nonsense. "The best" without any context is just meaningless. >
Come on, you yourself write below why. > Let me put an example: a friend of mine is doing biological research > (mRNA and that kind of stuff). > > She relies totally on Google to keep the research papers she's reading > in order. Whenever she needs a paper, Google is the entry point. One > or two words, and presto, the paper she needs is whithin the first > three hits. > > Once she was working at home and tried the same. No luck. Cooking recipes, > whatever you want, no bio research papers. > > I think by now every avid reader will have an idea of what's going on. > The whole fuzzball of metadata you share with Google (your IP address, > your browser version, the whole compost heap of cookies, browser metrics > prior search history with Google and affiliates -- all of that kaboodle > is part of your search query, without you knowing it. > Exactly - this is the best in case you want to get advantage of the metadata collected. I am not expert on Google, but AFAIR you better use your account - this way it doesn't matter what is the IP. The IP would matter if you are not logged in. > If you /want/ to get back part of that control, you have to understand > that. When you search with DDG, you have to ask yourself: "since they > don't know, how can I narrow the search context?". > > After a while, this becomes second nature, and DDG results start being > more or less as good as Google's. > > I know because I tried. Me too - doing the same - but as you say "more or less as good as Google's" - it is not as good, because of the metadata. Now, I wouldn't even think of using DDG, if I was not suspecting Google abusing privacy. Here DDG comes very handy. Everything that has to do with technical stuff - goes through Google. The stuff is neutral. The rest through DDG. I guess in Google's eyes I will be becoming a geek soon
