On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 15:05:44 +0100 <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:47:23PM +0100, deloptes wrote: > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > This is nonsense. "The best" without any context is just meaningless. > > > > > > > Come on, you yourself write below why. > > [...] > > > 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. > > Again, context. If you learn to provide the necessary context (e.g. > by adding in disambiguating search terms, etc.), your DDG results > will be as satisfactory as those with Google. > > Bonus point: you learn something in the process, instead of Google > learning something "for you".
You've been making some very interesting points here about the key being context, but I'm not sure I totally buy it. DDG simply doesn't work well for me in certain areas of interest to me. Perhaps I'm simply not sufficiently skilled at disambiguation (my "DDG fu" needs improvement?), but I'm simply much less productive with DDG than with Google. And I do usually access Google without being logged in, with most cookies blocked, NoScript, etc., so in general it has much less (not zero, of course) "context" with regard to me than it does in general. Celejar
