witchdoctor@lemmy.basedcount.com to Privacy@lemmy.ml · 2 年前Search engines comparedlemmy.basedcount.comimagemessage-square111linkfedilinkarrow-up1278arrow-down1121
arrow-up1157arrow-down1imageSearch engines comparedlemmy.basedcount.comwitchdoctor@lemmy.basedcount.com to Privacy@lemmy.ml · 2 年前message-square111linkfedilink
minus-square𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.onelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 年前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 ☹️
minus-squareNobsi@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 年前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.
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.