6 ms·

Why use a userscript when you can use a search engine that is not from a spyware company? Like Startpage, Qwant, Duckduckgo or Searx? Alleluia, direct links out

by Ileca 6y ago

Why use a userscript when you can use a search engine that is not from a spyware company? Like Startpage, Qwant, Duckduckgo or Searx? Alleluia, direct links out of the box. For youtube, why not give Invidious a try (ok, it has its downs)? Sometimes, the best solution to "hostile websites" is to not use them in the first place (or use their proxified versions).

Vuska 6y ago
I tried my best to switch to DDG this year. The results just aren't as good as Google.
- Ileca 6y ago
  Startpage: "You can’t beat Google when it comes to online search. So we’re paying them to use their brilliant search results in order to remove all trackers and logs." Searx is a meta search engine. You can gather results from gogle.
  - tomxor 6y ago
    RE Startpage, sounds good, seems to work... how are they making money to pay Google?
    - newscracker 6y ago
      Startpage also shows ads at the top of the search results. It claims not to track the user (similar to DDG, which also shows ads but doesn’t track the user). But there was news about Startpage being acquired a few months ago, and the trust in it has dropped for some people.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      They show ads at the top of every search I've ever done there. At least when I'm not using an ad blocker.
- tomxor 6y ago
  I'd like to offer a less binary perspective... I tried to switch and ended up using both, I use duckduckgo not for privacy but practical reasons: recently google has become extremely irritating for technical searches that are not popular, even for the ones it can find it now autocorrects them by default to "what it thinks you meant", which for technical things like parameter names, command names, APIs etc are always wrong, even though the whole search phrase is extremely descriptive and matchable. I found that DDG is good for these types of searches (esoteric technical search that might be clobbered by googles dumb "AI" autocorrect or SEO optimization / I cant tell if it's an ad anymore BS that slows you right down), for these you get the result immediately and with one click... but DDG is worse for popular things where the search phrase is less descriptive and more associative. So now - I use both, DDG by default because it's faster to get to the result with less shit in the way; then back to google for the few popular things... I think this isn't too bad of a deal for privacy either, everyone assumes you must completely switch a service, but if you only search popular things on google, then you will look just like everyone else, you starve them of specificity.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >SEO optimization Search engine optimization optimization
    - berelig 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
      - tomxor 6y ago
        > RAS_syndrome redundant acronym syndrome syndrome
- ori_b 6y ago
  I find that it varies by query, and often dry will give better results. Especially if I am looking for something more than a few weeks old, or off the beaten path. Google will often replace or ignore words in my query and return garbage.
Waterluvian 6y ago
I wanted to love DDG. It promises a lot. And it delivers a lot. I love the shortcut codes. But after a few months I had to go back to Google. Two main reasons: 1. Image searches could often return literally zero results for simple terms. 2. I'd look up a term and get non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones, which often wouldn't even show up.
- user00012-ab 6y ago
  A killer feature on Hackernews would be the ability to just point to a common thread like wiki that people could update; so we don't have to scroll through the comments on how people love DDG, but it just doesn't have good results. So instead of every post having a huge comment section on this restating the entire thing over and over and over, we could just link to the wiki that has the discussion on duck duck go.
- lozf 6y ago
  It's pretty easy to append "!g" to your ddg search results if they're inadequate.
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    Yeah, this is so engrained in me now, I find it hard to search without a "second opinion" on devices that default to just Google.
- setzer22 6y ago
  IMO it's not about "going back to" anywhere. It's not as if we couldn't use different search engines for different queries. This all-or-nothing mentality of migrating away from Google (the search engine) seems flawed to me. It's still better for your privacy doing half of your queries using Google, instead of doing all of them. By the way, no offense intended! We're all free to pick our tools.
  - Waterluvian 6y ago
    I partly agree. I don't want it to be all or nothing. But the way browsers are set up with the "default search", it somwhat is. Ooooh I would love to be able to custom route searches depending on rules.
shezi 6y ago
That is such a useless and pervasive answer to something cool: why not use these alternatives. _Obviously_ the author/user of these scripts knows that the Internet has more than one thing for each kind, and obviously they chose to use the site they are using but in a different way. None of the search engines are as good as Google (most of the time) and for video hosting sites it's about the content. Imagine 20 years ago someone built a device that turns the volume down when ads come on, and the first reply to that is "but the channel I'm watching doesn't show ads". Well, good for you. Sometimes the best solution to "I want to use this website differently" is to use it differently.
- robrtsql 6y ago
  > for video hosting sites it's about the content Invidious is an alternative front-end for YouTube--so you are getting the same content. https://www.invidio.us https://www.invidio.us
  - shezi 6y ago
    Ah, I did not know that, thank you for pointing it out.
- ornornor 6y ago
  > None of the search engines are as good as Google (most of the time) Startpage (and ddg I think?) basically provide you googles search results without the tracking. They’re the same quality of results without your google created echo chamber (because google can’t profile your search habits when not using google directly for search) You’re still giving google money (indirectly) but st least you’re depriving it of your personal data.

by Ileca 6y ago

Vuska 6y ago

I tried my best to switch to DDG this year. The results just aren't as good as Google.

Ileca 6y ago
Startpage: "You can’t beat Google when it comes to online search. So we’re paying them to use their brilliant search results in order to remove all trackers and logs." Searx is a meta search engine. You can gather results from gogle.
- tomxor 6y ago
  RE Startpage, sounds good, seems to work... how are they making money to pay Google?
  - newscracker 6y ago
    Startpage also shows ads at the top of the search results. It claims not to track the user (similar to DDG, which also shows ads but doesn’t track the user). But there was news about Startpage being acquired a few months ago, and the trust in it has dropped for some people.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    They show ads at the top of every search I've ever done there. At least when I'm not using an ad blocker.
tomxor 6y ago
I'd like to offer a less binary perspective... I tried to switch and ended up using both, I use duckduckgo not for privacy but practical reasons: recently google has become extremely irritating for technical searches that are not popular, even for the ones it can find it now autocorrects them by default to "what it thinks you meant", which for technical things like parameter names, command names, APIs etc are always wrong, even though the whole search phrase is extremely descriptive and matchable. I found that DDG is good for these types of searches (esoteric technical search that might be clobbered by googles dumb "AI" autocorrect or SEO optimization / I cant tell if it's an ad anymore BS that slows you right down), for these you get the result immediately and with one click... but DDG is worse for popular things where the search phrase is less descriptive and more associative. So now - I use both, DDG by default because it's faster to get to the result with less shit in the way; then back to google for the few popular things... I think this isn't too bad of a deal for privacy either, everyone assumes you must completely switch a service, but if you only search popular things on google, then you will look just like everyone else, you starve them of specificity.
- gruez 6y ago
  >SEO optimization Search engine optimization optimization
  - berelig 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
    - tomxor 6y ago
      > RAS_syndrome redundant acronym syndrome syndrome
ori_b 6y ago
I find that it varies by query, and often dry will give better results. Especially if I am looking for something more than a few weeks old, or off the beaten path. Google will often replace or ignore words in my query and return garbage.

Waterluvian 6y ago

I wanted to love DDG. It promises a lot. And it delivers a lot. I love the shortcut codes. But after a few months I had to go back to Google. Two main reasons: 1. Image searches could often return literally zero results for simple terms. 2. I'd look up a term and get non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones, which often wouldn't even show up.

user00012-ab 6y ago
A killer feature on Hackernews would be the ability to just point to a common thread like wiki that people could update; so we don't have to scroll through the comments on how people love DDG, but it just doesn't have good results. So instead of every post having a huge comment section on this restating the entire thing over and over and over, we could just link to the wiki that has the discussion on duck duck go.
lozf 6y ago
It's pretty easy to append "!g" to your ddg search results if they're inadequate.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  Yeah, this is so engrained in me now, I find it hard to search without a "second opinion" on devices that default to just Google.
setzer22 6y ago
IMO it's not about "going back to" anywhere. It's not as if we couldn't use different search engines for different queries. This all-or-nothing mentality of migrating away from Google (the search engine) seems flawed to me. It's still better for your privacy doing half of your queries using Google, instead of doing all of them. By the way, no offense intended! We're all free to pick our tools.
- Waterluvian 6y ago
  I partly agree. I don't want it to be all or nothing. But the way browsers are set up with the "default search", it somwhat is. Ooooh I would love to be able to custom route searches depending on rules.

shezi 6y ago

That is such a useless and pervasive answer to something cool: why not use these alternatives. _Obviously_ the author/user of these scripts knows that the Internet has more than one thing for each kind, and obviously they chose to use the site they are using but in a different way. None of the search engines are as good as Google (most of the time) and for video hosting sites it's about the content. Imagine 20 years ago someone built a device that turns the volume down when ads come on, and the first reply to that is "but the channel I'm watching doesn't show ads". Well, good for you. Sometimes the best solution to "I want to use this website differently" is to use it differently.

robrtsql 6y ago
> for video hosting sites it's about the content Invidious is an alternative front-end for YouTube--so you are getting the same content. https://www.invidio.us https://www.invidio.us
- shezi 6y ago
  Ah, I did not know that, thank you for pointing it out.
ornornor 6y ago
> None of the search engines are as good as Google (most of the time) Startpage (and ddg I think?) basically provide you googles search results without the tracking. They’re the same quality of results without your google created echo chamber (because google can’t profile your search habits when not using google directly for search) You’re still giving google money (indirectly) but st least you’re depriving it of your personal data.