Since they're nearly indistinguishable from real organic search results, people click on them assuming the search engine found them the best result. It wasn't in some unending rush to become ever more stupid and childish with every subsequent release From the address bar that simply just refuses to do http: to a painfully dumb search in Gmail, it's really a company wide systemic problem they need to address.Īt least back in the say AOL days, which were renown for this kind of mentality, they kept things at a stable sophistication for the lifetime of the product. Or with their search where they remove all the important stuff from the query and return the results that I was specifically trying to avoid with those important modifiers "there's not many results with x" - Yes! That's the point.Īll over the place they're just on some endless campaign to patronize the userbase. It lacks lots of words that I have to go and check manually because they've decided that someone using a nuanced word is only done in error
I want to see the kind of nonsense that has assuaged so many people into effective insanity and apparently Google has decided that I'm not enough of an adult to view it. It's the general rush towards infantilism. The only advantage I have seen in results is Google has removed nonsense and conspiracy garbage from their results.
But if you're after a general list of usable images, then DDG is better.ĭDG almost fails in the same way as goog. So if you're after something specific using image searching, Google is better. However DDG doesn't include Pinterest spam.
G's image search is better - generally speaking. Image searching is a little more hit and miss though. I've found DDG's results to be comparable to Google's and in fact in the last ~3 years of exclusively using DDG, I can count on one hand the number of times I've tried searching for something in Google after a failed search in DDG. Or if you're search for a restaurant, add in your home town too. Like if you search for a coding problem, add your computer language name to the search query. But that doesn't mean that DDG's results can't be as good as G's, it just means you need to add that context yourself. The thing with people who switch to DDG is, they do so consciously for privacy reasons but then forget that the reason G's results are so good is because they add little bits of context in through their profiling. It's not just a front end to Bing, like many assume (though I can't find DDG's article on the subject to directly cite). DDG already includes Google (amongst others) in its results.
0 kommentar(er)
