DuckDuckGo [search engine]

Edited By Tony Pratt 1 on 18/12/2016 10:55:20

A recent example is the British government sells billions of pounds worth of weapons to the Saudi Arabian government and the Saudi government uses them to destroy huge areas of Yemen.

Perversely, after 18 months or more, our government & media 'discovers' the carnage happening to the people of Yemen and launches an aid appeal to help ease their suffering.

Meanwhile, the sale of weapons continues to Saudi Arabia.

Is it really such a surprise, that in turn, these conflicts find their way back to countries that profit from the turmoil?

Martin.

You are correct, and I know this is a controversial subject so I wont divulge into what I personally think too much,

but it's important not to totally believe everything you are "officially" told because part of weaponry in any war you look back on since day 1, was deception, intended either for a foreign audience or a domestic rallying exercise.

The basic idea of it is "make us look like the good guys, make them look like the bad guys". Just ask yourself, who really does totally bad or totally good things all their lives!?

It only really ever unravels with hindsight and "hand-me-downs" of crumbs of truth.

Michael W

Edited By Michael Walters on 18/12/2016 12:43:54

To true. Collatoral damage score I hear is similar maybe higher than the other unknown but terrible figure mentioned a lot of late only done much more quickly. On the fast track method UK was claiming that they were getting an unfair share of the subsequent "repair" work that should allow the country to recover costs.

Best shut up or some one may close the thread.

I tried duckduckgo for a while but eventually switched back to google. Oddly Yahoo has been of more use at times when buying something. Information tends to be more difficult to find on all of them for a number of years now. A page getting more hits than others doesn't make the info any more accurate and a lot of it is just plagiarised anyway so myths persist. The opening part of this post might be a myth too.

John

-

.

So ... getting back to the first line of my opening post: Have you found a reliable way to force google to include a specific word ?

The minus sign still works for exclusion, but the plus sign does not work for inclusion ... and putting a word in quotes doesn't appear to work either.

MichaelG.

With a name like " Duckduckgo" it does not give one a lot of confidence does it.

One sort of conjures up the board meeting where they named it. Probably all sat there with egg smeared round their chops fighting over the free gift in the cornflakes, whilst seeing who could dream up the silliest name.

Still probably get the last laugh, ending up millionaires before they leave school

"Google", "Yahoo", "Bing" - real confidence boosters . What we need is "No.1 Search Engine" or "Seek and Ye Shall Find".

I think internet naming is under the control of those at nursery school... On second thoughts they would probably come up with something sensible!

John

Sam,

Quoting fron Wikipedia:

The company is based in 20 Paoli Pike, Paoli, Pennsylvania, United States, in Greater Philadelphia, and has 21 employees. The company name originates from the children's game duck, duck, goose.^[7][8]

... so, perhaps slightly more relevant than it first appears .

MichaelG.

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 18/12/2016 15:54:44

.

"Ask Jeeves" was a good name ... but that's long-gone.

MichaelG.

I know Michael. It drives me nuts at times. I find quotes work with phrases. In fact I used it an hour ago to find an item for sale to look at prices. I suspect it came up with results that didn't meet the quoted part but did put those early on.

This is what google should do

**LINK**

At times I used google as an info source at work. Usually to get a germ of an idea about some subject. The most useful thing I found was the - sign. Often a whole host of them but there is so much crap about now I'm not sure I would bother. The other point of course is that taking all web based info as being correct isn't a good idea. Probably never has been. There has always been a need to look at several on any subject and then use one's noddle.

I tried to use Ebay's wild card search some time ago - it came up sorry we don't support that any more. Not tried since. I get the impression that just about any search anywhere tends to produce results that aren't wanted. I get the impression some one thinks this is a good idea - might see something we didn't know we wanted.

There are sites that list advanced google search terms. This term seems to work

location:UK Birmingham "welding supplier"

You might find the words scholarly article bring up an interesting link - Google Scholar. The term itself did have an effect on google in the past. A word of warning though - thesese etc need very careful scrutiny as do all sources like that.

John

-

If you are talking Google there, then you do much better than I. IMO quotes should be interpreted absolutely literally, as written (including capitalisation, which can really target a search in some circumstances). None of the "did you mean" or "let's try that leaving some words out" or "you probably spelled that wrongly, moron" or anything else we can do to give you more hits at revenue producing (for Google) sites.

Altavista originally worked in exactly that fashion (now it seems to be a branch of Google) and you could control the search the way you wanted. Google takes most of it out of your hands - even the so-called "Advanced Search" is little better.

One question though: is DDG an independent search engine or does it (like some others) simple piggy-back on Google while acting as a buffer between it and the user?

Edited By Bandersnatch on 18/12/2016 17:13:28

"Bing"---- so I am told !!!!!! ----means " Because it's not Google"

Another odd one was ( & still is) Lycos. I suppose it's meant to be a take on "Like Us"

Google or Go-Ogle (Go See) always struck me as a decent enough name compared to being a Ya-hoo or lout. Bing is just a smart-alec contraction of Bingo - probably 'cos that's got a trademark somewhere?

Just for info. ... **LINK**

http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/28034/how-to-force-google-to-use-a-keyword

... The 2016 link, at the end of the discussion is useful.

MichaelG.

Michael, do you mean this?

I don't see any difference to the way 'advanced search' has always been ??

Maybe it's just my memory going south.

Roger

Edit: Copy/paste screwed up in the submitted reply, but when I go to edit it, it appears ok. Ill just leave it alone, I'm sure you known what I intended.

Edited By Roger Head on 19/12/2016 02:56:01

Roger,

Yes .... Sorry, I expressed it badly ... It's the text [which have you quoted] that's useful to note; since it confirms that 'Advanced Search' is now the only method of forcing the inclusion of a word.

In the simple search box: The 'plus sign' functionality was lost around 2012, and the 'double quotes' functionality in 2016.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 19/12/2016 05:47:33

Yeah, ok Michael. You'd think that search engines would be providing more capabilities as time goes on, not stripping them away. IIRC, Alta Vista had near, and maybe some other selection about where in the page a hit needed to be... (not sure about that, it was a long time ago).

Some (even very elementary) scripting capability would be really useful.

Roger

[slightly] Interesting to note that this page **LINK** has not been updated to reflect the crippling 2016 change in 'double-quote marks' functionality.

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433

The removal of the 'plus sign' functionality was, as I understand it, done to "avoid confusion" regarding the 'Google+' product.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. ... There is, inevitably, a lot of out-of-date information around; but this page appears to be current:

http://guides.library.queensu.ca/google-search/operators

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 19/12/2016 12:45:54

It's probably another example of PC's being dumbed down more and more as time goes on Michael also searches bringing up things that people didn't know they wanted till the see it. Also I find that google isn't that good at finding the cheapest prices any more. Also that yahoo can bring up entirely different results - maybe that is down to it's users.

It's too easy to increase a sellers ranking on google and probably any other's. I suspect that is part of the problem also the reason for things popping up that aren't wanted. Not something I have been into but I believe pages can have a list of terms that the search engines can get and they can more or less put what they like in them. I understand Ebay have that facility and also seem to have switched to OR on search terms. That is driving me up the wall more and more.

And then there is Amazon. Hopeless search engine and always has been. Maybe the others are catching up.

Another reason may be to reduce the loads on their search engine machines. I have my doubts about that though as most things are done for commercial reasons.  They really slow down transfers to the web pages they link too so loading may be the problem.

John

-

Edited By Ajohnw on 19/12/2016 13:01:38

It's not bad, but it still shows using + for required inclusion

Bottom of page --> Last Updated: May 31, 2016 12:45 PM

Roger

PS The menu (top left) of the linked page is useful - The Google Lesson Plans takes you to

http://guides.library.queensu.ca/c.php?g=501742&p=3435814

where there is a link to some searching lessons, but there is also a link to a Google Power Searching course

http://guides.library.queensu.ca/c.php?g=501742&p=3435814

on which there is also an Advanced Power Searching course link.

If I have some time tomorrow I might look into those.

Edited By Roger Head on 19/12/2016 13:36:18