[markot]

http://duckduckgo.com/

http://dontbubble.us/

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012...racking-users/

Its my new default!

[Scullibundo]

Bubble me? Moops?

[KevinCow]

This dontbubble site reads like a crazy conspiracy theory. Come on. Google's not maliciously designed by the man to keep information away from you, it's just trying to put the hits that you'll be interested in at the top of the list. I don't know, that seems kinda helpful if you ask me.

[DonMigs85]

Endorsed by Chinner, Suairyu and DOO13R no doubt.

[markot]

This dontbubble site reads like a crazy conspiracy theory. Come on. Google's not maliciously designed by the man to keep information away from you, it's just trying to put the hits that you'll be interested in at the top of the list. I don't know, that seems kinda helpful if you ask me.

Hows it a conspiracy theory? Its telling you what happens. But google is 'bubbling' you with results you will be most interested in, which in turn 'bubbles' you from opinions or things that you might not click.

[Dariee]

I've been using Duckduckgo for a few months now, but not that happy yet. Still doesn't get me all the pages I need, as I'm missing out on a lot of pages Google does give me.

On the other hand: as soon as I use specific terms to find solutions for a complicated problem or something that you don't have many info on (instead of a generic one word search entry), Duckduckgo is the one to help me out instantly.

So yeah, it pretty much depends on what you want to do with it. One word search entry, I prefer Google. Specific problems etc.: Duckduckgo.

[show me your skeleton]

gonna' give it a go for a while, going to be hard to not have those lovely bing images come up every so often but that little ducky-face will see me through.

[KevinCow]

Hows it a conspiracy theory? Its telling you what happens. But google is 'bubbling' you with results you will be most interested in, which in turn 'bubbles' you from opinions or things that you might not click.

Because that's an insane and paranoid way to look at it. They're not trying to bubble you from information that you might not like, they're trying to help you find what you're looking for quicker and easier.

Bob and Joe both like Batman, but Bob likes video games while Joe likes movies. They both search for Batman on Google. Bob gets links about Arkham City, while Joe gets links about The Dark Knight.

A rational person would look at this and say, "Oh, so they were able to find what suited their interests much easier. That's good."

A crazy person would look at this and say, "Google's just trying to keep you from opening your mind to new forms of entertainment, man!"

[markot]

Fine, they are not bubbling you, but they are helping you build that bubble!

[sohois]

Been using DuckDuckGo for a few months now, is generally very good and it even has some features that i prefer over google. At times the connections can be a bit slow, i guess they don't have the server power of google and sometimes i will switch to google for some specific searches.

[itxaka]

Because that's an insane and paranoid way to look at it. They're not trying to bubble you from information that you might not like, they're trying to help you find what you're looking for quicker and easier. Bob and Joe both like Batman, but Bob likes video games while Joe likes movies. They both search for Batman on Google. Bob gets links about Arkham City, while Joe gets links about The Dark Knight. A rational person would look at this and say, "Oh, so they were able to find what suited their interests much easier. That's good." A crazy person would look at this and say, "Google's just trying to keep you from opening your mind to new forms of entertainment, man!"

No. They are bubbling you. They are not showing a true search regardless of the person. That means that in the future whatever you search, google decides what you want to see and do not show the best results for those words.

It's not about "OMG illuminati" stuff. It's about altering the results of the search to present you with fake results. If I search evolution I want to see creationist web pages in there trying to (lol) disprove evolution. I don't want to show me only pages according to what I believe because it blinds you to everything else.

[KittenMaster]

I'll give it a shot. I'm all for giving another search engine some love.

My issue so far is that there is no image search, I need to search for a site that contains the photos I want.

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Pssh, everyone knows Google isn't just there for the man to keep information from you. It's so the man can get information about you.

Only half joking.

[Zeppu]

Damn you Google for giving me results relevant to me based on what they've learnt about what I like.

I hope they'd start showing me ads to stuff I don't give a shit about as well, since I have to see ads anyway.

[Stumpokapow]

Here's what I don't get--why on earth would you ever just search for "Egypt"? What results are you looking for?

Egypt travel
Egypt revolution news
Wikipedia Egypt
Egypt population
Egypt photos
Egypt history

Problem solved.

It's not about "OMG illuminati" stuff. It's about altering the results of the search to present you with fake results. If I search evolution I want to see creationist web pages in there trying to (lol) disprove evolution. I don't want to show me only pages according to what I believe because it blinds you to everything else.

scientific evidence for evolution
creationist responses to evolution

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Because that's an insane and paranoid way to look at it. They're not trying to bubble you from information that you might not like, they're trying to help you find what you're looking for quicker and easier. Bob and Joe both like Batman, but Bob likes video games while Joe likes movies. They both search for Batman on Google. Bob gets links about Arkham City, while Joe gets links about The Dark Knight. A rational person would look at this and say, "Oh, so they were able to find what suited their interests much easier. That's good." A crazy person would look at this and say, "Google's just trying to keep you from opening your mind to new forms of entertainment, man!"

A traveling hobo would look at this and say, "Google isn't trying to control you and their personalized searches can be very helpful, but I'm not sure that limiting yourself only to things that you know you like is a good thing."

Not that I have any intention of abandoning my Google overlords, mind you.

[Zeppu]

Here's what I don't get--why on earth would you ever just search for "Egypt"? What results are you looking for? Egypt travel Egypt revolution news Wikipedia Egypt Egypt population Egypt photos Egypt history Problem solved.

You're talking about people who know how to use a search engine. People who open chrome (heh, ok, ok, probably ie), type google into the address bar, click the first result of the search, then type in facebook in the google search, click the first result, to get on facebook don't know how to do what you just mentioned.

Also, with instant results and the like, you don't even have to go past 'Egypt' in most of the cases.

[KevinCow]

It's not about "OMG illuminati" stuff.

It doesn't have to be about "OMG illuminati" stuff to be insane and paranoid.

Maybe they could have an option to turn it off for you paranoid folks who somehow think this is malicious, but it's clearly a feature that was designed to be helpful.

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Here's what I don't get--why on earth would you ever just search for "Egypt"? What results are you looking for? Egypt travel Egypt revolution news Wikipedia Egypt Egypt population Egypt photos Egypt history Problem solved.

You forgot the most important, Egypt porn.

[buy teh haloz]

I dunno, I have search history turned off anyway.

[Enco]

I'm ok thanks.

A few extensions and https search will combat pretty much all privacy concerns. Google is the best search engine. Full stop.

edit: might as well give it a shot for a week or so. I like the top meanings bar. Will probably save a lot of time.

[Cookie18]

I switched from Google to Bing a few months ago because of the tracking stuff. This looks to complete the transition since Bing is only marginally better than Google. I'll give it a go.

[Raonak]

Is it wrong that I find bubbling helpful?

[zigg]

Pssh, everyone knows Google isn't just there for the man to keep information from you. It's so the man can get information about you. Only half joking.

Half, sure. But always remember that if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer—you're the product.

Google's still really good at search and a handful of other things. I still use their search box with reasonable levels of anonymization—everyone else's results are often full of useless crap, usually spam sites. (Bing had a terrible habit of constantly elevating a StackOverflow ripoff site which eventually drove me away, for example.)

[cajunator]

I dont see anything unusual, but I do have browsing history off. Never turned it on in the first place so google just shows me relevant info. Also when I do image searches I like google's format a lot more.

[astroturfing]

It doesn't have to be about "OMG illuminati" stuff to be insane and paranoid. Maybe they could have an option to turn it off for you paranoid folks who somehow think this is malicious, but it's clearly a feature that was designed to be helpful.

it is helpful, if you trust google to know exactly what you're thinking, even your subconscious. i don't.. their algorithms aren't perfectly in tune with my neurons and never will be. i want searching to be neutral, not a broken, awkward relationship between my brain and a corporation.

and i certainly don't want targeted ads, i already know what i like so it's often redundant. if you're going to push ads on me i want to see some stuff that is completely outside my current interests. thats how i could discover new stuff.. hell i've never been camping, so show me some camping ads! but how could Google now? and there's a million other random things that i've never googled but might be interested in. if i'm shut out of any potentially interesting information because Google decides i like something else instead, then thats a bad thing.

i still like Google though.

[numble]

This dontbubble site reads like a crazy conspiracy theory. Come on. Google's not maliciously designed by the man to keep information away from you, it's just trying to put the hits that you'll be interested in at the top of the list. I don't know, that seems kinda helpful if you ask me.

There's no conspiracy theory. They are just explaining how things are done, and why they think it is bad. They even tell you to try the specific searches in their examples.

[jaxword]

I dunno, I have search history turned off anyway.

Haha, yeah, Google DEFINITELY is respecting that.

Also, there is a man-god who sneaks down your chimney once a year and gives you material goods for free.

[numble]

Here's what I don't get--why on earth would you ever just search for "Egypt"? What results are you looking for? Egypt travel Egypt revolution news Wikipedia Egypt Egypt population Egypt photos Egypt history Problem solved. scientific evidence for evolution creationist responses to evolution

Go to a public library and watch people use the Internet.

[Stumpokapow]

You're talking about people who know how to use a search engine. People who open chrome (heh, ok, ok, probably ie), type google into the address bar, click the first result of the search, then type in facebook in the google search, click the first result, to get on facebook don't know how to do what you just mentioned. Also, with instant results and the like, you don't even have to go past 'Egypt' in most of the cases.

People who don't know how to use the internet don't care that they're being bubbled. If they did, the exact same amount of outrage that would teach them how to use duck duck go would teach them how to properly use Google.

[crazy monkey]

Go to a public library and watch people use the Internet.

True. So True lol.

[jaxword]

You forgot the most important, Egypt porn.

Searching this would probably get you arrested in Egypt.

[KevinCow]

it is helpful, if you trust google to know exactly what you're thinking, even your subconscious. i don't.. their algorithms aren't perfectly in tune with my neurons and never will be. i want searching to be neutral, not a broken, awkward relationship between my brain and a corporation.

If their algorithms aren't right, then you have to scroll down a bit to find what you're looking for. If you're not using those algorithms, then you're probably gonna have to scroll down to find what you're looking for more often. They're not hiding things from you, they're pushing the stuff you're more likely to be interested in closer to the top.

and i certainly don't want targeted ads, i already know what i like so it's often redundant. if you're going to push ads on me i want to see some stuff that is completely outside my current interests. thats how i could discover new stuff.. hell i've never been camping, so show me some camping ads! but how could Google now? and there's a million other random things that i've never googled but might be interested in. if i'm shut out of any potentially interesting information because Google decides i like something else instead, then thats a bad thing.

How often do you happen upon new interests through Google searches? Like, is that a thing that happens? You type in Super Mario Bros., but you see an ad for camping and decide to give up your technology-addicted lifestyle and dedicate your life to the outdoors from now on? Come on, you know where you stand on camping. Whether or not you will go camping doesn't hinge on you seeing a camping ad on Google.

I'm not using Google because I want it to introduce me to new interests, I'm using it because I want to find information on things that I type in that little box. Is that just me? Am I the crazy one? I get information from Google, and I'm introduced to new interests or have my viewpoints challenged through other things, like interactions with other people.

[Treefingers]

It doesn't have to be about "OMG illuminati" stuff to be insane and paranoid. Maybe they could have an option to turn it off for you paranoid folks who somehow think this is malicious, but it's clearly a feature that was designed to be helpful.

Don't get why you keep claiming people think it's malicious or that people are 'paranoid' about Google wanting to bubble them. All that this bubbling thing means is that Google's search engine effectively creates a bubble around you and you're shielded from the outside of that bubble. It's not paranoid, it's the simple truth. No one's claiming that it's malicious.

[numble]

People who don't know how to use the internet don't care that they're being bubbled. If they did, the exact same amount of outrage that would teach them how to use duck duck go would teach them how to properly use Google.

That's not people who don't know how to use the Internet. Not everyone has "proper" Google search skills.

"Haiti," "Chile" and "Earthquake" were top searches in 2010, according to Google Zeitgeist.

[markot]

To me, the onion and political points are the clinchers. Being... even ever so briefly, 'acosted' by differing opinions is a good thing.

I think a huge problem now is that we do live in these 'bubbles' where we get our news from our sources and our blogs on our side that we agree with already.

[abusori]

I think it's a useful feature.
I'm gonna find what I'm searching for, period. Google just helps me find it faster because it remembers the 50 ba-fucking-jillon searches I do a day.

Privacy issues I don't even care about, since I can just use tor if I wanted to search something possibly incriminating, and why else would I care? It's not like someone's personally going through my history going all "fukkireta? smh."

[Stumpokapow]

That's not people who don't know how to use the Internet. Not everyone has "proper" Google search skills. "Haiti," "Chile" and "Earthquake" were top searches in 2010, according to Google Zeitgeist.

And I would say the vast majority of those people were more than satisfied with the results they got--especially since the entire conspiracy here is that Google profiles you over the long term, so ultra-casual users on public computers aren't likely to be fitting into any particular profile and they're going to get fairly neutral undifferentiated results.

[Zeppu]

People who don't know how to use the internet don't care that they're being bubbled. If they did, the exact same amount of outrage that would teach them how to use duck duck go would teach them how to properly use Google.

First of all, what numble said. Secondly, I feel that your initial example is quite simple. For example I've been having trouble setting up a glassfish server on my linux box.

I would look up 'glassfish lib folder'. It would give me a bunch of results for all OSs. So I change the query to 'linux glassfish lib folder' and it gives me more appropriate results. I do this a few more times, and eventually google learns that when I look up stuff for glassfish, I'm interested in linux related results. Sure, I could add 'linux' every time in every search, but isn't it more convenient this way?

I do understand what you're saying and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that sometimes it makes sense to do a full search of all terms you're looking for, and at other times a particular search term is mentally omitted, like the OS in my example above.

[scorcho]

There's no such thing as 'fake' results or 'real' results. All of this are based on tuned algorithms that rank and sort through a great deal of static/information with the aim of returning results they feel is most relevant to you. it's hard to say one is more 'real' than the other.

also, calling it a 'bubble' isn't crafting some wild conspiracy theory, but explaining the phenomena of having an internet experience that's been tuned by algorithms to your particular search, browse, purchase, like, etc. history. some may find this a natural extension of human social behavior, others completely creepy and worrisome.

i like duckduckgo, but it's been a hard switch to from Google after all these years. its index doesn't feel as large as Google's, and some search returns leave me a bit underwhelmed. it's interface is the bee's knees, though.

[Stumpokapow]

First of all, what numble said. Secondly, I feel that your initial example is quite simple. For example I've been having trouble setting up a glassfish server on my linux box. I would look up 'glassfish lib folder'. It would give me a bunch of results for all OSs. So I change the query to 'linux glassfish lib folder' and it gives me more appropriate results. I do this a few more times, and eventually google learns that when I look up stuff for glassfish, I'm interested in linux related results. Sure, I could add 'linux' every time in every search, but isn't it more convenient this way? I do understand what you're saying and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that sometimes it makes sense to do a full search of all terms you're looking for, and at other times a particular search term is mentally omitted, like the OS in my example above.

I think you'd made the case that under certain conditions, tailored search results could (counter-intuitively) end up not being appropriately tailored for you. I do not feel this supports the premise of the thread or the selling point of DuckDuckGo for two reasons:

1) Your example is somewhat akin to "in some car accidents, seatbelts can cause more damage than they prevent"--while true, it doesn't undermine their general usefulness. Yes, it's true that when you repeatedly search for something, feeding their algorithm to understand a certain fact about you... and then you intentionally search for something that the system will now fail at, the system will fail. But by definition more of your use of the system will be successful than failed. Taking the Avengers example above; if someone searches for the Avengers 35 times, and 32 of them were the movie and 3 were the comic books, it's true that the search might prioritize movie results and thus negatively impact comic book searches, but by definition it's got a 32/35 success rate and a 3/35 failure rate, so it's a net benefit.

2) You yourself admit that you are discussing a very marginal inconvenience (Negative outcome: scroll slightly further or redo search with one new search term), while the point of the thread suggests that there's a severe intellectual honesty issue and it's negatively impacting our discourse. I think the people most concerned with this are the least affected and the people least concerned are the most affected, so I really don't see the major problem.

[itxaka]

Go to a public library and watch people use the Internet.

IIRC Stump works on a library so he probably knows how people search on the library. :D

And I would say the vast majority of those people were more than satisfied with the results they got--especially since the entire conspiracy here is that Google profiles you over the long term, so ultra-casual users on public computers aren't likely to be fitting into any particular profile and they're going to get fairly neutral undifferentiated results.

Casual users log in their google account probably.

[Greyface]

IIRC Stump works on a library so he probably knows how people search on the library. :D

Yeah I was waiting for Stump to throw that out. He always argues fairly though *sigh*

[Zeppu]

snip

*tips hat*

I agree with you on both counts, but personally I prefer convenience to non-bubblity.

[PetriP-TNT]

DuckDuckGo would be awesome if it's search results wouldn't be utterly awful

[numble]

so ultra-casual users on public computers aren't likely to be fitting into any particular profile and they're going to get fairly neutral undifferentiated results.

No, my point wasn't to look at the people that fit the profile of "ultra-casual users on public computers," I'm saying that their activity can represent normal users in their own homes. It's the easiest way for you to see how the general public uses computers. If you work in an office, watch how most people use the net, especially co-workers that aren't in some research or tech position, like people in accounting.

IIRC Stump works on a library so he probably knows how people search on the library. :D

I know he works in a library.

[BruiserBear]

Here's what I don't get--why on earth would you ever just search for "Egypt"? What results are you looking for? Egypt travel Egypt revolution news Wikipedia Egypt Egypt population Egypt photos Egypt history Problem solved. scientific evidence for evolution creationist responses to evolution

I was thinking the same thing. I usually search for very specific information. I rarely just search a random topic, and frankly when I do, I'm usually just going to Wikipedia.

[Stumpokapow]

No, my point wasn't to look at the people that fit the profile of "ultra-casual users on public computers," I'm saying that their activity can represent normal users in their own homes. It's the easiest way for you to see how the general public uses computers. If you work in an office, watch how most people use the net, especially co-workers that aren't in some research or tech position, like people in accounting.

Let me just really simply state my case:
- I have never, ever, ever heard a non-technical user complain about the quality of results they get from Google. I don't know if that means they are satisfied with the results, or they are unsatisfied but don't know how to express it. I do frequently hear non-technical users complain about the quality of results they get from academic search engines, in-site custom searches, and other search cases. I genuinely believe that most people, no matter how dumb their search query is, will get the results they want on Google.

- I have seen non-technical users needlessly go through many pages of search results when a more precise term could have gotten them what they wanted. I do not expect this is cause by bubbling. I do not view a material difference between someone searching "Egypt" and having to go to page 3 for tourism info because the first three pages are all informational or news, versus someone searching "Egypt" and having to go to page 3 for tourism info because an algorithm determines that they were previously most interested in information or news.

DuckDuckGo's lack of tuning will disadvantage users more than Google's tuning for any long-term user; by definition if I have no pattern in my clicks, Google's tuning will generate no pattern. If I have a pattern in my clicks, more often than not that pattern is useful to me. It's true that there are cases where my pattern will be non-useful to me, but those cases will be by definition fewer than the cases where it is useful.

- Any user who develops the kind of awareness needed to use DuckDuckGo (which would require adding it as a search engine to their browser, mentally disabusing themselves of connecting "Google" as a verb to searching, etc--basically jostling their whole routine) is more easily able to develop the kind of awareness to get better at searching. I do not think most users will do either, but I think anyone likely to do the first will be able to do the second.

[erpg]

Because that's an insane and paranoid way to look at it. They're not trying to bubble you from information that you might not like, they're trying to help you find what you're looking for quicker and easier. Bob and Joe both like Batman, but Bob likes video games while Joe likes movies. They both search for Batman on Google. Bob gets links about Arkham City, while Joe gets links about The Dark Knight. A rational person would look at this and say, "Oh, so they were able to find what suited their interests much easier. That's good." A crazy person would look at this and say, "Google's just trying to keep you from opening your mind to new forms of entertainment, man!"

http://www.cxacademy.org/duckduckgo-...xperience.html

Also, created by duckduckgo but not in any way false information: http://dontbubble.us/

I think you're underestimating the damage that search bubbles have on confirmation bias. People will be satisfied with their results, because contrarian opinions are being filtered out.


Personally, duckduckgo is the only search engine I use, because chances are I'm looking for a wikipedia article or amazon listing anyway. They still have a ways to go with their web crawler.

[Cheebo]

DuckDuckGo is the best search engine on the internert, bar none. I can't imagine using google over it nowadays. Google Search is morphing into the bloated mess Yahoo search became when Google was first rising.