Alternatives to Google?

[cbanakis]

Just looking for search engines other than google.

Already found http://duckduckgo.com/

Call me paranoid, but I just want to stay away from google.

There were tons of alternatives back in the day, but it looks like most of them have been rubbed out.

[Bachstelze]

Another is ixquick, but Google as a search engine is really miles ahead of everything else.

[Paqman]

There were tons of alternatives back in the day, but it looks like most of them have been rubbed out.

Yep, we used to have millions of search engines, but they were all junk. I remember using an aggregator (Dogpile?) that tried to use a couple of dozen search engines and mash them into one decent set of results. Man the web was bad in the early days.

You could always use Bing or Yahoo (lol).

[alexan]

Just looking for search engines other than google.

Already found http://duckduckgo.com/

Call me paranoid, but I just want to stay away from google.

There were tons of alternatives back in the day, but it looks like most of them have been rubbed out.

You're not paranoid... not yet at least.

Just be educated on what bugs are (tracing your browsing 24/7 with all your info and stuff) and THEN you will be paranoid!

Switch away from Google searches is quite hard anyway: you need to be aware that you will take some step back on the results quality... but there's some sort of satisfaction when you feels less reliant towards specific products.


For everything else there's ghostery
www.ghostery.com/

[KiwiNZ]

The only one that comes close to Google is Bing, so I would use Google and remember no one really cares about the web sites you click on.

[cbanakis]

The only one that comes close to Google is Bing, so I would use Google and remember no one really cares about the web sites you click on.

Its not just the information logging that bothers me.


In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (https://www.google.com/url?url=https://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py%3Fanswer%3D1386831&rct=j&sa=X&ei=eM5HUNScJ4OzqQH4n4DICw&sqi=2&ved=0CGMQ3BU&q=batman+dark+knight+torrent&usg=AFQjCNGdNW3jYlFG9r-XJLbrW9SmfnNPPw),
we have removed 1 result(s) from this page.
If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint (https://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi%3FsID%3D496959&rct=j&sa=X&ei=eM5HUNScJ4OzqQH4n4DICw&sqi=2&ved=0CGIQvxU&q=batman+dark+knight+torrent&usg=AFQjCNEXKue2jfHnL7B6NrvvWMFHneX6Iw) that caused the removal(s) at
ChillingEffects.org..

This is what really gets me.

I gotta wonder what is being hidden from me.

I understand the idea is to block piracy, but how do I know what has been blocked, if its blocked?

Could be a video of a political figure playing "The Most Dangerous Game" for all I know.

And if such a video exists, I feel I have the right to know about it.

[KiwiNZ]

Law compliance is not optional

[vexorian]

I was around before google took over. There were a lot of search engines, yes. But there really weren't any "alternatives to google". Google took over because it was really good, unlike the other crap that was around (looking at you, go.com). Before google, searching the web was very difficult as it was based only on keywords and most of the results were really useless. All while you had to stand the ads.

The huge mistake everyone was making before google was that web search was a trivial thing. You just needed spiders and servers and lookup on tables by keywords. What google brought to the table was an actual algorithm that was barely able to rank pages by relevancy. Or rather an actually good way to measure relevancy. It was really a whole different product than what "search engines" were offering then.

PS: The DMCA claim actually shows you the stuff that was removed from google. See the "Allegedly infringing URLS" section.

[cbanakis]

Law compliance is not optional

What do you mean by that?

There is no law requiring google to filter search results. (SOPA did not pass)

The whole idea behind the DCMA, is that companies like google are protected from legal action.

I think they just do it to avoid confrontation.

And prefer to use a search engine that does not do that.

[bra|10n]

Law compliance is not optional

True.
However startpage.com (https://startpage.com/) adopts a strict privacy policy, the details of which may be read here (https://startpage.com/eng/privacy-policy.html#qdata).
The search results when compared to Google are comparable.

[KiwiNZ]

What do you mean by that?

There is no law requiring google to filter search results. (SOPA did not pass)

The whole idea behind the DCMA, is that companies like google are protected from legal action.

I think they just do it to avoid confrontation.

And prefer to use a search engine that does not do that.

I was referring to compliance with DCMA, I prefer to use compliant Applications etc

[cbanakis]

I was around before google took over. There were a lot of search engines, yes. But there really weren't any "alternatives to google". Google took over because it was really good, unlike the other crap that was around (looking at you, go.com). Before google, searching the web was very difficult as it was based only on keywords and most of the results were really useless. All while you had to stand the ads.

The huge mistake everyone was making before google was that web search was a trivial thing. You just needed spiders and servers and lookup on tables by keywords. What google brought to the table was an actual algorithm that was barely able to rank pages by relevancy. Or rather an actually good way to measure relevancy. It was really a whole different product than what "search engines" were offering then.

PS: The DMCA claim actually shows you the stuff that was removed from google. See the "Allegedly infringing URLS" section.

I agree that its the best. (Function wise)

But I don't like having my actions logged, and my results filtered.

I would rather drive a Ford Escort, than drive a BMW that had a gps tracker that was actively monitoring my every move, and making certain roads invisible to me.

But anyways, my reasoning is not really on topic.

Just looking for peoples input on search engines that they have used, that are not google.

[cbanakis]

I was referring to compliance with DCMA, I prefer to use compliant Applications etc

I also prefer to use compliant applications.

But I also prefer to avoid censorship on my internet.

[vexorian]

The thing is that whether or not to follow the law is not a choice of the web search engines. Bing* probably do exactly the same filtering. Else they would be shut down.

* Yahoo does not count, it uses Bing.

So in order to avoid the censorship, you would need to find a web search engine that does not actually use google or bing as result provider. And that it intentionally disobeys DMCA complaints and that it can actually provide accurate results. Each of those assertions makes the theoretical search engine more and more unlikely.


True.
However startpage.com (https://startpage.com/) adopts a strict privacy policy, the details of which may be read here (https://startpage.com/eng/privacy-policy.html#qdata).
The search results when compared to Google are comparable.
If by "comparable" you mean, "It actually uses google for the searches" then yes.

[SeijiSensei]

What do you mean by that?

There is no law requiring google to filter search results. (SOPA did not pass)

The whole idea behind the DCMA, is that companies like google are protected from legal action.

Have you actually read the DMCA and documentation about it? Try starting at chillingeffects.org.

Whether posting a link to infringing content itself constitutes "contributory infringment" is, I believe, still not resolved by US Courts. It certainly hasn't been taken to the Supreme Court.

ISPs are protected from legal action only if they comply with take-down requests. The law is vague about whether noncompliance with one request could remove the "safe-harbor" provisions under which an ISP may operate. If I were Google I wouldn't want to take a chance with that.

My biggest complaint with Google these days is that search result URLs are embedded in tracking URLs so it's typically no longer possible simply to right-click a URL on a results page and copy and paste it into another document without the Google cruft. If the URL points to an HTML document you can follow it to the actual site and then copy and paste the URL from the address bar. The process is much more difficult if the link points to a PDF document. Following the link downloads the document and displays it in a helper application (in my case, Okular), but that doesn't help. Sometimes you can copy the link text which is displayed below the title, but if the URL is too long, it will be edited and thus cannot be used.

[bra|10n]

If by "comparable" you mean, "It actually uses google for the searches" then yes.

You find it inadequate in some way?

[vexorian]

Just saying that a website that uses google as search engine is not really an alternative to google. It is good as a layer between you and google to avoid logging your searches. Not really a true "alternative" but more of an addon.

I think the only real alternative to google is Bing. But it logs you just as much if not worse than google.

[cbanakis]

True.
However startpage.com (https://startpage.com/) adopts a strict privacy policy, the details of which may be read here (https://startpage.com/eng/privacy-policy.html#qdata).
The search results when compared to Google are comparable.

Startpage.com looks pretty good.

Not sure if it actually uses google, but it claims its not tracking me, and does not seem to be filtering results.

[vexorian]

It is using google. It is actually the first thing the web site tells you. Any DMCA-related filtering google does will be inherited by startpage.com.

It is really no different than a proxy between you and google.

[Mikeb85]

Google respects user privacy more than any corporation I've ever seen or heard of... And they're also quite open about what they track and don't track, and give plenty of options to the user.

I think this Google paranoia is completely unfounded...

[bra|10n]

I think this Google paranoia is completely unfounded...

Absolutely.
Nor will I begin to argue that startpage.com is the perfect solution.


Any DMCA-related filtering google does will be inherited by startpage.com.

Nobody should rely on a single source of information for learning, period. Maybe in this case, ixquick is a better offering...

I will however point you to this (http://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthread.php?57803-New-incognito-search-engine&p=295336&viewfull=1#post295336) however, and leave you to determine what is best for each of you.

[smellyman]

Absolutely.
Nor will I begin to argue that startpage.com is the perfect solution.



Nobody should rely on a single source of information for learning, period. Maybe in this case, ixquick is a better offering...

I will however point you to this (http://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthread.php?57803-New-incognito-search-engine&p=295336&viewfull=1#post295336) however, and leave you to determine what is best for each of you.

and as a single source of mail, social, pictures, files, browser, search, voice, video, etc. etc.

[cecilpierce]

altavista and WebCrawler are a couple I used before Google in the old daz.

[Primefalcon]

Absolutely.
Nor will I begin to argue that startpage.com is the perfect solution.
One thing startpage is good for however, is if your using TOR, since Google actually actively block tor a large amount of the time

[critin]

Its not just the information logging that bothers me.



This is what really gets me.

I gotta wonder what is being hidden from me.

I understand the idea is to block piracy, but how do I know what has been blocked, if its blocked?

Could be a video of a political figure playing "The Most Dangerous Game" for all I know.

And if such a video exists, I feel I have the right to know about it.

The few times I've seen this notice it was only because of a lic agreement. For instance, searching for a 'free' app of some kind, and someone had posted a non-free. It has only been about piracy. It wasn't hiding anything mysterious. It isn't blocked, it has been deleted.

I use Google, it finds me full lists of what I want faster than any other search engine. I don't think my searching habits would be of any interest to anyone else.

[mips]

I don't like the censorship google is applying by deciding what results I can & cannot see. The other day I was looking up a legitimate issue on firmware for a media player and google seems to only give you crap when a search involves the term 'firmware'

[cbanakis]

Seems to be more...

"How Come?"
"Why?"

And less...
"I use this search engine"

Going on here.

Any more suggestions?

What search engine do you usually use, that is not google?

[vexorian]

As you can see, Most people are using google.

After this thread I decided to start using startpage. It uses google for results backend, so the results are good and useful, but it does not have google's main (for me) issues: The "personalized" search (The bubble) and the tracking. DMCA stuff does not worry me because honestly, I have never had any issues finding illegal stuff with google.

duckduckgo seems interesting but I dunno.

[nothingspecial]

I use duckduckgo but most of the time I prefix the search with !g which uses google so I'm still using it....

[loxety]

I like duckduckgo.com the best

[genoskill]

http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html

[spaceshipguy]

I'm using start page now, thanks to this thread, added it to Firefox with a couple of clicks.

I was turned off Google because I am outside the UK and Google will not allow me to use an English language Google to search - it forces me to use Google.it in Italy and Google.de in Germany.

It also removed the "exclude this website feature". I would switch to a search engine that put it back in a second.

Both these choices are obviously driven by advertising and copyright/patent protection.

Copyright is becoming a very bad thing, stifling creativity, and I don't want Google chopping the Internet up into geographic chunks so copyright holders, and their children and grandchildren can get paid. Basmati rice anyone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmati#Patent_battle).

[vexorian]

I'm using start page now, thanks to this thread, added it to Firefox with a couple of clicks.

I was turned off Google because I am outside the UK and Google will not allow me to use an English language Google to search - it forces me to use Google.it in Italy and Google.de in Germany.

It also removed the "exclude this website feature". I would switch to a search engine that put it back in a second.

Both these choices are obviously driven by advertising and copyright/patent protection.

Copyright is becoming a very bad thing, stifling creativity, and I don't want Google chopping the Internet up into geographic chunks so copyright holders, and their children and grandchildren can get paid. Basmati rice anyone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmati#Patent_battle).
google and startpage still have the exclude website feature, it is just not in the interface anymore. My explanation is less that this is because of copyright/advertising and more that the tech guys as a whole became all adicted to drugs and started to believe the story that less features is better for users.

Either way...

Just type something like:
ubuntu forums -site:ubuntuforums.org


Also, google forces a special country domain on people, but at least in my case, I have access to preference to set search interface in English and also results in English even though my google is .bo.

[Moose]

DuckDuckGo is my favourite.

[cyberhood]

YaCy (http://yacy.net/) is a really cool project.

"Web Search by the people, for the people
YaCy is a free search engine that anyone can use to build a search portal for their intranet or to help search the public internet. When contributing to the world-wide peer network, the scale of YaCy is limited only by the number of users in the world and can index billions of web pages. It is fully decentralized, all users of the search engine network are equal, the network does not store user search requests and it is not possible for anyone to censor the content of the shared index. We want to achieve freedom of information through a free, distributed web search which is powered by the world's users.

Decentralization
Imagine if, rather than relying on the proprietary software of a large professional search engine operator, your search engine was run by many private computers which aren't under the control of any one company or individual. Well, that's what YaCy does! The resulting decentralized web search currently has about 1.4 billion documents in its index (and growing - download and install YaCy to help out!) and more than 600 peer operators contribute each month. About 130,000 search queries are performed with this network each day."

-http://yacy.net/en/

[spaceshipguy]

YaCy (http://yacy.net/) is a really cool project.

I downloaded it, unpacked it, changed the permissions on the startYACY.bat file to executable (I'm assuming this is the ‘start script’ they mean in the instructions, they aren't specific about it). Ran it - nothing seemed to happen - pasted http://localhost:8090 into my web browser and was told, unable to connect.

I think they need to work on explaining this sort of operation to non-techie creative types like me. I'm tempted by the debian package, but I don't want it to mess up my system.

In principle sounds good though.

[afulldeck]

Why no love for Google, they have Gooubuntu? They love us!

[vexorian]

They don't love us that much. No google drive client. No easy syncing to Android.

[afulldeck]

They don't love us that much. No google drive client. No easy syncing to Android.


Is that a timing issue?

[DeezyFaReal]

Surf Canyon Search (http://search.surfcanyon.com/)


http://wot.surfcanyon.com/
(surf canyon with web of trust ratings)



Startpage Search Engine (https://www.startpage.com/)
http://ixquick.com
(mirror of Startpage)


DuckDuckGo (http://duckduckgo.com/)


http://donttrack.us/


(about DDG)


GoodSearch - Web search, coupons, discounts & deals for charity! (http://www.goodsearch.com/)(same as Yahoo, but with donations)

[y6FgBn)~v]

Happy here with duckduckgo as well.

[Artemis3]

I also like Clusty: http://clusty.com/

[vasa1]

I love it when someone somewhere promises not to track me.

I just googled for more search engines and came up with blekko.

[Moif_Murphy]

Google respects user privacy more than any corporation I've ever seen or heard of... And they're also quite open about what they track and don't track, and give plenty of options to the user.

I think this Google paranoia is completely unfounded...

I completely agree. I've used GMail and Google services for as long as I can remember and not once have I had any reason to worry about my data or their transparency.

[heminder]

I've been using Duckduckgo for a long time now. I can actually say that they provide me with better results than Google, probably because they don't bubble..

YaCy looks really good! Thanks for suggesting that one. I'll have to look into it. Decentralised and non-corporate is the way to go!

[ubuntu27]

I mostly Duck Duck Go (https://duckduckgo.com), and sometimes I switch to google when I need an "accurate" or more useful result. I think I am going to switch to StartPage (https://startpage.com/)


If you guys want a great e-mail with privacy, then try Lavabit (https://lavabit.com/)

[chris.olive]

I like WOT safe search works for me, dont know what it does with my info if anything.

[cyberhood]

YaCy looks really good! Thanks for suggesting that one. I'll have to look into it. Decentralised and non-corporate is the way to go!
Also look into Freenet (https://freenetproject.org/) & GNUnet (https://gnunet.org/).

[greatsirkain]

nobody ask jeeves anymore?

[leclerc65]

Install frugal puppy on a USB key, when shutting down don't save.

[lovinglinux]

They don't love us that much. No google drive client. No easy syncing to Android.

Not to mention they monopolized flash development with their Pepper API that nobody else wants.

[cyberhood]

For those who feel comfortable using Google:

What if a disgruntled Google employee (http://gawker.com/5637234/) decided to publish people's private info?

What if Google were hacked (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/operation-aurora/) and people's private info were published?

What if a government (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/googles_second_transparency_report_us_info_request .php) forced Google to turn over info on legitimate whistleblowers and free speech activists?

Some of us just don't feel comfortable that they are amassing all of this data without our consent. It may be abused by Google (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_google). And even if Google were a saintly do-no-evil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil) company (something the awake among us consider highly dubious), that does not make it impervious to attack by those with malicious intent.

Thanks DeezyFaReal for posting the DontTrackUs (http://donttrack.us/) link.

[aysiu]

For those who feel comfortable using Google:

What if a disgruntled Google employee (http://gawker.com/5637234/) decided to publish people's private info?

What if Google were hacked (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/operation-aurora/) and people's private info were published?

What if a government (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/googles_second_transparency_report_us_info_request .php) forced Google to turn over info on legitimate whistleblowers and free speech activists? Such things could (and do) happen at any company. I don't know why you're singling out Google.

[bra|10n]

I think you can substitute Google with any other search provider and still ask the same questions. The Google Transparency Report linked to focuses on the number of requests for information, but makes no mention of the number of requests granted. Have no doubt that if warranted, Google has no choice but to surrender information to law enforcement agencies who have ticked all the boxes and used appropriate processes. This goes for DDG and Startpage also.

Nobody in this thread seems to have mentioned any security concerns regarding ISP's...

[vexorian]

Such things could (and do) happen at any company. I don't know why you're singling out Google.
Google has much better security than say... ubuntuforums (sorry admins, you are just running a php server with vBulletin on top, and it has its share of vulnerabilities and stuff). It is more likely a hacker could steal your user info from any small site in which you put your info than google.


Not to mention they monopolized flash development with their Pepper API that nobody else wants. Actually , really, let's grab some torches and pitchforks, this was a jerk move.

[cyberhood]

Such things could (and do) happen at any company. I don't know why you're singling out Google.
Agreed. I'm not singling out Google. I'm staying on topic as this thread is about alternatives to this particular company. But I and many others feel the same way about any data retaining organization. That said, Google is significant as it has arguably the most information on everyone than almost any other organization (at least in the private sector), which makes it not only the most powerful & influential online entity but also an example for other companies who try to emulate it, hence the most relevant on the topic of data retention and of the highest concern for those concerned about privacy. Plus, the bigger the company/organization, the bigger the damage will be if there were to be a security compromise.

[cyberhood]

I think you can substitute Google with any other search provider and still ask the same questions.
The Google Transparency Report linked to focuses on the number of requests for information, but makes no mention of the number of requests granted. Have no doubt that if warranted, Google has no choice but to surrender information to law enforcement agencies who have ticked all the boxes and used appropriate processes. This goes for DDG and Startpage also.
Not YaCy (http://yacy.net/). And, as far as I know, DDG and Startpage cannot surrender information they do not have (https://startpage.com/au/protect-privacy-qa.html#q6).

Nobody in this thread seems to have mentioned any security concerns regarding ISP's...
Hence the need for more free nets (https://guifi.net/).

[bra|10n]

I think your forgetting that you can be uniquely identified by packets in, packets out.


Startpage only shares personal information with third parties when obligated to do so by law (e.g. official court order or subpoena), or to protect against imminent harm to the rights, property or safety of Startpage, its users or the general public as required by law.

I used startpage to find that info lol

[cyberhood]

Yes, but would you rather all your packets go to the same place to be more easily sniffed?

[bra|10n]

Yes, but would you rather all your packets go to the same place to be more easily sniffed?

No argument from me on that one. Below is a quick example of data that MAY be compared;

Browser Characteristic bits of identifying information one in x browsers have this value value User Agent16.275315.72Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/15.0.1HTTP_ACCEPT Headers8.85461.26text/html, */* gzip, deflate enBrowser Plugin Details10.761731.4Plugin 0: Shockwave Flash; Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202; libflashplayer.so; (Shockwave Flash; application/x-shockwave-flash; swf) (FutureSplash Player; application/futuresplash; spl). Time Zone7.19146.32-600Screen Size and Color Depth5.339.421366x768x24System Fonts21.2+2410103DejaVu Sans Mono, Raleway, Ubuntu Condensed, DejaVu Sans Light, DejaVu Serif Condensed, Liberation Sans Narrow, Liberation Mono, Liberation Serif, DejaVu Sans Condensed, Ubuntu, WenQuanYi Micro Hei Mono, DejaVu Sans, DejaVu Serif, WenQuanYi Micro Hei, Ubuntu Mono, Liberation Sans (via Flash)Are Cookies Enabled?0.411.33YesLimited supercookie test1.012.02DOM localStorage: Yes, DOM sessionStorage: Yes, IE userData: No

[cyberhood]

No argument from me on that one. Below is a quick example of data that MAY be compared;

Browser Characteristic bits of identifying information one in x browsers have this value value User Agent16.275315.72Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/15.0.1HTTP_ACCEPT Headers8.85461.26text/html, */* gzip, deflate enBrowser Plugin Details10.761731.4Plugin 0: Shockwave Flash; Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202; libflashplayer.so; (Shockwave Flash; application/x-shockwave-flash; swf) (FutureSplash Player; application/futuresplash; spl). Time Zone7.19146.32-600Screen Size and Color Depth5.339.421366x768x24System Fonts21.2+2410103DejaVu Sans Mono, Raleway, Ubuntu Condensed, DejaVu Sans Light, DejaVu Serif Condensed, Liberation Sans Narrow, Liberation Mono, Liberation Serif, DejaVu Sans Condensed, Ubuntu, WenQuanYi Micro Hei Mono, DejaVu Sans, DejaVu Serif, WenQuanYi Micro Hei, Ubuntu Mono, Liberation Sans (via Flash)Are Cookies Enabled?0.411.33YesLimited supercookie test1.012.02DOM localStorage: Yes, DOM sessionStorage: Yes, IE userData: No
Hehe, I took the Panopticlick (https://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php?action=log) test too. :lolflag:
Using Tor (https://www.torproject.org/) cut my bits of identifying information down by more than 60%.

[Warpnow]

It has been said seveal times but still some people seem confused.

DMCA violation reporting requires google, by law, to remove offending content.

Yes, the DMCA protects google. It says its not their fault (or anyone hosting links or files) if someone else posts offending content. However, it also says they must remove that information if the copyright owner reports it to them.

DMCA requests are because a copyright owner told google they had to filter the result. Any search engine would have to do the same thing.

If you're an artist, and you find a song being put up for download illegally, you can go to google and require that they block the content. It is the decision of the copyright holder, and he must actively request it be blocked.

[cbanakis]

It has been said seveal times but still some people seem confused.

DMCA violation reporting requires google, by law, to remove offending content.

Yes, the DMCA protects google. It says its not their fault (or anyone hosting links or files) if someone else posts offending content. However, it also says they must remove that information if the copyright owner reports it to them.

DMCA requests are because a copyright owner told google they had to filter the result. Any search engine would have to do the same thing.

If you're an artist, and you find a song being put up for download illegally, you can go to google and require that they block the content. It is the decision of the copyright holder, and he must actively request it be blocked.

I'm not confused.

The problem is that on occasion, results are filtered without justification.

(Someone posted a video of their kid on Halloween called "Bat Man")
Then some MPAA scum reports it, and google filters it.

That is very rare, but it shows that ANYTHING can be filtered.
And that is a precedent I am not ok with. Not even a little bit.

[vexorian]

It is the MPAA that is doing the false reports.

Really, if google stood up and expected MPAA to first prove before blocking results, then it would be doing what megaupload did. It allowed the FBI to steal all of google's server without trial and other nasty thing. The law and law enforcement has sided with the copyright mafias, and whatever search engine you use will have to follow the law or go clandestine.

[Paulgirardin]

Just looking for search engines other than google.

Already found http://duckduckgo.com/

Call me paranoid, but I just want to stay away from google.

There were tons of alternatives back in the day, but it looks like most of them have been rubbed out.

I saw a report a while ago that duckduckgo was linked to Bing and gave preference to Micro$oft related results in searches.

[aysiu]

I saw a report a while ago that duckduckgo was linked to Bing and gave preference to Micro$oft related results in searches.
I don't know if "linked to Bing" is the more precise way to put it. This is from their support center (http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources):
DuckDuckGo gets its results from over 50 sources, including DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites (in our own index), Yahoo! (through BOSS), embed.ly, WolframAlpha, EntireWeb, Bing, and Blekko. For any given search, there is usually a vertical search engine out there that does a better job at answering it than a general search engine. Our long-term goal is to get you information from that best source, ideally in instant answer form.

[vexorian]

^ Indeed http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources . It uses bing thanks for the report.

So, it seems that my initial claim that there are no real alternatives beyond google and big is true.

That's why I am sticking to startpage.com. Google as search engine is really the best, and with startpage you get rid of the privacy and bubbling concerns.

[ads2996]

I do use google a lot my self, but an alternative i would use would be bing, i dont really like yahoo.

[BrianBlaze]

I agree that its the best. (Function wise)

But I don't like having my actions logged, and my results filtered.

I would rather drive a Ford Escort, than drive a BMW that had a gps tracker that was actively monitoring my every move, and making certain roads invisible to me.

But anyways, my reasoning is not really on topic.

Just looking for peoples input on search engines that they have used, that are not google.


Agreed! It's like having a ferrari but limiting the power haha!

I love this topic I am glad I am not alone!

[litiform]

Just looking for search engines other than google.

Already found http://duckduckgo.com/

Call me paranoid, but I just want to stay away from google.

There were tons of alternatives back in the day, but it looks like most of them have been rubbed out.

DuckDuckGo is best

Startpage says they give you Google results.

[aykoola]

what's the difference between startpage and ixquick?