SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Which search engine do you use the most?
| 44% | 202 votes |
| 1% | 8 votes |
| 43% | 198 votes |
| 5% | 26 votes |
| 0% | 1 votes |
| 0% | 1 votes |
| 1% | 6 votes |
| 3% | 17 votes |
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Which search engine do you use the most?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 66 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @05:52PM (22 children)
Nowadays, it's duckduckgo almost all the time. Now and again, I feel like Google might have done better, so I do the Google thing. Mehh - it's hard to tell, really. But DDG doesn't track me like a hungry bear.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:54PM (4 children)
For me it's the classic interface of Startpage (that is, Ixquick). I can't stand the "modern" interface (which I suspect is optimized for mobile), therefore I explicitly use classic.startpage.com. It seems that duckduckgo has the same "modern" interface. I just don't like it if titles get abbreviated when they span less than half the available horizontal space (and even for titles longer than horizontal space, I really prefer wraparound to shortening).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 21 2017, @05:41PM
I've been using the "simple" interface of duckduckgo for this reason.
(Score: 1) by BenFenner on Thursday September 07 2017, @04:22PM (2 children)
DuckDuckGo has this for those like us who enjoy a simple, functional interface: https://duckduckgo.com/html [duckduckgo.com]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 07 2017, @06:08PM (1 child)
That's not what I complained about. It's the layout of the results page, which for duckduckgo has the same problems that the modern Startpage results page has.
Try here [startpage.com] to see the difference (enter some search terms to see the results page). Make sure to try it on a desktop computer.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @10:21PM
yeah -- this is what I wanted google to stick with.
but eternal september and all that
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 20 2017, @10:04PM (12 children)
The problem with Google is that it is a hive of mediocrity, because the metric of "most popular information" is not well mapped to the metric of "best information."
Not that I'm aware of any that are better, though.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 21 2017, @04:18AM (10 children)
That's certainly a major problem with Google, though it's also a bit of a problem with every search engine.
My beef with Google is that you used to be able to work around that problem at least somewhat by simply adding search terms. That is, if you did a search for 2 or 3 words, and stuff that come up wasn't good, you could think about it and maybe add another term or two to restrict things and get better results. Or, you might notice a good link on some info, and add a few more terms you learned from that info to get better results.
Yes, this sometimes still works, but it's now completely unpredictable because Google will drop random search terms all the time and show results that don't contain what you actually searched for. It won't consistently apply "advanced" operators. Sometimes it tacitly will even substitute synonyms, even when they aren't really synonyms. And no, quotation marks don't work consistently. "Verbatim" frequently fails too and throws results that don't contain the term (although the bigger problem is that "verbatim" generally returns a tiny subset of links with the terms you want -- same with "allintext:" which is a bit better, but still returns an arbitrary subset, a subset which will differ depending on things like search term order or other random search functions).
I still remember Google back in the late 90s when it became rapidly popular for 4 things: (1) it was damn fast and clean, (2) it had a larger database than many other engines, or at least it seemed so, (3) Pagerank was a pretty decent algorithm at the time, certainly better than anything else then available, and (4) you didn't need a bunch of Boolean BS to actually get decent results. You just typed in a bunch of terms, maybe with a minus sign, and you got exactly what you asked for.
It was great in the early 2000s when Google started adding things like autocorrecting spelling and helpful "suggested" related searches. But then it all became opaque and catering to people who don't understand how to use a full-text search. Which is okay -- I just wish there were *some* option somewhere to get something like the old Google back. Alas, it seems to be gone forever... even though Google's ranking algorithms are still generally better than other sites. It's just useless now for serious research or anyone who actually knows how to narrow down a search quickly using appropriate precise use of search terms.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:42PM (2 children)
"Yes, this sometimes still works, but it's now completely unpredictable because Google will drop random search terms all the time and show results that don't contain what you actually searched for."
Yup, like if you search for arch linux something or other, it serves you answers for Windows. Ummmmm.... what?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @12:50AM (1 child)
If you really REALLY want to see a word/phrase in your Google results (rather that just be directed to a page that -another- page which -does- contain that links to), put that stuff in your search string TWICE.
Use Verbatim search as well ( tbs=li:1& in your URL.
.
Now, I like to bookmark searches and sometimes use search results as links.
Let's see you do this[1] with -your- search engine:
http://www.google.com/search?num=30&q=intitle:Linux+intitle:Myths+-intitle:bsd+-lagoon+-backbox+-containers+-asp [google.com]
num=30 -- Not just the standard 10 results per page (up to 100 allowed).
intitle: and -intitle: are often useful.
Other stuff that I didn't use that time, but regularly do:
inurl: and -inurl:
site: and -site:
tbs=qdr:d& -- stuff from the last 24 hours; use h, w, m, or y for other timespans.
[1] Extra points if it doesn't require allowing cookies or enabling JavaScript.
...and if you're scared shitless that Google might track you, then use a proxy ferchisake.
N.B. archive.li (.is|.eu|.fo) will give you that for $0.
.
...and as for point (4) by AthanasiusKircher, the internet is a lot bigger now than it was in 1998.
If you can get exactly what you want on the first try, then bravo.
I find that Boolean NOTs/added terms are often necessary.
(These days, LATimes puts so much bullshit on its pages which is completely unrelated to the article, that that site is just becoming noise in searches.)
There have been times when Google was better (e.g. WRT wildcards) but there's still nothing that comes close.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:40AM
That's still a tacit endorsement of their monstrous surveillance engine. Instead, you should use alternative search engines that have goals that don't involve conducting mass surveillance on the populace. Otherwise, you're part of the problem, even if just a bit.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by acid andy on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:12AM (1 child)
Thank you! You said more eloquently and in more detail, something that I have been trying to say for a long while. I've had people try to refute it in the past, making me question my own sanity.
The other bit is what I did mention in the past that I suspect they also tailor the results a bit based on what they think you as an individual are interested in, based on your past behavior (identifying you by your IP address or cookies, LSOs, agent string, resolution and other meta data if you don't just have an account with them).
The worst part is knowing that there must be websites out there that have exactly the information you want, but that no search string exists to persuade their engine to display them to you, exactly because of the lack of precision and the way it ignores terms when it chooses.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:36PM
You suspicions are correct, if a bit dated -- Google publicly announced that they were going to start doing exactly that way back in 2005 for logged in Google users and expanded it to all users in 2009. They also try to customize results based on your "social circle":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Personalized_Search [wikipedia.org]
Keep that in mind next time you see one of those screenshots showing Google's suggested completions for some search phrase. People interpret those to say something about what people in general are interested in; but really it's telling you about the person who took the screenshot.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 23 2017, @07:32PM (1 child)
I remember back when Verbatim Search actually worked :P
I'm quite sure I don't want to know the reasons for why we can't just wrap damn quotes around exact phrases we want to see.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @12:59AM
Still does.
If you REALLY want a word|phrase, put it in TWICE.
...and Google is telling you about the zeitgeist.
They're pointing out **what has been linked to**.
Sometimes it's up to you to be smarter than the madding crowd.
Phrases? Verbatim Search is the way to go.
(Don't need quote marks.)[1]
[1] Handy when posting a search result.
S/N's comments engine still barfs on quote marks in URLs.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by corey on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)
Agree with this completely.
On the plus side, when I search for things and get forum thread results, DuckDuckGo gives me lots of really old results, eg from 2005-2010. Same search on Google gives me much newer threads >2015 say. DuckDuckGo also doesn't tell you the date of the thread but Google does.
I use duckduckgo 90% of the time. And it has been great.
Was using qwant.com for a bit which is the Iridium browser default but it is so slow from here in Australia. The site is based in France. And its flashy.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday September 01 2017, @04:20PM
I get the same issue with news stories too, but I find just dropping "2017" onto the end of the query usually solves that issue. Occasionally you'll still get an old article that was recently crawled and has "copyright 2017" or something in the footer, but most of the old results do get filtered out.
Or you could just hit that drop-down below the search box where it says "Any Time" and change it to "Past Month"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:33PM
For quite a while now, they've been trying to make Google "smarter." Which means that the results are more tailored to your personal likes, and perhaps more importantly to make it easier to specify what you want in the form of a natural language query.
Unfortunately that means that, while it's a bit better at addressing a question, it's a LOT worse as a search engine. Even though the reason that people use a search engine is often because they want to query a computer database, not strike up a conversation. You can get a natural language response by asking a person (also note how likely a random person is to give a good answer to questions you might want to answer with a search engine).
I've found that Google results have steadily gotten worse as the engine has gotten smarter, and from my observation of online forums, I am far from alone in this evaluation, particularly among those who are used to the efficiency and abundance of results available from search engines that try to be less like a half-assed artificial human and more like an actual, you know, search engine.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 23 2017, @05:39AM
The metric they use is "most advertising revenue", which matches much closer to "most popular information" than it does to "best information".
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:46AM (3 children)
Google was great. Then:
Google started to handle "natural language" queries, meaning it messed up and didn't do as asked.
Google started refusing to supply arbitrary files. For example, I once wanted *.art files. These are Microsoft/AOL image things. Formerly, I could get a bunch via a query like: filetype:art -blah
Google focused on mobile queries, and then on voice. I guess a random idiot talking to a phone brings more profit than a nerdy engineer sitting at a 32-way Xeon desktop.
Google openly started to censor anti-globalist pro-America thinking. This seems to have started around when the CEO worked for the Hillary campaign, and ramped up severely after her loss.
That's enough for me. Google no longer provides much value, and I hate Google. Google results are now actually worse than duckduckgo results. That took some doing! Google put real effort into making their product worse.
Bonus: the Google image search results for "american inventors" are all non-white except for Thomas Edison. Try the query in a different language though, and you get something more realistic. This is 100% political. I want real results, not propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:35AM
I used to use google to find obscure music on random servers. I found a lot of stuff by trolling through other people's mp3 collections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:26AM
I doubt gogle has any clue how their fabled algorithm even works at this point. Any algorithm that's sufficiently complex (read: passed through too many hands and teams) approaches RNG output.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @09:29PM
I don't remember that capability being that broadly applied.
I remember there being (and still being) a list of file extensions that were/are supported.
I found this to be especially useful as a Boolean NOT, in particular -filetype:pdf.[1]
The thing about that is that sometimes a file that is a PDF doesn't have an extension of .pdf (though the 1st thing on Google's title line for the item notes that it is a PDF) and that mechanism won't work.
It's like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing at Google.
I have found that it's just as effective (and takes less typing) to do a -inurl:pdf.
[1] Add DOC, DOCX, and PPT for stuff that people upload which I almost never find useful.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday August 20 2017, @07:51PM (2 children)
Ixquick but I would consider a replacement. I've tried Searx.me [searx.me] but it times out a lot and it was completely offline the other day.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @01:37AM (1 child)
There was a time when Google had a path-directly-to-the-image thing when they were showing a thumbnail in Image Search.
(You had to parse the very long URL a bit, but the information was there.)
...then they dropped that and only gave a link to the whole page such that you had to find that same image among all the chintz, once you got to that page. 8-(
I discovered that, in their target URLs, ixquick had that sort of deep link which Google had previously had and that was often helpful.
Now, the URL of the search page in the address bar was completely useless for bookmarking (say that it took you 3 pages before you found the good stuff).
You couldn't open the 2nd/3rd/4th page in a new tab via drag & drop either.
Now they too have dropped that and have ridiculously long encoded URLs to get to the page they found.
So, their image search now sucks worse than Google's.
(ixquick always had a smaller database anyway.)
I've been back at Google for image searches since ixquick fumbled.
Even when Google shoots itself in the foot, they don't blow their whole leg off as others do.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday September 15 2017, @11:10AM
I dunno, if I look for an image using Google Image search, I click one of the resulting images and can then click "view image" - which on hovering over, provides a direct url to the image, not to the page.
So I'm not quite sure what you mean with "then they dropped that and only gave a link to the whole page".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:41PM
Each search engine has their own censorship policy (and a bunch of those listen are just recycling results from other search engines via licensing/proxying deals).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:45AM
DicksQuick
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @08:00AM (1 child)
I remember when ixquick was a meta search, a one stop site which combined results from multiple search engines.
Not anymore. Since it rebranded as a "privacy" search instead, now all it does is run two separate frontends to two separate search engines. To search both, you have to search twice.
To search Google visit ixquick.com
To search Yandex visit ixquick.eu
Ixquick is fucking pathetic.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @10:22PM
I used to use metacrawler.com 15 years ago, but it's not the same any more.
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Monday August 21 2017, @08:15PM
https://www.startpage.com/ [startpage.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixquick#Startpage [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @08:48PM
DuckDuckGo short URL [ddg.gg]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Monday August 21 2017, @10:44PM (2 children)
http://yacy.net [yacy.net]
compiling...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:21PM
Yes! I was going to ask the same! :)
I don't actually use it currently...I had it running for a while but the "server" (decommissioned laptop) it was running on didn't seem to have enough horsepower. I'll be spinning up a new one eventually, but until then I'm on DuckDuckGo. Not in too much of a hurry as the YaCy results kinda sucked last time, but I block so much stuff that the DDG results kinda suck too...sometimes it takes five or six tries to get one unblocked result. Sometimes worse -- their video search seems to only search YouTube for example, which means it's useless. I'm thinking if I can import my Firefox history as the starting point for YaCy it might actually give better results for common queries (ie when I might as well just search the PHP man page or arch wiki directly, but a search engine gets me there faster.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by tekk on Saturday August 26 2017, @01:54PM
I tried yacy on an off a few times over the years, I was never able to find a single relevant result whenever I searched.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:29AM
https://www.shodan.io [shodan.io]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:48AM (4 children)
Google's search engine is still my preferred spell checker. For actual searching, I use engines which don't profile me. I want results based on what I asked for not what the company thinks I'd like based on previous things I've done. I hate personal bubbles. I'm an adult, I can handle ideas which don't conform to my own.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:11AM
> Google's search engine is still my preferred spell checker. For actual searching, I use engines which don't profile me.
So Google's profile of you is essentially "can't spell"? :D
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:54AM (2 children)
Yes and no. Google either knows me or is a lot better at tech type searches. I try the duck first but if it is a tech type search I almost always end up dropping the menu and submitting the same search to Google and getting useful results.
Used to use Google for everything. No reason not to, they seemed to take their "No Evil" policy serious, they only hired the biggest brains and their results was the best that the best could generate so if it couldn't find it nobody else was going to do better. Then they started showing disturbing signs of Evil, they seemed to be staffing up with SJWs instead of Talosians and suddenly they were manually jacking with search results, selectively "demonitizing" and banning... in short they were clearly and unashamedly Evil.
Their tech is no longer trustworthy. Just came off a roadtrip where I tried using Google Maps as the primary navigator as an experiment. Me & the Mrs. took to calling it the Evil Psycho Bitch after the first few times it would suddenly blurt out an instruction to "make a U-Turn in 1000 ft" while zooming down the Interstate or similar zaniness that would result in a "bad outcome" if obeyed. Then a few minutes later it would correctly call the right exit. Or just "Google Maps has stopped responding. [wait] [stop]"
Good paper maps are getting hard to find. Meh. If you review the route on the screen before you begin the turn by turn navigation you can avoid most of the insanity by recognizing it as insane. Unless you make a wrong turn and have to depend on it to recalc the route, that gets intense fast.
So was that a result of Google knowing me enough to want me dead or does it treat everyone like that? Won't it be great when the same software team has the wheel and the throttle? Now add in the extra random insanity when it can't sense the environment well. If we allow self driving cars based on anything approaching this current tech out onto the roads we all deserve the Darwin Award.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday September 04 2017, @02:02PM
I find the opposite. Either DDG has the answer in the first page, or it doesn't return any results for tech queries. If I take the ones to Google that DDG fails on, it gives me pages and pages of irrelevant crap that's totally unrelated to my search term.
For maps, I've found that OpenStreetMap has better data in most places than Google Maps and on Android OSMAnd lets you download vector maps for offline use and offline navigation at a fairly coarse granularity (e.g. a country or a state), so it's easy to get all of the maps that you need for offline navigation for a long trip. It doesn't give you traffic data, but aside from that I've found it better.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday September 08 2017, @10:18PM
The twist is strong in this one!
Let me get this straight: social justice is "evil"? jmorris, do you have horns growing out of your head? I hear they are very stylish these days.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by https on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:41AM (3 children)
grep -r
...for all of the below.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DECbot on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:32PM (1 child)
Some of us don't have the luxury of downloading the internet to the local disk. Would you mind setting up ssh access for me on your box?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 04 2017, @07:55PM
They didn't specify "Internet" in the question, so GP's answer was completely correct. As in, I have to search through my own stuff at least as often.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @11:24AM
> by https (5248)
Well, I'm sure it works for *you*, but what about those of us that are not internet protocols?
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:45AM (2 children)
One commenter uses Shodan, one uses grep.
No one around here using torrentsearch the most often? Pirate bay?
Stackexchange search?
Asking the SO?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:33PM
Uhhhh, yeah - sounds like my wife. I think she spends about 10% of her online time finding movies she wants to watch, about 10% reading emails and stuff, another 10% to Facefook, the remainder is devoted to her online farm game. But, who am I to complain? While she's busy on the computer downloading and watching movies, she's not trying to tell me what I should be doing - or not doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:47AM
I don't need PirateBay. The legal offerings provide more than enough entertainment for me.
Grep is a search tool, but not a search engine, as it doesn't index anything. Now locate is a search engine for file names, but I don't use it that often. There was also that Gnome search engine whose name I forgot; the only time I cared about it was at work when I tried to find out what was filling up my disk quota, so I could disable it.
(Score: 4, Funny) by richtopia on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:14PM (3 children)
Whenever I need to find something, I just type the word and stick ".com" after! Takes me directly to the page I need.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:47PM
Like:
FurryBallsPloppedMenacinglyOnTheTable
?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 25 2017, @05:21AM (1 child)
I'll tell you, you can't get to the White House that way. Big danger to your cyber that way. 🇺🇸
(Score: 4, Funny) by richtopia on Friday August 25 2017, @03:56PM
I can only imagine your disappointment when you realized running for President does not grant you access to whitehouse.com, but rather whitehouse.gov.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 23 2017, @05:45AM
Hey, at least I'm not being tracked..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday August 23 2017, @05:45PM
I use startpage now. I used to use Google but only rarely do so now. Before that AltaVista was pretty good.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jb on Friday August 25 2017, @10:24AM (1 child)
archie & veronica ... or occasionally wais
(Score: 2, Interesting) by WillR on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:31PM
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Sunday August 27 2017, @07:12PM
Bing seems to be the default search engine for one of the browsers at work. I usually just use it to search for "Google"
(Score: 1) by LAV8.ORg on Monday August 28 2017, @08:04PM
http://www.ecosia.org/ [ecosia.org]
Ecosia is a social business / benefit corp. that directs at least 80% of their profit to planting trees. Reports published publicly, monthly.
(It's actually a layer on top of Bing)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @04:59PM (2 children)
I use Yandex search, email, and browser. And Kaspersky AV.
Because in Soviet Russia, internet searches you!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 04 2017, @07:59PM
Meanwhile, as my sig pointed out for a long time: In Capitalist America, ads view you!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:02PM
Bing, bing, bing! For me it's always bing or the microphone, never anything Russian. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:12PM
I'm giving ecosia a try only because it helps plant trees. It's not a privacy search engine.
(Score: 1) by AlwaysNever on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:25PM (1 child)
I only use Google, I've no time to play games.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Monday September 11 2017, @10:07PM
I only use Google too, but I find plenty of time for Clash of Clans . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 1) by Slartibartfast on Sunday September 03 2017, @11:02PM (1 child)
I mean, c'mon, now...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:26AM
Domain Name: altavista.com
.
.
.
Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: Yahoo! Inc.
Registrant Street: 701 First Avenue
Registrant City: Sunnyvale
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 94089
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4083493300
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4083493301
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: domainadmin@yahoo-inc.com