mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2024-11-10 00:12:09 +00:00
More info on biases and structured data
- Expand "rationale" with info on bias - "rationale" got bigger so I added sub-headings - Move "rationale" section to the bottom since its increased size pushed away the actual engines
This commit is contained in:
Rohan Kumar
parent
ac645a12a7
commit
f93637455d
2 changed files with 73 additions and 46 deletions
|
|
@ -8,25 +8,15 @@ This page is a “living document” that I plan on updating indefinitely. Check
|
|||
|
||||
I plan on updating the engines in the top two categories with more info comparing the structured/linked data the engines leverage (RDFa vocabularies, microdata, microformats, JSON-LD, etc.) to help authors determine which formats to use.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rationale
|
||||
|
||||
Google, Microsoft (the company behind Bing), and Yandex aren't just search engine companies; they're content and ad companies as well. For example, Google hosts video content on YouTube and Microsoft hosts social media content on LinkedIn. This gives these companies a powerful incentive to prioritize their own content. They are able to do so even if they claim that they treat their own content the same as any other: since they have complete access to their search engines' inner workings, they can tailor their content pages to better fit their algorithms and tailor their algorithms to work well on their own content. They can also index their own content without limitations but throttle indexing for other crawlers.²
|
||||
|
||||
One way to avoid this conflict of interest is to *use search engines that aren't linked to major content providers;* i.e., use engines with their own independent indexes.
|
||||
|
||||
There's also a practical, non-ideological reason to try other engines: different providers have different results. Websites that are hard to find on one search engine might be easy to find on another, so using more indexes and ranking algorithms results in access to more content.
|
||||
|
||||
No search engine is truly unbiased. Most engines' ranking algorithms incorporate a method similar to PageRank, which biases them towards sites with many backlinks.
|
||||
|
||||
=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
|
||||
|
||||
Ranking algorithms are gamed by SEO spam, which engines respond to with manual actions (downranking) and adjusting their algorithms' biases. The best solution is to mix different ranking algorithms and indexes instead of using one engine for everything.
|
||||
|
||||
## About the list
|
||||
|
||||
I primarily evaluated English-speaking search engines because that’s my primary language. With some difficulty, I could probably evaluate a Spanish one; however, I wasn’t able to find many Spanish-language engines powered by their own crawlers.
|
||||
I discuss my motivation for making this page in the "Rationale" section.
|
||||
|
||||
See the "Methodology" section at the bottom to see how I evaluated each one.
|
||||
I primarily evaluated English-speaking search engines because that’s my primary language. With some difficulty, I could probably evaluate a Spanish one; however, I wasn't able to find many Spanish-language engines powered by their own crawlers.
|
||||
|
||||
I mention details like "allows site submissions" and structured data support where I can only to inform authors about their options, not as points in engines' favor.
|
||||
|
||||
See the "Methodology" section at the bottom to learn how I evaluated each one.
|
||||
|
||||
## General indexing search-engines
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -78,6 +68,8 @@ These are large engines that pass all the above tests and more.
|
|||
|
||||
=> https://petalsearch.com/ petalsearch.com
|
||||
|
||||
Google, Bing, and Yandex support structured data such as microformats1, microdata, RDFa, Open Graph markup, and JSON-LD. Yandex's support for microformats1 is limited; for instance, it can parse h-card metadata for organizations but not people. Open Graph and Schema.org are the only supported vocabularies I'm aware of. Mojeek is evaluating structured data; it's interested in Open Graph and Schema.org vocabularies.
|
||||
|
||||
### Smaller indexes, relevant results
|
||||
|
||||
These engines pass most of the tests listed in the "methodology" section. All of them seem relatively privacy-friendly.
|
||||
|
|
@ -308,6 +300,26 @@ One engine was excluded because it seems to be built using cryptocurrency in a w
|
|||
|
||||
Some fascinating little engines seem like hobbyist proofs-of-concept. I decided not to include them in this list, but watch them with interest to see if they can become something viable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rationale
|
||||
|
||||
Why bother using non-mainstream search engines?
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflicts of interest
|
||||
|
||||
Google, Microsoft (the company behind Bing), and Yandex aren't just search engine companies; they're content and ad companies as well. For example, Google hosts video content on YouTube and Microsoft hosts social media content on LinkedIn. This gives these companies a powerful incentive to prioritize their own content. They are able to do so even if they claim that they treat their own content the same as any other: since they have complete access to their search engines' inner workings, they can tailor their content pages to better fit their algorithms and tailor their algorithms to work well on their own content. They can also index their own content without limitations but throttle indexing for other crawlers.²
|
||||
|
||||
One way to avoid this conflict of interest is to *use search engines that aren't linked to major content providers;* i.e., use engines with their own independent indexes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Information diversity
|
||||
|
||||
There's also a practical, less-ideological reason to try other engines: different providers have different results. Websites that are hard to find on one search engine might be easy to find on another, so using more indexes and ranking algorithms results in access to more content.
|
||||
|
||||
No search engine is truly unbiased. Most engines' ranking algorithms incorporate a method similar to PageRank, which biases them towards sites with many backlinks.
|
||||
|
||||
=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank PageRank (Wikipedia)
|
||||
|
||||
Search engines have to deal with unwanted results occupying the confusing overlap between SEO spam, shock content, and duplicate content. When this content’s manipulation of ranking algos causes it to rank high, engines have to address it through manual action or algorithm refinement. Choosing to address it through either option, or choosing to leave it there for popular queries after receiving user reports, reflects bias. The best solution is to mix different ranking algorithms and indexes instead of using one engine for everything.
|
||||
|
||||
## Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
### Discovery
|
||||
|
|
@ -371,7 +383,10 @@ He also gave me some useful details about Seznam, Naver, Baidu, and Goo:
|
|||
|
||||
² Matt from Gigablast told me that indexing YouTube or LinkedIn will get you blocked if you aren't Google or Microsoft. I imagine that you could do so by getting special permission if you're a megacorporation.
|
||||
|
||||
³ DuckDuckGo has a crawler called DuckDuckBot. This crawler doesn't impact the linked results displayed; it just grabs favicons and scrapes data for a few instant answers. DuckDuckGo's help pages claim that the engine uses over 400 sources; my interpretation is that at least 398 sources don't impact organic results. I don't think DuckDuckGo is transparent enough about the fact that their organic results are proxied. Compare DuckDuckGo side-by-side with Bing and Yandex and you'll see it's sourcing organic results from one of them (probably Bing).
|
||||
³ DuckDuckGo has a crawler called DuckDuckBot. This crawler doesn't impact the linked results displayed; it just grabs favicons and scrapes data for a few instant answers. DuckDuckGo's help pages claim that the engine uses over 400 sources; my interpretation is that at least 398 sources don't impact organic results. I don't think DuckDuckGo is transparent enough about the fact that their organic results are proxied. Compare DuckDuckGo side-by-side with Bing and Yandex and you'll see it's sourcing organic results from one of them (probably Bing). Update 2022: DuckDuckGo has the ability to downrank results on its own; it was previously working with Bing to get Bing to remove misinformation and spam:
|
||||
|
||||
=> https://web.archive.org/web/20220310222014/https://nitter.pussthecat.org/yegg/status/1501716484761997318 Gabriel Weinberg on Twitter
|
||||
=> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/technology/duckduckgo-conspiracy-theories.html DuckDuckGo's prior approach to moderation
|
||||
|
||||
⁴ Qwant claims to also use its own crawler for results, but it’s still mostly Bing in my experience. See the "semi-independent" section.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -22,23 +22,16 @@ This page is a "living document" that I plan on updating indefinitely. Check for
|
|||
|
||||
I plan on updating the engines in the top two categories with more info comparing the structured/linked data the engines leverage (RDFa vocabularies, microdata, microformats, JSON-LD, etc.) to help authors determine which formats to use.
|
||||
|
||||
Rationale
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
Google, Microsoft (the company behind Bing), and Yandex aren't just search engine companies; they're content and ad companies as well. For example, Google hosts video content on YouTube and Microsoft hosts social media content on LinkedIn. This gives these companies a powerful incentive to prioritize their own content. They are able to do so even if they claim that they treat their own content the same as any other: since they have complete access to their search engines' inner workings, they can tailor their content pages to better fit their algorithms and tailor their algorithms to work well on their own content. They can also index their own content without limitations but throttle indexing for other crawlers.[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
One way to avoid this conflict of interest is to _use search engines that aren't linked to major content providers;_ i.e., use engines with their own independent indexes.
|
||||
|
||||
There's also a practical, non-ideological reason to try other engines: different providers have different results. Websites that are hard to find on one search engine might be easy to find on another, so using more indexes and ranking algorithms results in access to more content.
|
||||
|
||||
No search engine is truly unbiased. Most engines' ranking algorithms incorporate a method similar to [PageRank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank), which biases them towards sites with many backlinks. Ranking algorithms are gamed by SEO spam, which engines respond to with manual actions (downranking) and adjusting their algorithms' biases. The best solution is to mix different ranking algorithms and indexes instead of using one engine for everything.
|
||||
|
||||
About the list
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
I discuss my motivation for making this page in the [Rationale section](#rationale).
|
||||
|
||||
I primarily evaluated English-speaking search engines because that’s my primary language. With some difficulty, I could probably evaluate a Spanish one; however, I wasn't able to find many Spanish-language engines powered by their own crawlers.
|
||||
|
||||
See the "Methodology" section at the bottom to see how I evaluated each one.
|
||||
I mention details like "allows site submissions" and structured data support where I can only to inform authors about their options, not as points in engines' favor.
|
||||
|
||||
See the [Methodology section](#methodology) at the bottom to learn how I evaluated each one.
|
||||
|
||||
General indexing search-engines
|
||||
-------------------------------
|
||||
|
|
@ -54,26 +47,26 @@ These are large engines that pass all the above tests and more.
|
|||
- [SAPO](https://www.sapo.pt/) (Portuguese interface, can work with English results)
|
||||
- Bing: the runner-up. Allows submitting pages and sitemaps for crawling, but requires login. Its index powers many other engines:
|
||||
- Yahoo (and its sibling engine, [OneSearch](https://www.yahoo.com/now/verizon-launches-search-engine-onesearch-132901132.html))
|
||||
- DuckDuckGo[^3]
|
||||
- DuckDuckGo[^2]
|
||||
- AOL
|
||||
- Qwant (partial)[^4]
|
||||
- Qwant (partial)[^3]
|
||||
- Ecosia
|
||||
- Ekoru
|
||||
- Privado
|
||||
- Findx
|
||||
- Disconnect Search[^5]
|
||||
- Disconnect Search[^4]
|
||||
- PrivacyWall
|
||||
- Lilo
|
||||
- SearchScene
|
||||
- Peekier
|
||||
- Oscobo
|
||||
- Million Short
|
||||
- Yippy search[^6]
|
||||
- Yippy search[^5]
|
||||
- Lycos
|
||||
- Givero
|
||||
- Swisscows
|
||||
- Fireball
|
||||
- Ask.moe[^7]
|
||||
- Ask.moe[^6]
|
||||
- Partially powers MetaGer by default; this can be turned off
|
||||
- At this point, I mostly stopped adding Bing-based search engines. There are just too many.
|
||||
- Yandex: originally a Russian search engine, it now has an English version. Some Russian results bleed into its English site. Allows submitting pages and sitemaps for crawling, but requires login. Powers:
|
||||
|
|
@ -82,11 +75,13 @@ These are large engines that pass all the above tests and more.
|
|||
- [Mojeek](https://www.mojeek.com/): Seems privacy-oriented with a large index containing billions of pages. Quality isn't at Google/Bing/Yandex's level, but it’s not bad either. If I had to use Mojeek as my default general search engine, I'd live. Partially powers [eTools.ch](https://www.etools.ch/). At this moment, _I think that Mojeek is the best alternative to GBY_ for general search.
|
||||
- [Petal Search](https://petalsearch.com/). A search engine by Huawei that recently switched from searching for Android apps to general search in order to reduce dependence on Western search providers. Despite its surprisingly good results, I wouldn't recommend it due to privacy concerns. Requires an account to submit sites. I discovered this via my access logs. Be aware that in some jurisdictions, it doesn't use its own index: in Russia and some EU regions it uses Yandex and Qwant, respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
Google, Bing, and Yandex support structured data such as microformats1, microdata, RDFa, Open Graph markup, and JSON-LD. Yandex's support for microformats1 is limited; for instance, it can parse `h-card` metadata for organizations but not people. Open Graph and Schema.org are the only supported vocabularies I'm aware of. Mojeek is evaluating structured data; it's interested in Open Graph and Schema.org vocabularies.
|
||||
|
||||
### Smaller indexes, relevant results
|
||||
|
||||
These engines pass most of the tests listed in the "methodology" section. All of them seem relatively privacy-friendly.
|
||||
|
||||
- [Right Dao](https://rightdao.com): very fast, good results. Passes the tests fairly well. It plans on including query-based ads if/when its user base grows.[^8]
|
||||
- [Right Dao](https://rightdao.com): very fast, good results. Passes the tests fairly well. It plans on including query-based ads if/when its user base grows.[^7]
|
||||
- [Gigablast](https://gigablast.com/): It's been around for a while and also sports a classic web directory. Searches are a bit slow, and it charges to submit sites for crawling. It powers [Private.sh](https://private.sh). Gigablast is tied with Right Dao for quality.
|
||||
- [Alexandria](https://www.alexandria.org/): A pretty new "non-profit, ad free" engine, with [freely-licensed code](https://github.com/alexandria-org/alexandria). Surprisingly good at finding recent pages. Its index is built from the Common Crawl; it isn't as big as Gigablast or Right Dao but its ranking is great.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -121,7 +116,7 @@ Results from these search engines don't seem at all useful.
|
|||
|
||||
Engines in this category fall back to GBY when their own indexes don't have enough results. As their own indexes grow, some claim that this should happen less often.
|
||||
|
||||
- [Brave Search](https://search.brave.com/): Many tests (including all the tests I listed in the "Methodology" section) resulted results identical to Google, revealed by a side-by-side comparison with Google, Startpage, and a Searx instance with only Google enabled. Brave claims that this is due to how Cliqz (the discontinued engine acquired by Brave) used query logs to build its page models and was optimized to match Google.[^9] The index is independent, but optimizing against Google resulted in too much similarity for the real benefit of an independent index to show. Furthermore, many queries have Bing results mixed in; users can click an "info" button to see the percentage of results that came from its own index. The independent percentage is typically quite high (often close to 100% independent) but can drop for advanced queries.
|
||||
- [Brave Search](https://search.brave.com/): Many tests (including all the tests I listed in the "Methodology" section) resulted results identical to Google, revealed by a side-by-side comparison with Google, Startpage, and a Searx instance with only Google enabled. Brave claims that this is due to how Cliqz (the discontinued engine acquired by Brave) used query logs to build its page models and was optimized to match Google.[^8] The index is independent, but optimizing against Google resulted in too much similarity for the real benefit of an independent index to show. Furthermore, many queries have Bing results mixed in; users can click an "info" button to see the percentage of results that came from its own index. The independent percentage is typically quite high (often close to 100% independent) but can drop for advanced queries.
|
||||
- [Plumb](https://plumb.one/): Almost all queries return no results; when this happens, it falls back to Google. It's fairly transparent about the fallback process, but I'm concerned about _how_ it does this: it loads Google's Custom Search scripts from `cse.google.com` onto the page to do a client-side Google search. This can be mitigated by using a browser addon to block `cse.google.com` from loading any scripts. Plumb claims that this is a temporary measure while its index grows, and they're planning on getting rid of this. Allows submitting URLs, but requires solving an hCaptcha. This engine is very new; hopefully as it improves, it could graduate from this section. Its Chief Product Officer [previously founded](https://archive.is/oVAre) the Gibiru search engine which shares the same affiliates and (for now) the same index; the indexes will diverge with time.
|
||||
- [Neeva](https://neeva.com): Combines Bing results with results from its own index. Bing normally isn't okay with this, but Neeva is one of few exceptions. As of right now, results are mostly identical to Bing but original links not found by Bing frequently pop up. Long and esoteric queries are less likely to feature original results. Requires signing up with an email address or OAuth to use, and offers a paid tier with additional benefits.
|
||||
- [Qwant](https://www.qwant.com): Qwant claims to use its own index, but it still relies on Bing for most results. It seems to be in a position similar to Neeva. Try a side-by-side comparison to see if or how it compares with Bing.
|
||||
|
|
@ -143,7 +138,7 @@ These indexing search engines don’t have a Google-like “ask me anything” e
|
|||
|
||||
These engines try to find a website, typically at the domain-name level. They don't focus on capturing particular pages within websites.
|
||||
|
||||
- [search.tl](http://www.search.tl/): Generalist search for one <abbr title="top-level domain">TLD</abbr> at a time (defaults to .com). I'm not sure why you'd want to always limit your searches to a single TLD, but now you can.[^10] There isn't any visible UI for changing the TLD for available results; you need to add/change the `tld` URL parameter. For example, to search .org sites, append `&tld=org` to the URL. It seems to be connected to [Amidalla](http://www.amidalla.de/). Amidalla allows users to manually add URLs to its index and directory; I have yet to see if doing so impacts search.tl results.
|
||||
- [search.tl](http://www.search.tl/): Generalist search for one <abbr title="top-level domain">TLD</abbr> at a time (defaults to .com). I'm not sure why you'd want to always limit your searches to a single TLD, but now you can.[^9] There isn't any visible UI for changing the TLD for available results; you need to add/change the `tld` URL parameter. For example, to search .org sites, append `&tld=org` to the URL. It seems to be connected to [Amidalla](http://www.amidalla.de/). Amidalla allows users to manually add URLs to its index and directory; I have yet to see if doing so impacts search.tl results.
|
||||
- [Thunderstone](https://search.thunderstone.com/texis/websearch21/): A combined website catalog and search engine that focuses on categorization. Its [about page](https://search.thunderstone.com/texis/websearch19/about.html) claims: <q cite="https://search.thunderstone.com/texis/websearch19/about.html">We continuously survey all primary COM, NET, and ORG web-servers and distill their contents to produce this database. This is an index of _sites_ not pages. It is very good at finding companies and organizations by purpose, product, subject matter, or location. If you're trying to finding things like _'BillyBob's personal beer can page on AOL'_, try Yahoo or Dogpile.</q> This seems to be the polar opposite of the engines in the ["small or non-commercial Web" category](#small-or-non-commercial-web).
|
||||
- [sengine.info](https://www.sengine.info/): only shows domains, not individual pages. Developed by netEstate GmbH, which specializes in content extraction for inprints and job ads. Also has a German-only version available. Discovered in my access logs.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -213,6 +208,23 @@ One engine was excluded because it seems to be built using cryptocurrency in a w
|
|||
|
||||
Some fascinating little engines seem like hobbyist proofs-of-concept. I decided not to include them in this list, but watch them with interest to see if they can become something viable.
|
||||
|
||||
Rationale
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
Why bother using non-mainstream search engines?
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflicts of interest
|
||||
|
||||
Google, Microsoft (the company behind Bing), and Yandex aren't just search engine companies; they're content and ad companies as well. For example, Google hosts video content on YouTube and Microsoft hosts social media content on LinkedIn. This gives these companies a powerful incentive to prioritize their own content. They are able to do so even if they claim that they treat their own content the same as any other: since they have complete access to their search engines' inner workings, they can tailor their content pages to better fit their algorithms and tailor their algorithms to work well on their own content. They can also index their own content without limitations but throttle indexing for other crawlers.[^10]
|
||||
|
||||
One way to avoid this conflict of interest is to _use search engines that aren't linked to major content providers;_ i.e., use engines with their own independent indexes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Information diversity
|
||||
|
||||
There's also a practical, less-ideological reason to try other engines: different providers have different results. Websites that are hard to find on one search engine might be easy to find on another, so using more indexes and ranking algorithms results in access to more content.
|
||||
|
||||
No search engine is truly unbiased. Most engines' ranking algorithms incorporate a method similar to [PageRank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank), which biases them towards sites with many backlinks. Search engines have to deal with unwanted results occupying the confusing overlap between SEO spam, shock content, and duplicate content. When this content’s manipulation of ranking algos causes it to rank high, engines have to address it through manual action or algorithm refinement. Choosing to address it through either option, or choosing to leave it there for popular queries after receiving user reports, reflects bias. The best solution is to mix different ranking algorithms and indexes instead of using one engine for everything.
|
||||
|
||||
Methodology
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -263,22 +275,22 @@ Some of this content came from the [Search Engine Map](https://www.searchenginem
|
|||
|
||||
[^1]: Yes, "indexes" is an acceptable plural form of the word "index". The word "indices" sounds weird to me outside a math class.
|
||||
|
||||
[^2]: Matt from Gigablast told me that indexing YouTube or LinkedIn will get you blocked if you aren't Google or Microsoft. I imagine that you could do so by getting special permission if you're a megacorporation.
|
||||
[^2]: DuckDuckGo has a crawler called DuckDuckBot. This crawler doesn't impact the linked results displayed; it just grabs favicons and scrapes data for a few instant answers. DuckDuckGo's help pages claim that the engine uses over 400 sources; my interpretation is that at least 398 sources don't impact organic results. I don't think DuckDuckGo is transparent enough about the fact that their organic results are proxied. Compare DuckDuckGo side-by-side with Bing and Yandex and you'll see it's sourcing organic results from one of them (probably Bing). _Update, March 2022:_ DuckDuckGo [has the ability to downrank results on its own](https://web.archive.org/web/20220310222014/https://nitter.pussthecat.org/yegg/status/1501716484761997318); it was previously [working with Bing](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/technology/duckduckgo-conspiracy-theories.html) to get Bing to remove misinformation and spam.
|
||||
|
||||
[^3]: DuckDuckGo has a crawler called DuckDuckBot. This crawler doesn't impact the linked results displayed; it just grabs favicons and scrapes data for a few instant answers. DuckDuckGo's help pages claim that the engine uses over 400 sources; my interpretation is that at least 398 sources don't impact organic results. I don't think DuckDuckGo is transparent enough about the fact that their organic results are proxied. Compare DuckDuckGo side-by-side with Bing and Yandex and you'll see it's sourcing organic results from one of them (probably Bing).
|
||||
[^3]: Qwant claims to also use its own crawler for results, but it’s still mostly Bing in my experience. See the "semi-independent" section.
|
||||
|
||||
[^4]: Qwant claims to also use its own crawler for results, but it’s still mostly Bing in my experience. See the "semi-independent" section.
|
||||
[^4]: Disconnect Search allows users to have results proxied from Bing or Yahoo, but Yahoo sources its results from Bing.
|
||||
|
||||
[^5]: Disconnect Search allows users to have results proxied from Bing or Yahoo, but Yahoo sources its results from Bing.
|
||||
[^5]: Yippy claims to be powered by a certain IBM brand (a brand that could correspond to any number of products) and annotates results with the phrase "Yippy Index", but a side-by-side comparison with Bing and other Bing-based engines revealed results to be nearly identical.
|
||||
|
||||
[^6]: Yippy claims to be powered by a certain IBM brand (a brand that could correspond to any number of products) and annotates results with the phrase "Yippy Index", but a side-by-side comparison with Bing and other Bing-based engines revealed results to be nearly identical.
|
||||
[^6]: Ask.moe was working on a [FLOSS indexer](https://git.sr.ht/~danskeren/spider.moe); its search page stated an intention to switch to it from Bing at one point. This statement has since been removed.
|
||||
|
||||
[^7]: Ask.moe was working on a [FLOSS indexer](https://git.sr.ht/~danskeren/spider.moe); its search page stated an intention to switch to it from Bing at one point. This statement has since been removed.
|
||||
[^7]: This is based on a statement Right Dao made in [on Reddit](https://reddit.com/comments/k4clx1/_/ge9dwmh/?context=1) ([archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20210320042457/https://i.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/k4clx1/right_dao_a_new_independent_search_engine_that/ge9dwmh/?context=1)).
|
||||
|
||||
[^8]: This is based on a statement Right Dao made in [on Reddit](https://reddit.com/comments/k4clx1/_/ge9dwmh/?context=1) ([archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20210320042457/https://i.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/k4clx1/right_dao_a_new_independent_search_engine_that/ge9dwmh/?context=1)).
|
||||
[^8]: More information can be found in [this HN subthread](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27593801) and some posts on the Cliqz tech blog ([one](https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-06/building-a-search-engine-from-scratch.html), [two](https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-10/search-quality-at-cliqz.html)).
|
||||
|
||||
[^9]: More information can be found in [this HN subthread](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27593801) and some posts on the Cliqz tech blog ([one](https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-06/building-a-search-engine-from-scratch.html), [two](https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-10/search-quality-at-cliqz.html)).
|
||||
[^9]: Some search engines support the `site:` search operator to limit searches to subpages or subdomains of a single site or TLD. `site:.one`, for instance, limits searches to websites with the ".one" TLD.
|
||||
|
||||
[^10]: Some search engines support the `site:` search operator to limit searches to subpages or subdomains of a single site or TLD. `site:.one`, for instance, limits searches to websites with the ".one" TLD.
|
||||
[^10]: Matt from Gigablast told me that indexing YouTube or LinkedIn will get you blocked if you aren't Google or Microsoft. I imagine that you could do so by getting special permission if you're a megacorporation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue