We will be doing maintenance work on Vivaldi Translate on the 11th of May starting at 03:00 (UTC) (see the time in your time zone).
Some downtime and service disruptions may be experienced.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
What search engine do you use?
-
@wahidkhan01 That's exactly how I do it too.
-
I mostly use ddg atm. I‘m pretty happy with it.
-
I mostly use Ecosia but occasionally use Google.
Sometimes Ecosia does not produce results for long searches, whereas Google displays them well. (I have only tried it in Japanese).This translation was done with Deepl
-
-
Spot on with Ecosia. It's actually my default too! As an environmental scientist, the idea of contributing to reforestation with each search is pretty much aligned with my daily mission. Their transparency and commitment to privacy are added bonuses that make the choice even easier.
For those times when I need super-specific scientific data or research papers, I do find myself gravitating towards Google Scholar. It's a handy tool for anyone in the sciences. Still, for day-to-day browsing, knowing my queries help plant trees is incredibly fulfilling.
It's great to see web services that not only serve our immediate needs but also contribute to a larger good.
-
@DapperPop5475 said in What search engine do you use?:
Brave search with Brave; otherwise, DuckDuckGo.
That's where I am at the moment. Previously it was DuckDuckGo. However, I have various search engines hooked up and do occasionally switch temporarily to test things out, especially for searches on topics the establishment considers politically controversial.
-
@Catweazle said in What search engine do you use?:
@SilentWatcher, nothing, it's a encyclopedia, no ads, no tracking, no other crap
What's wrong is that it has a liberal (in the US sense) political bias. So, you should be wary when in that domain. It's fine for more general and technical information.
The bias is acknowledged by Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders.
-
@wintercoast, maybe valid for the US version, I don't know, but the Wikipedia is made by international colaborators (more than 80.000) and the articles in it are different one from another. I'm using the Wiki from Spain, which is pretty objective in its political contents. Apart relays on multiple reviews, bibliograpphie and fact checks, often also foto and multimedia content to complete the info. Everybody can write in the Wiki, but if it is a fake information or without reliable sources, it's very fast deleted. The myth of subjective content is almost always made by people, which don't agree with the truth or don't know how the Wiki works. It's correct that in it's first versions in 2001 the articles are often not so reliable, due to there are only few pople are working in it with still a poor moderation an fact check. Also possible that someone put an false or biased article today, which isn't detected inmediatly, possible with more than 62 millon articles., but it will in a short time.
Wrong information you can find also in any other Encyclopedia, more if it made rom a reduced team of a editorial.You can compare with the other alternatives
https://alternativeto.net/software/wikipedia/ -
@Catweazle said in What search engine do you use?:
Everybody can write in the Wiki, but if it is a fake information or without reliable sources, it's very fast deleted. The myth of subjective content is almost always made by people, which don't agree with the truth or don't know how the Wiki works.
In theory, anyone can edit but in practice what surfaces is very much an establishment view that can actually be misleading or false. There are stories of subjects actually correcting information about themselves, but with edits not sticking.
Larry Sanger has given a number of interviews where he goes more in-depth.
Wikipedia has been described by an ex-Googler as a "defamation engine" but with the catch being that there's nobody to sue, as Wikipedia itself is not responsible for the content and has Section 230 protection.
Having said that, especially for political content, we should consult multiple sources anyway.
-
@wintercoast, agree, on the Internet you must always compare information, not only in politics, although in general the Wiki, like other Encyclopedias, is always a good starting point. For political information on current events, an encyclopedia is not the best source, but it can provide information about historical events, since these can be contrasted in very different documents and publications.
In Spain I do not consult the actions of the current governments in the Wiki either, but in newspaper archives and televised parliamentary sessions, but I can read in the Wiki the history of Spanish democracy and also the CVs of the protagonists, which can provide valuable additional information. -
@Catweazle I agree. Despite my comments I often still start with Wikipedia. You can always follow links from there and investigate further. The key is to be aware of these things, especially if you've had prior experience.
E.g., I use some of the Big Tech clouds, such as OneDrive. But I know they are not secure from Microsoft's prying eyes (or Google's, as the case may be), so I don't store information there that I would be embarrassed by, or I encrypt it first if it's sensitive. Additionally, I also use a secure cloud, i.e., where the provider doesn't hold the encryption keys, so can't see the data.
But the average person seems not to be bothered by these things.
-
This post is deleted! -
PPathduck locked this topic on
