Well it turns out that I just installed this addon on Firefox yesterday after hearing about it here or on Reddit.
This move does well to reinforce my loyalty to Firefox as my main browser. Hopefully it has the same effect on others.
This move does well to reinforce my loyalty to Firefox as my main browser. Hopefully it has the same effect on others.
Thanks Barbara Streisand effect!
I think the final nail in the coffin for Chrome for me was the decision to hobble uBlock Origin several year back.
Firefox is far from perfect, but at least it's not completely owned by Google.
Case in point: Firefox on mobile has a selected _whitelist_ of addons you can install, and that's it.
Many addons work already, but they're locked behind mozilla's vetting. Not only you need to jump through additional hoops, but you actually require an account on Mozilla's website as well.
This is like saying that Chrome is fine too, just use Chromium, get the addon from a github release and there you go!
Once those are implemented, which is expected soon (only in october did they implement the majority of the APIs so far) all addons should work, and it'll be open again.
The big issue with just opening it now is that it'd lead to dozens of complaints due to broken addons, so I can easily understand limiting it to people with enough understanding to go through these steps.
Besides, the chromium workaround used to be the official installation instructions for AdNauseam for Chrome, until Google markef it as malware. And Chromium doesn't even support addons at all on mobile devices
However, you can use Firefox Nightly and install any extension you want.
I tried last year, and honestly it isn't bad. But I use the Chrome "install this site as an App" functionality a lot and Firefox's "app tabs" didn't work nearly as well. Plus, I hear they've removed or are removing said single site browser functionality.
This might be a somewhat niche case but it makes it really hard to switch as much as FF does have some nice features (picture in picture for all video content is very nice).
It's called Add to Home Screen
There's a billion dollar niche waiting for the right company:
- make a search engine that works
- show text ads clearly distinguishable from results
- play nice, and maybe even use use a cool slogan like "we're not evil" or something (it used to be someone else's but it seems they don't use it anymore ;-)
I wonder how the next disruptive innovation is going to look in the search engine market?
I think the search engine market will always be very closely linked to content distribution platforms. If the decentralised web continues to degenerate into an oligopoly of walled gardens then there will be no search engine market in the current sense. We will just use the search function provided by each platform.
I believe the question we have to ask is what the next disruptive content distribution platform is going to look like and whether that disruption can be anything more than yet another oligopolist stealing some share from the encumbents before getting bought by one of them (or not).
But IMO it is a far cry from 2007 Google and only holds a candle because Google has nerfed itself.
And sadly, much of it isn't because they don't have resources for AI or even larger index but because of the same QA issues that Google has struggled with:
- including results that doesn't contain my search terms / too much fuzzing
- ignoring double quotes
Both probably in order to please the mythical ordinary/average user I guess.
Guess what: techies got me to change to startup Google and I guess we will get people to change to another search engine as soon as one is ready.
In the meantime I use DDG. The difference is mostly negligible now and when it isn't it is 20 times faster (I don't think this is hyperbole) to mash in a !g at the end of my DDG search than the other way around.
FTR: same goes for browsers. For me Firefox has always been best, but they have nerfed themselves and keep ignoring us techies to such a degree that I will - if necessary - pay monthly to get a safe, supported version of the same with my old extensions working, but not to Mozilla Foundation, only to the Corporation (the ones who create the browser) or someone else.
- Our search engine works and has been doing so for >15 years. Our search quality needs improving but does so gradually. And it's independent; our own crawler, index and infrastructure
- We just introduced non-tracking search ads: https://www.mojeek.com/support/ads/
- We use "No Tracking , Just Search" and "Search without Surveillance"
We've been building for 15 years; here's our founder story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26502140
- simple and clean
- gives me exact results, i.e. empty set when I search for something deliberately misspelled or non-existent
That said it seems to struggle with hyphens, see the two last queries below.
Here are my test queries:
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=byggrybsgr%C3%B8t (misspelled, sent it anyway). Result: empty set, which is correct
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=byggrynsgr%C3%B8t (local porridge) Result: plenty of relevant looking results
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=elefantfelle (Norwegian for elephant trap) Result: empty set. (But DDG can find some pages.)
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=Honningsv%C3%A5g+ (town in Northern Norway). Result: interesting, but relevant. Nice card at the top with relevant information from Wikipedia
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=react+hooks Result: relevant results, two in a language that I rarely read (German) or cannot read (French?)
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=%22mat-table%22 Result: not a single relevant result on the front page (!)
- https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=mat-table Result: not a single relevant result on the front page
On Google, it's the first result. https://www.google.com/search?q=github+ruby+hanami
On mojeek, it's not even on the first page. https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=github+ruby+hanami
It's possible that at this point I (and others) have trained ourselves to know/do the kind of queries that work on Google, without even realizing it, which would be another thing making it hard to switch. Although in this case... I'm actually a bit surprised mojeek doesn't manage it. Just `github hanami` doesn't get it either. Is it just not matching on sitename at all?
In this case we simply don't have the page in our index, though we do have others mentioning hanami. Our bot is permitted to crawl github.com and has a good number of pages in from that host, we'll evaluate whether we can increase crawling for github and similar large sites and hopefully before long that page will enter the index.
As a developer one of the main things I'm searching for is code.
Unfortunately (for competitors) I can pretty much count on Google having everything I ever want in the index.
Not having the thing I'm looking for in the index is another wrinkle on top of relevancy.
Queries related to Go seem to mainly work only if using Go and not if using Golang (unless "go" + term is popular outside of Go as well). Usually people use Golang in search (to avoid confusion with the verb & game), but pages generally refer to Go. "go package XXXX" seems to work better in many cases.
With a bit of lesser known technologies, it was hard to find a query that would get me to the actual site. e.g. Python SDK for OCI. Lots of links to examples with various queries (python oci, python oci sdk, python oci api), but not really any direct link to GitHub or the official documentation.
I think there's two ideas that come up from your feedback, one is index size. Our index is small but growing. A larger index increases the chance of having pages that satisfy your query.
The other aspect is boolean search versus something more akin to the vector space model. We've found a lot of people that are dissatisfied with Bing/Google searches tend to be unhappy that the search they actually enter is somehow modified to include what the search engine believes are relevant synonyms. In some cases, those synonyms may help in producing a better result when use of language is split between two terms used interchangeably, like go and golang. It's something we're looking into. We do value searches being based on what is actually searched for but also accept there are cases where assuming synonyms may be advantageous to the end results.
Great job so far, by the way, keep up the good work!
"Nothing to see here, you can't take photos of my mansion".