I've been assuming that this was just a bug with DDG and not a deliberate attempt to cripple their search engine. I've seen it with Google results too, but I could buy that Google would break them, since making websites harder to find encourages people to pay for prominently placed ads, but what would DDG's motivation be?
A couple of weeks ago, I was debating with someone about what "LMR" stood for in the context of cable specifications, such as LMR-240, LMR-400 and so on. I thought it meant "Land Mobile Radio" while the other person disagreed that it stood for anything. A Google search on LMR coax cable acronym returned a helpful info blurb stating that LMR stood for "Last Minute Resistance" as a means of fending off sexual assault.
Needless to say there was no way to tell exactly what site Google had copied that definition from, and no useful way to provide feedback to them. Sometimes there's a "Feedback" link, this time there wasn't. Sometimes the feedback link is present but only offers the option of reporting illegal activity. That option wasn't present either.
For whatever reason, Google clearly does not give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about search quality anymore. With the right leadership, Bing could own that entire line of business, in a manner reminiscent of IE's original dominance over Netscape. I'm not holding my breath, but at this point I'm cheering for anyone who can offer Google some competition.
I rarely use search engines anymore. I'll bet the same is true for many people.
In fact when I used regular Google, the results are good enough for me to deduce that on my own.
So I consider GP's search skills inadequate. I mean it's not exactly wrong to desire a tool that handholds you and feeds you the answer; but if you are willing to do a little bit of deduction Google is fine.
I would assume the best actual source is the USPTO trademark registration database, which has this entry: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:pw...
It appears to indeed mean nothing, but of course, it took me a whole two minutes or so to find an actually authoritative source. Everyone knows no real user will ever do that and just wants a search engine or chatbot to dictate reality to them.
People are building workarounds in real life due to how bad Google's results have gotten.
I tried the example you cited. The "blurb" is called a snippet; the snippet comes from the web page itself. One of the pages had that actual text, which is why it appeared. Why it had it on a page that's primarily about coaxial cable isn't clear, but we'll look into how to improve.
As for sending feedback, each link in the results has a little three dot icon next to it that brings up our "About This Results" panel, and you can send feedback that way.
Also, to belatedly introduce myself, I'm the public liaison for search at Google. It's a position we have within the actual search engineering team to help us gather feedback to improve search quality. Feel free for you or anyone comfortable sharing examples of unhelpful results to flag me about it:
https://twitter.com/searchliaison https://mastodon.social/@searchliaison
Surely you don't expect us to believe this ever gets read, much less acted upon? Don't insult the intelligence of your audience.
If you type 'word1 word2 word3', where word3 is less common than word1 and word2, a lot of the time, it will act as if word3 simply wasn't in the query.
And when DDG runs out of "web links" it just fills the rest of result pages with local results that are out-of-place and useless. Like, getting "Visit Paris" sites after searching for rare computer parts.