Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Jun 2015 21:47 UTC
Internet & Networking

DuckDuckGo has exploded in popularity since the federal government’s surveillance program came to light two years ago. Remember the privacy-minded search engine’s best week ever?

The service has grown 600 percent since then, DuckDuckGo CEO Gabe Weinberg said on CNBC.

And deservedly so.

Thread beginning with comment 612685
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Same crap, different name
by deathshadow on Thu 18th Jun 2015 10:00 UTC
Member since:

I used DDG right up until they started adding the same slow loading scripttardery that makes me increasingly hate ALL websites since they piss away functionality and accessibility in the name of "gee ain't it neat" garbage I don't want.

Their original concept of clean simple search is long gone, said duck duck having gone the way of the dodo. They've horribly neglected their scripting off version of the site, they've embraced the HTML 5-tard BS for no legitimate reason, the people currently working on the templates don't seem to know enough

Which sadly makes it the EXACT SAME CRAP that killed off "jeeves" ages ago that EVERY BLASTED SEARCH is now pissing their own beds with.

Since I'm not in the tinfoil hat crowd the "privacy" thing doesn't make me rage against the man like others. That means if it's going to be bloated slow loading scripttard bull, what makes it any better a choice than Google, Bing, StartPage, Yahoo, whatever?

ALL of these search engines have lost sight of what's important -- delivering content to users -- for scripttard BS, framework asshattery, and generally pissing away accessibility and flat out IGNORING web standards; laughably in the case of some while claiming to be promoting them. Yes Google, I'm looking at you!

Jokers vomiting up the code for these sites need a SERIOUS sit-down with the WCAG and to spend some time reading about usability over on NNGroup's website. They wouldn't know semantics, accessibility, or functionality if it bit them in the ass.

Just look at their home page -- apart from developer ineptitude what possible excuse could there be for that to be wasting 714k in 7 files for? The typical result page delivering a mere 8.5k of plaintext and nothing I'd even consider a content image is a ridiculous 750k in 25 files! Scripttard bloat, nothing resembling semantics, and a complete ignorance of what HTML is, what it is for, and how to use it!!!

Edited 2015-06-18 10:04 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Same crap, different name
by sb56637 on Thu 18th Jun 2015 20:29 in reply to "Same crap, different name"
sb56637 Member since:
deathshadow Member since:

Incomplete form, inline-level tag wrapping block level tag in 4 strict, static CSS in the markup, comment placements that could trip rednering bugs in legacy browsers (you know, the type of places people might use the non JS version), clearing DIV like it's still 2003, no media targets for the screen layout CSS, restricting the maximum zoom in the viewport meta (WHY THE *** DO PEOPLE DICK WITH THAT?!?), 7 validation errors in a document that shouldn't even have that many lines...

... and that's just the big empty page with a search box.

What part of "horribly neglected their scripting off version" did you miss? To be brutally frank that's such a mess that whoever's writing it has NO DAMNED BUSINESS MAKING WEBSITES!!!

Developer ineptitude doesn't even begin to cover it... and that's BEFORE we even get to the laundry list of how not to build a website that is the results page -- that's so ineptly developed it's probably costing them more to host than it should... as made plain by their wasting 40 to 75k of markup (depending on the result set) to deliver 7k of plaintext and nothing I'd waste time even bothering putting in there as a content images. (the favicons are cute, but a tiny little waste in that role)... basically anywhere from three to five times the amount of markup as should have been used.

Reply Parent Score: 2