[HN Gopher] DuckDuckGo - two non-JavaScript versions of search r...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       DuckDuckGo - two non-JavaScript versions of search results
        
       Author : URfejk
       Score  : 157 points
       Date   : 2021-03-04 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (help.duckduckgo.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (help.duckduckgo.com)
        
       | jeduardo wrote:
       | Just tested the pure HTML version and was pleased to find out
       | that it does not force a minimum browser width upon the user. I
       | usually set my desktop (1080p) to use a 3-column layout with i3
       | and am always bothered by the fact that I cannot escape from
       | horizontal scrolling on every search I run on DDG.
       | 
       | I needed to add the HTML version as a new search engine option in
       | the browser options to have it running as default, but hey, it
       | works! Horizontal scrolling is now a thing of the past.
        
       | benhoyt wrote:
       | As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this
       | warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little _too_ bare-
       | bones for most people 's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for
       | people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers:
       | 
       | HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests.
       | HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed)
       | over 31 requests.
       | 
       | Lite homepage transfers 13KB (11KB uncompressed, ha) over 4
       | requests. Lite search results page transfers 21KB (43KB
       | uncompressed) over 5 requests.
       | 
       | In all cases, all requests are to *.duckduckgo.com, which was
       | very good to see from a privacy perspective. Nice work, DDG!
       | 
       | [1] https://benhoyt.com/writings/the-small-web-is-beautiful/
        
         | nerdponx wrote:
         | DDG lite works _great_ in Lynx! I hope it never goes away.
        
         | boogies wrote:
         | These are great, and I'm glad to be able to use them without
         | direct contact with "Big Tech" and the tracking bloat that
         | entails, but as I understand it DuckDuckGo is more or less a
         | glorified -- albeit relatively glorious and pleasant -- proxy
         | to Big Tech's Bing (well, more, not less, because it does add
         | some great conveniences like the IIUC formerly open source
         | Instant Answers1 and !bangs, and some fraction of results from
         | its own crawler, and likely some from Yandex. But still, the
         | largest fraction of its core service seems dependent on Bing.
         | Not that that's its fault or there are attractive
         | alternatives).
         | 
         | 1: (Edit) https://duckduckhack.com/
        
       | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
       | I have never used any other versions but these two. Cannot
       | imagine what the "full" DDG must be like. Slower, no doubt.
        
       | bnj wrote:
       | These seem ... preferable, to me?
        
       | Nextgrid wrote:
       | I wish I could set the "HTML" version as default in Safari. It's
       | ~1.5s faster than the default JS version.
        
       | wh33zle wrote:
       | The HTML version seems to not redirect to a URL specific to your
       | search (i.e. it doesn't include a ?s= ... parameter).
       | 
       | Anyone an idea how I can configure this search engine in Firefox
       | Mobile?
       | 
       | As far as I can see, there is no way I can teach FF Mobile to
       | make a POST request instead.
        
         | howeyc wrote:
         | The parameter is q
         | 
         | https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=searchstring
        
       | dmix wrote:
       | I compared all 3 searching "venera" and prefer the JS one,
       | (sorry?), but I could see this being useful for their niche
       | audience very well. I worry more about tracking than JS in
       | browsers, when it runs super fast on my devices.
       | 
       | But TIL about DDG's awesome help pages.
        
         | mikem170 wrote:
         | Tons of tracking happens via javascript dom calls. Lots of
         | identifying information and analytics. Some web sites runs
         | hundreds of scripts.
         | 
         | I browse with javascript disabled, except for sites/domains
         | that I exempt like banks and stuff.
        
       | WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
       | This is awesome... I was always pushing for non-JS versions of
       | products and was always met with the dumbest reasons... 'the only
       | reason someone wouldn't run JS is if they're hacking'
        
       | encryptluks2 wrote:
       | Can you please add a dark theme like your JS-based site? Just
       | cause you don't use JS doesn't mean they can't use CSS.
        
         | CodeHz wrote:
         | You can achieve it without CSS actually (in chrome) Just put
         | <meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark"> to <head> It
         | will also make vanilla scrollbar into dark theme
        
       | metalliqaz wrote:
       | the 'html' version is nice. the 'lite' version is so barebones, I
       | can't imagine anyone actually using it. It almost seems like it's
       | meant for scraping
        
         | zelphirkalt wrote:
         | It is so fast and clean, I just set it as my duck keyworded
         | search. I'm not on a search engine for the looks, but for the
         | results. The faster I get them and the fewer things there are
         | to distract the eye, the better for me.
        
           | lame-robot-hoax wrote:
           | The lite and HTML versions are identical in speed for me. If
           | I had really slow internet though, maybe I'd see a
           | difference.
           | 
           | The JS version is maybe a tiny bit slower, but honestly is
           | about the same.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | alcover wrote:
         | I use it day-to-day. No problem.
         | 
         | As a rule, when JS is not mandatory I block it.
        
         | junippor wrote:
         | I've used the lite version for years.
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | The lite version reminds me of the original Google search
         | results.
        
         | alpha_squared wrote:
         | Have you ever been in a part of the world where internet speeds
         | were abysmal?
        
           | diarrhea wrote:
           | Yeah, but I moved out of Germany for other reasons.
        
         | jacobmischka wrote:
         | I imagine it would be handy on an absolutely abysmal connection
         | or one with data limits.
        
       | CivBase wrote:
       | I threw together some CSS for dark mode in the "HTML" version
       | using values from the normal JavaScript version:
       | 
       | https://gist.github.com/CivBase/818f7f4f56050c9769c4b783c08c...
       | 
       | EDIT: I replaced the raw code with a link to a GitHub gist to
       | reduce the obnoxious size of my post.
        
       | aerovistae wrote:
       | Holy shit the lite version is fast. Comparing to google search
       | it's not even close...wow.
        
       | dellcybpwr wrote:
       | The html version _always_ returns results from a Russian POV.
       | Russian dictionary sites, etc, etc.
       | 
       | Turning on javascript returns sites from a USA POV. I'm in the
       | USA.
        
         | OminousWeapons wrote:
         | I agree that you do appear to see much more Russian language
         | content if you use the DuckDuckGo html version (I am also an
         | American).
        
         | new_guy wrote:
         | They're probably using the Yandex API
         | https://yandex.com/dev/xml/doc/dg/concepts/about.html
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-03-04 23:00 UTC)