> Comment #10822
Two years? No filter date by range? Well If Bing can't get it straight (and they still seem unable to) then your relatively sparse depth of hired programming genius may find it hopeless. You will not succeed. Don't you desire to?
But the fact that Google has accomplished it for a few years now has raised the bar and, as others have noted, made my use of DDG a once weekly event. Usually out of curiosity. What a damn shame. Google's results have, more and more in recent years, been wildly wide of the mark compared to Bing and DDG. I'd LOVE to switch.
I read the whole thread and realize that you have repeatedly assured that you're "taking this seriously" but I cannot believe that you really will until thousands, instead of this few dozen here are compelled to weigh in.
It is EXTREMELY frustrating to search relevant topics, take time to dig into any one of the returns, only to discover (if you're lucky enough to even gist it from that content) that it was produced six years ago. Very often pages give no indication of dateline. That is absurd. That is so unacceptable in a search engine that I despair over the apparent lack of nearer universal demand from users, or sincere effort in response to such requests as you see here.
posted by [Old Forum guest] •
5 years and 4 months ago
Guest, sorry for the frustration. As you probably know, we're not operating at the resource capacity of Google or Bing. In fact, it was a little over 1 year ago that we got institutional funding, passed 1M searches/day, and launched DuckDuckHack. We've also introduced !bang suggestions, pursued new business partnerships, made a major overhaul to our mobile app (releasing soon), and continually kept up with the changing of our various sources.
There are a few things going on here, which I'll try to explain with as much detail as possible:
1. We use multiple sources that don't all support date search and, if they do, they support it differently (showing modified date instead of publishing date or other differences that really impact the results). When an update is made by one of our sources, we can investigate how we should tweak our use of them. But, if a bug is introduced by one of our sources, it takes a while for it to be resolved, since they're generally larger and slower moving to resolve such things.
2. Advanced syntax is not as critical to users as general relevancy. We'd like to improve the search-engine as much as possible before we start rerouting resources to work on things like date sort, page previews, and other requested features. In the last year, we've grown to 7 full timers, 13 part timers, and many many contributors. When this thread was originally posted, Gabriel had been running DuckDuckGo entirely by himself.
We do have sort-by-date
but, as users in this thread have pointed out, there are some cases where it acts a little buggy. We're still tracking down the common denominator to those problems and they should be fixed relatively shortly. It sounds like what you're looking for is more of a full-fledged date search, where you show results from 24 hours, 1 day, 1 week, or from a range (12.2.2012 - 2.2.2013). Is that correct?
Growing means growing pains. Tending to small things like this (though they may not seem small to you) are very important to us as users of our own search-engine. Trust us! We're a group of people so motivated by redefining the search-experience that we've made it our lives.
Everyone on the team is an inbound user
. I don't think there's anyone here that wouldn't like to see us do more with dates but, given our current standing and the above factors, there are more important things to be working on (like redefining what image-search is). The best thing you can do as a user is to submit
on the queries you see with poor date search results. We look at all of them and, considering not many people use advanced syntax, we always need more examples.
Also, if you can think of a way to accomplish any type of date search via an instant-answer, you can
develop it yourself
5 years and 4 months ago
Keep in Touch
© DuckDuckGo. The search engine that doesn't track you.
Login with Github
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account?
Report this content for:
Attempting to drive traffic to a website by posting off-topic links to a personal/business website.
Insulting or provocative (and not in a good way).
Lewd or offensive language.
Post is entirely unrelated to the topic being discussed.
Post is likely copy/pasted from another website and was meant for blackhat SEO.
Enter your own description of the flagged post.