Most people believe (at least as far as I know them), that google results are better than bing.
Plus star page has super useful anonimized view. It's essentially anon proxy built into search page. It's useful if you have to go look trough doggy websites.
For many people, Google results are an advantage. Much as for many people targeted results are an advantage. Your definition of advantage seems unreasonably strict.
This is a bizarre comment. I've not made any assertions or definitions. My initial comment was in reply to an unsupported assertion. Perhaps your comment was in response to someone else.
When you asked for support for the assertion, it was given, but you continued to disagree.
However, for people who prefer Google, using Google results is an advantage. You seem to be working under some stronger definition of advantage (for example: "an advantage is only an advantage of everyone agrees it is am advantage"), and such advantages are rare enough to be an unreasonable requirement.
>When you asked for support for the assertion, it was given, but you continued to disagree.
The "support" that the other poster submitted was: "Most people believe (at least as far as I know them) ..."
I don't suspect many folks would accept that as anything more than anecdotal.
>However, for people who prefer Google, using Google results is an advantage. You seem to be working under some stronger definition of advantage (for example: "an advantage is only an advantage of everyone agrees it is am advantage"), and such advantages are rare enough to be an unreasonable requirement.
Look, I get it, you like Google. You work for Google. That's all well and good. You're argument(s) toward me come off as a bit defensive, however. There was a baseless assertion given in response to someone asking for information and I called that into question.
My arguments here aren't for or against Google, but in support of substantive dissemination of information which the original comment I replied to was not.
I'm making an entirely semantic argument that has nothing to do with Google in particular. I'm calling out bad reasoning on your part.
Startpage has an advantage over ddg because some people prefer Google search results.
Equally, ddg has an advantage over startpage because some people prefer being results or prefer to not use Google.
It doesn't matter if even a single person prefers Google to bing. For that single person, startpage has an advantage. The reverse of this is again, also true. Anecdotal evidence is, in this case, more than enough to justify the assertion.[0] That is, unless you're working under some unusually strong definition of advantage. Which I'll note you still haven't provided. Instead of, perhaps, saying "yes I don't consider a relative advantage that applies only to a potentially small group of people to be an advantage", you took the opportunity to make irrelevant attacks on my character.
[0]: if you want non anecdotal evidence though: both have users. This implies each has a relative advantage over the other to some subset of the population, otherwise one would take all the users from that other.
Of the group of people I know, that are even aware that there are other search engines than google (most people just think google homepage is "the web/internet"), most of them think that google is better than bing.
Is it true ? Depends on whom and for for what. For technical questions i mostly get similar results. But for local questions (i am in small country in eu), google is a lot better than bing.
