Google vs. DuckDuckGo search results

Try this query on both search engines. “make your own baby formula”

What differences do you see, and why do you think this happens?

12 thoughts on “Google vs. DuckDuckGo search results”

  1. QUOTE: Try this query on both search engines. “make your own baby formula”

    Google results focused almost exclusively on “safety”. DuckDuckGo seemed to focus on both “safety” and “how to do it appropriately”.

    That comparison search seemed somewhat benign. I remember doing one for “January 6 insurrection” and the results seemed to have more of a partisan outcome on DuckDuckGo than Google.

    When it comes to search engines, use “all of the above” (and some) is a good position to take. Each has their strengths and liabilities. Gather all the information available and then assess what you find. A search engine is merely a tool to help gather information…not a replacement for critical thinking. Varied, balanced input…might help lead to balanced conclusions.

    1. My reaction was that Google was changing the results to push a public health agenda.

      1. Maybe…but given public health is typically a priority…it may not be such a bad thing…in this case.

        1. One would think that the most fundamental aspect of public health for babies is that they get to eat.

          1. One would think it would be an extremely fundamental aspect of public health to advise that something fed to babies could potentially be detrimental to their health. Just sayin’.

            1. No one’s saying not to advise the parents of risks. But eliminating alternative methods of producing baby formula from searches leaves the parents with nothing. And they have to have some means of producing something, if they can’t go out and buy it.

              The sensible thing to do, if we’re really concerned about the fullness of public health, is to make available instructions for how to feed babies who need food, with appropriate warnings about which methods are safer vs. less safe, not limit the advice on feeding babies in a way that leaves babies to starve. That doesn’t promote public health.

              1. QUOTE:No one’s saying not to advise the parents of risks.

                Who said that???

                QUOTE: But eliminating alternative methods of producing baby formula from searches leaves the parents with nothing.

                Google HAS NOTeliminated alternative methods. It’s there. They prioritize the public health aspect. If one scrolls down the other information is there. So, what’s the problem?

                https://www.google.com/search?
                q=how+to+make+your+own+baby+formula&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS957US957&sxsrf=ALiCzsZCV9lp7sXhrHI2cibki7aL__ocaQ%3A1652833007806&ei=7zqEYv_uMOOKptQP9v-X2AQ&ved=0ahUKEwi_orbi4uf3AhVjhYkEHfb_BUsQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=how+to+make+your+own+baby+formula&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEMQCMgYIABAHEB4yCwgAEIAEELEDEIMBMgYIABAIEB4yBQgAEIYDMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDOgcIABBHELADOgcILhCwAxBDOgcIABCwAxBDOgQIIxAnOgQIABADOgUIABCABDoICAAQCBAHEB5KBAhBGABKBAhGGABQiA1Y1xdgkSJoAXABeACAAakBiAHWB5IBAzYuM5gBAKABAcgBCsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

      2. PS…I would be concerned if Google totally “eliminated” any other findings. It seems they “prioritized” public safety over other search results…given they typical importance of public health. You can still find out how make your own formula on Google…you just have to scroll down.

  2. BTW, why does there seem to be such a push against feeding baby’s cow’s milk. I’m old enough to remember when that was a standard.

    1. CDC says this: “Before your child is 12 months old, cow’s milk may put him or her at risk for intestinal bleeding. It also has too many proteins and minerals for your baby’s kidneys to handle and does not have the right amount of nutrients your baby needs.”

      1. Yeah, I was familiar with that perspective but I remember it not being such a “prohibition” in years gone by. Cow’s milk has always had those properties. So, I guess I’m curious as to what has changed that it’s a big no-no now.

      2. The risk of the bleeding is apparently extremely low. Enough that it should be discouraged as a general practice, but not nearly enough that it should be eliminated as a viable substitute when preferable sources of nutrition are unavailable.

Comments are closed.