Exploring Benefits of Using Alternative Search Enginesby@browserology
170 reads

Exploring Benefits of Using Alternative Search Engines

tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Using alternative search engines offers users more diverse search results, enhancing their ability to access comprehensive information. However, the study highlights that top sources still dominate results, emphasizing the influence of search engine choice on information consumption.
featured image - Exploring Benefits of Using Alternative Search Engines
Browserology: Study & Science of Internet Browsers HackerNoon profile picture


(1) Yagci, Nurce, HAW Hamburg, Germany & [email protected];

(2) Sünkler, Sebastian, HAW Hamburg, Germany & [email protected];

(3) Häußler, Helena, HAW Hamburg, Germany & [email protected];

(4) Lewandowski, Dirk, HAW Hamburg, Germany & [email protected].

Abstract and Introduction

Literature Review

Objectives and Research Questions




Conclusion, Research Data, Acknowledgments, and References


This study provides important insights into whether, although Google is by far the most popular search engine, the use of alternatives could benefit users. Our results show that using another or more than one search engine leads to seeing more diverse search results, allowing users to inform themselves more comprehensively. It should be noted that within each search engine's results, the concentration of sources shows that only a few top sources dominate the results, meaning whichever search engine a user chooses to use will shape what sources the information they get to

see comes from.


Research data is available at:


This work is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Grant No. 460676551).


Agrawal, R. (2016). Overlap in the Web Search Results of Google and Bing. Journal of Web Science, 2(1), 17–30.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2005). Comparing rankings of search results on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1511–1519.

Bar‐Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Mat‐Hassan, M. (2006). Methods for evaluating dynamic changes in search engine rankings: a case study. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 708–729.

Bharat, K. (1998). A technique for measuring the relative size and overlap of public Web search engines. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 379–388.

Bilal, D., & Ellis, R. (2011). Evaluating Leading Web Search Engines on Children’s Queries. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Vol. 6764 LNCS (Issue PART 4, pp. 549–558). 3-642-21619- 0_67

Cardoso, B., & Magalhães, J. (2011). Google, bing and a new perspective on ranking similarity. Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management - CIKM ’11, 1933–1936.

Chignell, M. H., Gwizdka, J., & Bodner, R. C. (1999). Discriminating meta-search: a framework for evaluation. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 337–362. 4573(98)00065-X

Ding, W., & Marchionini, G. (1996). A comparative study of web search service performance. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 33, 136–142.

Edelman Trust Institute. (2022). Edelman Trust Barometer 2022 - Global Report. Edelman Trust Barometer FINAL_Jan25.pdf

European Commission. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 447 – Online Platforms. European Commission.

Gini, C. (1936). On the measure of concentration with special reference to income and statistics. Colorado College Publication, General Series, 208(1), 73–79.

Goel, S., Broder, A., Gabrilovich, E., & Pang, B. (2010). Anatomy of the long tail. Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM ’10, 201.

González, C. G., Bonventi, W., & Rodrigues, A. L. V. (2008). Density of Closed Balls in Real-Valued and Autometrized Boolean Spaces for Clustering Applications. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Vol. 5249 LNAI (pp. 8–22). Springer Verlag.

Höchstötter, N., & Lewandowski, D. (2009). What users see – Structures in search engine results pages. Information Sciences, 179(12), 1796–1812.

Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185.

Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (1999). Accessibility of information on the web. Nature, 400(6740), 107 107.

Lewandowski, D. (2019). The web is missing an essential part of infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 62(4) 24–24.

Lewandowski, D., & Kammerer, Y. (2021). Factors influencing viewing behaviour on search engine results pages: a review of eye-tracking research. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(14), 1485–1515.

Lewandowski, D., & Sünkler, S. (2019). What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(3), 310–324. 0172

Mager, A. (2014). Is Small Really Beautiful? Big Search and Its Alternatives. In R. König & M. Rasch (Eds.), Society of the Query Reader (pp. 59–72). Institute of Network Cultures.

Makhortykh, M., Urman, A., & Ulloa, R. (2020). How search engines disseminate information about COVID-19 and why they should do better. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(May), 1–12.

Meng, W., Yu, C., & Liu, K.-L. (2002). Building efficient and effective metasearch engines. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1), 48–89.

Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., Robertson, C., & Kleis Nielsen, R. (2021). The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. 06/Digital_News_Report_2021_FINAL.pdf

Ortega, F., Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., & Robles, G. (2008). On the Inequality of Contributions to Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), 304–304.

Purcell, K., Brenner, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Search Engine Use 2012. earch_Engine_Use_2012.pdf

Puschmann, C. (2019). Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results. Digital Journalism, 7(6), 824–843.

Schultheiß, S., & Lewandowski, D. (2021). A representative online survey among German search engine users with a focus on questions regarding search engine optimization (SEO): a study within the SEO Effect project - Working Paper 2.

Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., Blakely, C., & Koshman, S. (2006). A study of results overlap and uniqueness among major Web search engines. Information Processing and Management, 42(5), 1379–1391.

StatCounter. (2022). Search Engine Market Share. market-share/

Steiner, M., Magin, M., Stark, B., & Geiß, S. (2022). Seek and you shall find? A content analysis on the diversity of five search engines’ results on political queries. Information, Communication & Society, 25(2), 217–241.

Sünkler, S., Lewandowski, D., Schultheiß, S., Yagci, N., Sygulla, D., & von Mach, S. (2022). Relevance Assessment Tool.

Thelwall, M. (2008). Quantitative comparisons of search engine results. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1702–1710.

Unkel, J., & Haim, M. (2021). Googling Politics: Parties, Sources, and Issue Ownerships on Google in the 2017 German Federal Election Campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 39(5), 844–861.

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.