I'm sorry, what do you have against my account? :)

https://beta.cliqz.com/ is EP for search engine

There is an autocorrect feature and it's even described in the article. Or you mean something else?

They mean auto complete.

Here is the quote from article "This not only involves some normalization, but also expansions and spell corrections, if necessary. "

No, it's not enough and had poor coverage outside of USA. We have also answered this question (it appears to be popular) in today's post about technical details of our search https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-06/building-a-search-engine-fr...

[Disclaimer: I work at Cliqz] Yes, there is a way to report such urls https://cliqz.com/en/report-url

We do have a list of blacklisted urls/domains mostly regarding adult topic (child porno etc). If you have noticed some bad sites in our results, please feel free to drop a line to our support team using link I provided

Thanks for the reply. A bit disappointed it only counts for extremely illegal content. There's a lot of really negative stuff out there that is blatantly false and manipulative (Ripoff Report, Tumblr callout posts, etc) and it's always a shame that this kind of negative toxicity gets promoted so high in SERPs.

I'd really like it if there were an ethical SERP that at least had some integrity with its results. Reporting factual unflattering statements is one thing (and ideal), but promoting libel feels really dirty, and so far Cliqz seems to be the worst at that of any search engines I've used, and your reporting link seems as though Cliqz is okay with that.

I'm afraid this will remove any results from page :-D

Is it really that bad? I surely hope it's not.

I noticed that even Wikipedia is reported as having some trackers. But when I looked closer I noticed that most of those belong to the Wikimedia foundation, which is fine. I mean, I don't mind site owners tracking what I do on their site, I just don't want to be followed across the whole Web.

The rest of the Wikipedia trackers are supposed to be Google fonts and statics, but I couldn't witness any calls to those. Maybe the stats are not quite up to date?

If such a score is to be given, it better be fair and reflecting the current state of affairs.

Hi, I work at Cliqz on our Anti-tracking system, and the WhoTracks.Me data that powers these stats on the search page.

These stats are updated monthly, and based on millions of loads of each site. The WhoTracks.Me page for wikipedia.org (https://whotracks.me/websites/wikipedia.org.html) shows that the Google Fonts and Google Static trackers occur very infrequently (<2% of pages), so may be on some part of the site that you did not visit.

While the Wikimedia tracker may seem innocuous, they do set a cookie that is sent in third-party contexts, and have presence across several sites beyond Wikipedia (133 of the top 10k) (https://whotracks.me/trackers/wikimedia.org.html). Theoretically, they could track user sessions across these sites. In reality this is likely an oversight in the server configuration, but objectively this profile looks no different to that of a legitimate tracker.

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense now. And that's ... depressing.