The Instagram results don't even load in my Firefox and just shows a white error box. This is what I get:

https://imgur.com/cu3u6EX

Please don't listen to this feedback. Just because it's upvoted here doesn't mean it's representative.

Keep the Instagram results. It's very useful.

I think it would be good to be able to enable and disable this column (as well as the others since you prefer some column for some research and vice versa)

It just feels weird to have results from a walled off website on a search engine, unless we specifically indicate that we have an account on this website. Similar to how we don't like submissions to paywalled articles on HN.

> unless we specifically indicate that we have an account on this website

What do you mean? The whole point is that I can search Instagram here without an account.

When you find something that looks interesting, what then?

Is that a philosophical question? I look at the picture, think "interesting" and move on. I don't use Instagram so you should probably ask someone who does what the intrinsic motivation for looking at Instagram photos is.

Since the advent of web 2.0, people often interact with media in more ways than looking at its thumbnail.

As this line of comments indicates, there is no consensus upon whether instagram is worth having or not.

Why not let the user decide, which columns to show? You could start with a default, non-intrusive set which the user can expand as liked.

How often are there meaningful results for your search terms on Insta?

I don't know but I'm eager to find out when using this. So far it has been really interesting to get a glimpse into a walled garden I normally can't access.

For me, never.

For most of the other people in my life, they are primarily searching for products, books, people, and ideas for recipes or various projects around the home.

So I totally see the utility of having these social media sites in the feed.

On the other hand, this reduces privacy even more than stock google, basically broadcasting your search terms to a whole bunch of bad actors, so I won't be recommending it to anyone.

We have <meta name="referrer" content="origin"> in the header. So the search terms are not broadcast. I mean it is a bunch of tradeoffs. We lean more towards speed and low costs. DDG for example may be even more private, but it is slower and needs a bunch of ads to pay for the higher server costs.

Generally Swurl is super private compared to visiting 99% of all other websites out there. But please let me know if there is anything you think I should add/change to make it more private for you, without hurting speed and costs.

Having said that... as I play with it more, I really like the UI. If there was a privacy-first option I would definitely use it.

Business model: for $5/month, let users remove social media results from the feed ;).

Not seeing pinterest is worth more

google.##.g:has(a[href="pinterest.com"])

google.##.g:has(a[href="pinterest.com"])

add this to your ublock origin.

Better yet, quit using google. I've been on https://search.brave.com for months and have no regrets.

Yes brave search results are pretty good. Love they have their own search with great coverage. I wish I could use them as an API source!

Or this new search engine UX could filter them out.

i don't use google search myself, i haven't used that in actual years, i am on DDG which has a similar pinterest filter that does the job well

I'll 2nd that. its strange because sometimes it shows instagram and others it doesn't... is there some way to choose to not have it ever?

Love this, I think I will definitely add an option to disable! Thank you for your valuable feedback! I just woke up to go for a run, will code this in a couple hours when I get back...

Just added option to disable Instagram and Twitter from ▼ menu on the right of the search input. Let me know if that works good for you!

Seconded