ITT: recipe search that isn't terrible Most are complete

Google

>>8431357

no photos tho

> OnlyEats
Probably your best bet

>>8431358
Yeah it does, but just thumbnails, on some sites

>>8431353
saveur.com

Mileage may vary but the recipes are decent. If you need your dick stroked to cook it isn't for you.

File: Eyeroll.jpg (3KB, 125x120px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x120px

>>8431353
>>8431358
>>8431432

Look up the recipes.. and if the recipe does not have an image, look up an image of the dish..

>>8431485
ain't nobody got time for that

I don't know where else to post this, but I think SeriousEats is the fucking worst website redesign I have ever in my entire life seen. Jesus fucking Christ it's like they designed it to be used by autistic 6 year olds on broken ipads.

And if that fat faggot Kenji is reading this, go fuck yourself.

>>8431856
cnn.com is pretty bad as well. Forget right vs left and all that, it's just poor web design.

saveur and seriouseats are pretty decent but not aggregators like OP seems to be getting at.

if we're including publishers then TheKitchn and New York Times are my go-tos.

In terms of search beyond yummly, OE, foodily and spoonacular maybe, there isn't much besides google and as mentioned earlier it's mostly text.

duckduckgo's recipe search feature? lol...

>>8431353

There's this great technology called a cookbook. For a low one time fee, you get a huge index of tested recipe, obviating the need to wade through the garbage online, You just open up the patented "page" technology and find the recipe using this crazy interface called the index.

>>8432091
look at the futurist over here with their fancy "recipe book"

I take it you're too good for letting your local shaman impart cooking instructions to you through interpretive dance with a series of grunts and chants.

>>8431485
This for fucks sake

>>8431353
Bbcgoodfood