Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-google-duckduckgobre8al00i-20121121,0,6650221.story

by srathi • 14 years ago

138 162 14 years ago

Matt_Cutts2• 14 years ago

From the article:

"In an interview on Wednesday, [Gabriel] Weinberg said it is difficult to make his DuckDuckGo the default search site in Google's Chrome web browser, and that Google disadvantages his company in the Android mobile operating system as well. ....

"It's one-click to get onto Firefox and it's five steps on Chrome and people generally fail," he said.

The Google spokeswoman said popular search alternatives were offered on its Chrome browser in a dropdown menu, such as Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, but any search engine could be easily added."

MichaelApproved• 14 years ago

What's the qualification for a "popular search alternative" ? Is there a specific level of market share that's required before a SE can be included in that list?

d0m• 14 years ago

Which is totally true. Also, if one has already searched on DuckDuckGo, it's even easier to switch to it as it has been added to the search engine list.

noibl2• 14 years ago

Wait, 'one-click'?

In Firefox if I click the dropdown on the search field, then click 'Manage Search Engines' I get a dialog in which can be found a link to 'Get more search engines...'.

Clicking that opens an add-ons store tab with the 'Search Tools' filter applied, none of whose above-the-fold suggestions has anything to do with DDG. That's not one-click, it's a runaround.

In contrast, Chrome automatically adds search engines as you browse the web and lets you set any one of them as the default. It also has clearly labelled fields to let you create your own by copying the format of the ones listed. Getting to there takes 3 clicks and a scroll.

Two reasonable gripes: the existence of the free-edit fields is not immediately obvious upon clicking 'Manage search engines...' and neither is the fact that the domain name in the second column is an editable keyword.

delackner• 14 years ago

Click-and-hold on the firefox search engine icon in the search field, and a list of engines appears. I clearly see "Add DuckDuckGo" as an option in that list while I am on the site, and you can slide the mouse over to that option and release. So yes, one click.

gnufied• 14 years ago

I am not supporting DuckDuckgo's claim, but the procees is indeed less painful if you just install their extension,

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/duckduckgo-fo...

I don't know why no such addon exists for Chrome?

EDIT: Ugh I am woefully wrong, the Chrome extension only shows up when you visit the site from Chrome. Perhaps they mean choosing a default search engine in Chrome is not as straightforward as Firefox. You will have to open preferences -> Search -> Manage Search engines and then change the default engine.

amitamb5• 14 years ago

To see the difference go to my search engine

http://www.verticalset.com/search

On Firefox, by clicking "Add to Browser" and checking "Start using Right Away", you can make it default.

On Chrome, if you click on same button there is no way to make it default. You have to find the list of search engines in settings and click "Make Default".

On IE, process is similar to Firefox.

It wouldn't be hard to make this similar to Firefox on Chrome, just add "Make it Default" check-box when adding new search engine, but that won't happen anytime soon.

rodion_89• 14 years ago

I'm curious, how many clicks is it to replace Bing as the default in IE?

Isn't it impossible for DDG to become the default in Safari?

Not saying they're wrong to point it out, but rather that they should be consistent in pointing fingers if they do.

srathi• 14 years ago

I couldn't agree more. It is a pain to set Google as default search provider in IE.

WrkInProgress• 14 years ago

Fired up IE9 to take a look.

One click on the search icon in the address bar and Bing and Ask.com (really?) are listed as two default search providers.

There is an Add button which takes me to an Internet Explorer Add-On page. DDG and Google are highlighted as popular options. Click on the "tile" and another click to install.

So 4 clicks for IE9.

It's 4 clicks in Chrome (Menu - Settings - Settings - Manage Search Providers, to get to the "Manage Search Engines" screen but DDG is nowhere to be found. YOu have to manually add it and it isn't very clear how to do it because the textbox is truncated for the actual url.

Samuel_Michon• 14 years ago

There's a DDG extension available for Safari, which will make DDG the default search provider.

https://extensions.apple.com/#search-extensions (it takes just one click to install and activate)

bdonlan• 14 years ago

I counted three clicks on Chrome:

1. Right-click on search bar when on duckduckgo.com 2. Click edit search engines 3. Next to DuckDuckGo (it's autodetected the first time you visit the site), click 'make default'.

It's more clicks than firefox if you do it via the extension, but google's stance on blocking third-party extensions by default makes sense when you consider the threat of malicious extensions, and how most people don't read the permissions prompt.

amitamb5• 14 years ago

Search Provider is not an extension it is just a setting in your browser so I am not buying the argument that is is for security purposes.

Also, these three steps are not intuitive i.e. you can't ask user to click a button on your website to initiate the change. While on Firefox, clicking on a button, a prompt gets shown to make your search engine default one. Even in case of Firefox, user has to explicitly click on check-box to make your search engine default.

Try here http://www.verticalset.com/

elssar3• 14 years ago

I don't know what he is talking about. I have my search engine settings page open and there are more than 20 different search engines listed that I can make default with one click, including Duck Duck Go!

I like the idea and philosophy behind Duck Duck Go, but maybe improving the search results, which are no where near as good as Google's results, would help bring more traffic than whining about non-issues.

yegg3• 14 years ago

If anyone is curious where this comes from, I wrote extensively about the usability issues with adding search engines to browsers here: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2011/02/usability-issues...

cpg• 14 years ago

I have been a happy DDG user for more than two years and it's one of the best things I have done in a while. It works well, and it's great for productivity. So, that Google does not take it extra easy on them is not surprising. However, as Google matures, they will realize they need an AMD to their Intel. Something that poses little business threat, yet diffuses the antitrust threat. ... Watch.

CaveTech• 14 years ago

Bing already occupies that position.

greglindahl2• 14 years ago

When Google testifies before Congress, they tend to mention "Bing and Blekko" or "Bing and DuckDuckGo". Since Bing is losing a lot of money every quarter, and is owned by a pretty big company (M$), it's useful to have smaller, newer competitors around.

barrkel2• 14 years ago

I set DDG as my default search in Firefox; the results were abysmal. It felt like being transported back to altavista.digital.com, wading through middling irrelevant links searching for info. I got fed up with having to put !g into every query to get a good result, I ended up switching to DuckDuckGoog instead (and this is my current search provider).

shawn-butler3• 14 years ago

This http://duckduckgo.com/feedback.html is a good place to place intelligent, constructive feedback.

The web community (that is, all of us) really, really needs an alternative to Google. I don't care whether you love or hate them. We desperately need an alternative.

rustynails• 14 years ago

I really like the idea of duckduckgo, but it just doesn't do it for me. As an example, I can't find articles posted in the last hour, let alone the last week (eg. iOS 6 jailbreak).

I know it's slightly off topic, but this would certainly encourage me to use this - and I have a community around me that tends to adopt what I do.

thrownaway2424• 14 years ago

I agree. I have tried DDG and found their quality and freshness are both much worse than Google. Bing at least presents a credible alternative in terms of quality, depth, and freshness, but DDG is only good for people who actually don't care much if they find what they are looking for.

id_ris• 14 years ago

I've switched to using DDG over the past 6 months and use it as my main search engine because I think the results are as good as Google and there are less distractions, and I don't want my search history stored.

If I need to search for news, images, etc then it's back to Google. For me it's akin to using the command line for most tasks, but every so often opening up a cluttered but easier to use GUI.

ck27• 14 years ago

Many people like DuckDuckGo for good reasons but let's be clear:

It does not do any of it's own indexing.

It's just a frontend to other very very expensive backends that have millions of dollars behind them.

The entire company can be shut down overnight if it's data feeds are cut.

joenathan• 14 years ago

According to DuckDuckGo's FAQ you are wrong http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-s...

The DuckDuckBot crawls and indexes the web. http://duckduckgo.com/duckduckbot.html

ck27• 14 years ago

I suspect it's trivial at best.

Every test search I've ever done on DDG shows near identical results to Bing.

I'd like to see a search that uses it's own data, examples?

Gigablast was the last serious third-party backend that had a chance for independent data. It's like old-school Google.

Gabriel should try to buy Gigablast and merge it with DDG so he has his own independent dataset.

boyter3• 14 years ago

Has anyone ever seen DuckDuckBot hit their site? I don't have any web property large to appear via DuckDuckBot, but maybe someone else does? Im fairly certain it crawls Quora, as via this tweet https://twitter.com/yegg/status/33693491838066688

elssar3• 14 years ago

Try searching for something using their api, and compare with websearch. There is a world of difference between the search results. IIRC they aren't allowed to share results from some of their other sources via their api, so you can get a good idea of how much they take from other sources and how much from their own index.

But that is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. As long as the results are relevant and they got them legally, then who cares where or how they came from?

amitamb5• 14 years ago

But they are using legitimate means to provide search results. And feed(/API) providers are not shutting them out.

Same argument can be made about Google, they do not produce their own data just copy webpages from content providers. If content providers decide to block them from indexing their websites, Google would be irrelevant.

ck27• 14 years ago

Look at the twitter token fiasco for an example of what happens when you build your business model on someone else's API.

bradly• 14 years ago

I've asked Gabriel specifically and he said that they use their own crawler/indexer.

ck27• 14 years ago

Their results are nearly identical to Bing in every case I've tried.

Let me know if you find a search result that is different.

mhartl• 14 years ago

its

blrgeek3• 14 years ago

Excellent PR efforts by DuckDuckGo.

But not entirely sure that the arguments presented in this article are valid and would sway a technical crowd.

Given how trivial it was just now for me to switch to DDG in Chrome, I don't see how that's anti-competitive.

notatoad2• 14 years ago

Excellent PR?

It sounds like a bunch of lame whining to me. I didn't use DDG before, but I at least respected their work. This is just weak. Google has done great things for the tech world by building chrome and android and releasing them as free and open source, to attempt to bring them down because you think it takes too many clicks to change the default search engine is shameful. Yegg, if you don't like it build your own browser and mobile operating system.

blrgeek3• 14 years ago

You, the HN reader, are not the target of this. Of course it ticks you (and me) off the wrong way - but your reaction is likely an unintended consequence!

It's excellent PR because it creates a coherent David Vs Goliath narrative that journos will buy and so will the bulk of the non-technical populace. A few more variations of this in different publications, and you'll see that it might seep into the public consciousness.

iomike3• 14 years ago

never heard of 'em.

aymeric2• 14 years ago

It is a search engine that allows you to find pages on the internet. The name comes from the misspelling of a large number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol

iomike3• 14 years ago

Wow, lots of downvotes for a product that the general population doesn't know about. I think they know more about Bing than ddg.

aymeric2• 14 years ago

I think we all see this as a marketing stunt from DuckDuckGo.

adventured6• 14 years ago

Reminds me of Scott McNealy complaining about Microsoft instead of beating them with products in the market, while his company was busy imploding and becoming irrelevant. That's DDG's future if they go the route of whining instead of competing.

Linux, Google, Apple, Oracle, Intuit, (and countless open source software like Apache) et al. demonstrated time and time again that Microsoft could be trounced. Yet there was McNealy whining like a baby to the trust busters, while his own company was melting down.

Weinberg = McNealy

patrickaljord• 14 years ago

At least Sun did Java, what has Weinberg brought with DDG? Nothing.

javert• 14 years ago

Weinberg has absolutely no right to initiate force against Google. This disgusts me.

crazypyro• 14 years ago

The only thing that caught my eye was Google redirecting duck.com to google.com when DDG expressed interest in purchasing the domain. That seems a little underhanded, but not illegal....

AJ007• 14 years ago

Yeah, doing a reverse IP lookup with domain tools shows a list of 1,029 domains currently directing to google.com (some direct to youtube.com)

Duck Duck Go has a TM application filed on April 2, 2008. Google acquired duck.com's owner in 2010.

There is a very reasonable case for a WIPO domain dispute, which isn't particularly costly (granted if Google lost, and then sued you it would be expensive.) Very good way to generate a lot of press coverage.

mbreese3• 14 years ago

> Duck Duck Go has a TM application filed on April 2, 2008. Google acquired duck.com's owner in 2010.

For any sort of mark dispute, you shouldn't go by when Google acquired On2, you have to go by when On2 acquired the name. I assume this was closer to the domain creation date of 1995 (or the On2.com creation date of 1999).

lubujackson3• 14 years ago

Although if that's Google's standard practice with domains, DDG really doesn't have a complaint.

prawn3• 14 years ago

"Oh, forgot we picked up that domain. Better redirect it to our main site like most of our other ones."

Sephr• 14 years ago

They are completely forgetting about the standard cross-browser external.AddSearchProvider API. One-click install initiation works fine in both Chrome and Firefox in a DuckDuckGo + Google Suggest search plugin I put together at http://eligrey.com/blog/post/encrypted-duckduckgo-with-googl...

mindprince• 14 years ago

On chrome, when I right click on the search bar on duckduckgo.com (or any site), I get an option to "Add as search engine...", on clicking it, I get a dialog box for specifying Name, Keyword and URL. What chrome can do is add a checkbox to this dialog box for making it the default search engine.

paulsutter3• 14 years ago

This article is pure crybaby bullshit PR about a nonexistent problem. Does anyone care about DDG anyway? They're trying to solve a completely imaginary problem, and they haven't got a hope in hell of creating a viable search engine as that costs billions of dollars.

Why is this article even on HN?

fudged71• 14 years ago

Why are you here? This is entirely relevant to HN. How is a small business that does things uniquely supposed to get users when their biggest competitor is actively making it difficult to try the other service out?

Regardless of whether their claims are true or not, that is.

neya6• 14 years ago

While I agree with you on the problem solving part, I feel you are a bit aggressive.

>Why is this article even on HN?

I think its relevant because PG wrote an article about "frighteningly ambitious ideas" and DuckDuckGo seems to be inspired from it.

javajosh• 14 years ago

Why is your comment the #1 comment? I mean, I count 3, count them, 3 unsubstantiated claims:

1. Does anyone care about DDG anyway? I think it's safe to say, yes, there are some who do. I for one.

2. The problem DDG is solving is imaginary. Oh really? What precisely is that problem? Is it search itself that you're referring to, or the prospect of going up against Google? If the former, then you are delusional, and if the latter, there is nothing wrong with attempting to disrupt a monopoly.

3. A search engine costs billions of dollars. Actually, no. There is no rule of computer science that says that. If someone discovers a new, cheaper way to do search then cool!

In answer to your final question, perhaps the reason this article is on HN is to inspire comments like yours, which are wrong, and then comments like mine, which correct comments like yours.

greglindahl2• 14 years ago

Blekko has a 4 billion page crawl and index, and we've only raised $55 million so far.

ok_craig• 14 years ago

I think the imaginary problem he meant was searching without being "tracked." The vast majority of users simply don't care. The ones who do can get around it.

paulsutter3• 14 years ago

The privacy problem is imaginary because (a) only a puny fraction of users care, and (b) thanks to the "patriot" act, our ISPs are storing our search history anyway.

I have worked on search (see my background), and doing search well is massively difficult. The problem has deep necessary complexity, and Google has invested thousands of PhD years against that already. If Google were incompetent, maybe I could see it. But they're damned smart and their product is extremely good.

Data is also a problem - Microsoft has been collecting all your google searches since IE8, and can probably just clone Google's search results for the top few million queries. But even given that, Bing is a massive undertaking.

Since nobody uses DDG, Google can't be expected to make them a default search choice in Chrome. Accusing Google of some malfeasance is just childish and silly.

Finally, the name DDG is atrocious. Really bad in more ways than I have time to list.

timdorr• 14 years ago

I agree. Especially when I got to this part:

    In an interview on Wednesday, Weinberg said it is difficult to make his 
    DuckDuckGo the default search site in Google's Chrome web browser.

I just hit ⌘+' on my keyboard and selected duckduckgo.com from a drop down. I didn't even have to hit save and it starts working with DDG immediately. How is that difficult?

amitamb5• 14 years ago

Is it PR bullshit? It probably is, but are their claims entirely wrong. If you see my comments, they are not entirely baseless.

Let's not kid ourselves, Google is a good company but they have to defend their position. Not just DuckDuckGo, but even your supposed billion dollar search engine will face same issues mentioned in the article. So this is not about the DuckDuckGo as a company but about monopolistic practices. Let's talk about that.

yegg3• 14 years ago

Hi, this is Gabriel Weinberg, the guy mentioned in the article.

The main issue I have is with duck.com. A lot of people remember that we are a search engine "duck something" and so naturally try duck.com. As a result, there is a lot of confusion, e.g.:

"I was telling someone about DuckDuckGo and they thought it was Duck.com and they went to Google. Is Google using this to find people who make the mistake to Duck.com instead of DuckDuckGo?"

"Can't you do something about this? I keep going to Duck.com when meaning to visit DuckDuckGo.com They are using the DuckDuckGo name to get people to search Google."

This only started happening after I asked about the domain name. It used to point to a history page about Duck Corporation (previous name of On2 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20100802014055/http://duck.com/), similar to http://www.on2.com/, which was acquired by Google in the same acquisition.

Google should legitimately not sell it to me, though it would have been of course nice to do so when I first asked in 2010. I think an appropriate remedy would be to either point it nowhere, point it to the original page it had been pointed to for many years, or point it to the acquisition page (as http://on2.com still does) -- all things they do in other cases if you look at past acquisitions.

Just to be clear, it is only anti-competitive because it causes confusion, and relates to their core search product. The facts of the situation (that it switched shortly after I asked, and only seemingly that one domain) make it appear to be deliberate. And if it were not deliberate, I've brought this up many times and there has been ample time (including now!) to correct the situation.

With regards to being easy to add search engines to Chrome, see http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2011/02/usability-issues.... I've written up the differences extensively, with screenshots and explanatory notes.

hahainternet• 14 years ago

> Just to be clear, it is only anti-competitive because it causes confusion, and the facts of the situation make it appear to be deliberate. And if it were not deliberate, I've brought this up many times and there has been ample time (including now!) to correct the situation.

So if Google changes it they admit that they may have harmed you and you get a legal remedy. If Google doesn't change it you claim there's no reason not to and you get a moral argument.

Sounds like you're trying to construct a situation where you win and Google loses no matter what. How about just deal with the fact that it's not your domain? I quite like camping.com, doesn't mean I have the right to it.

davemel374• 14 years ago

I don't see how you can legitimately make a claim on a generic name. I also don't see how this is a monopoly issue. It is a trademark issue, which doesn't have much likelihood of winning. I think i'm gonna start my own search engine called searchsearchfind and than complain about CBS's search.com monopoly.

fauigerzigerk• 14 years ago

There's something else I'm starting to worry about. Some websites (e.g. The Financial Times) restrict access to their subscription only content to the Googlebot (and presumably Bing/Yahoo). Is that something you worry about? Do you just ignore that content or do you talk to the website owners if you feel they are important enough?

prawn3• 14 years ago

"I keep going to Duck.com when meaning to visit DuckDuckGo.com"

Tell them that you called your search engine Duck Duck Go, registered DuckDuckGo.com, and for them to visit DuckDuckGo.com. It's not as though you were ever called Duck.com instead. This just sounds like a petty whinge otherwise. Sorry!

tzury• 14 years ago

Dear Gabriel,

I have been watching your work for quite a while, and from what I have been able to grasp, currently, your main advantage is the privacy.

Now I wonder if you ever considered instead of developing a new search platform, developing a user friendly privacy proxy platform and let Google and other search engines (including bing which your results relies heavily on it) do their job, while you keep your customer's privacy in the middle.

Have you?

general_failure2• 14 years ago

Huh? Google has to sell you a domain which has nothing to do with your product.. because you asked for it? Wow.

digitalengineer• 14 years ago

Love DuckduckGo and totally understand the bullshit move Google made by letting it point to google.com. I for one think save-searching using DuckDuckGo has huge potential especially when Google starts selling the information they hold on you. Not for GoogleAds but for marketing purposes. Think about it: Wouldn't your health care insurance company like to know your entire search history? What would that be worth? You search for pain in abdomen a lot? Pop! Up goes your monthly payment. Crazy? I don't think so and I specialize in consumer and shopper marketing. You are totally honest inside that little google search box. It's not just health care and insurance, it's everything.

cpeterso• 14 years ago

Gabriel, have you considered rebranding DuckDuckGo? If the name is affecting user adoption or perception, it can be changed.

iomike3• 14 years ago

Your poor marketing with an unknown name is not Google's problem.

irahul6• 14 years ago

> Does anyone care about DDG anyway?

The number of votes and comments tell me people on this forum do care. Personally, I care because DDG is doing something ambitious and competition is good(it helps keep people in line). Also, even if I didn't care, I don't see a reason why I should shit on someone's hard work.

> They're trying to solve a completely imaginary problem,

Privacy isn't an imaginary problem.

> and they haven't got a hope in hell of creating a viable search engine as that costs billions of dollars.

Creating one from scratch will take time and money, and no, as blekko folks pointed out, it didn't take them billions. But DDG uses bing apis augmented with custom index.

emehrkay• 14 years ago

Safari you have to edit your host file to point yahoo's search to ddg (which i did)

elssar3• 14 years ago

Just for kicks I searched for 'search engine' on Google - once on Chrome(logged into my Google account), and once on Firefox(not logged in). Didn't get Google on the first page on either searche, did get google custom search engine though(which is a completely different thing). Duck Duck Go was in the first page both the times, as were Bing, Yahoo, some engine called Dogpile(never heard of 'em but it was #2 on Chrome), the Wikipedia article for Web search engine and a few other links. There was a list of popular search engines at the bottom of the page in Chrome, DDG wasn't there, but lots other were, and it was compiled from other sources.

Don't see much discrimination there. Especially when they don't even list their search engine on the first page

Chrome search screenie - http://goo.gl/HffYt Firefox search screenie - http://goo.gl/nUe7t

zem• 14 years ago

dogpile was pretty big back in the day. they were the first popular "meta search engine", aggregating results from several other search engines.

adventured6• 14 years ago

Maybe DDG should get around to actually competing in the search market by, you know, building its own search engine. Let's see if Weinberg has any real engineering chops, or if all he can do is complain.

Until DDG bothers to step into the real search arena and compete, they get no interest from me.

warmwaffles• 14 years ago

What is wrong with people using Google's product and Google showing preference to their products first then others? I mean after all, you are using THEIR software running on THEIR system. Don't like it? Go use something else. No one is forcing you to use Chrome, etc...

general_failure2• 14 years ago

exactly. DDG must make their own browser which doesn't allow the user to change the search engine. revenge!!!

neya6• 14 years ago

First of all, in my opinion, executing a frighteningly ambitious idea[1] is like performing inception. You need the simplest version of the idea for it to be "planted" in the user's mind.

People aren't using DDG much not because of any difficulties in the browser, because they don't want to. This is a very lame excuse. Google never won its users because they were able to convince users to set their Search Engine as default in their browsers.

As for DDG, the problem starts their name - "DuckDuckGo". You don't need to be an analyst with years of experience to say that this won't work because even their name is not something that is a)Catchy b)Easily rememberable c)Simple. Contrast this with Google. That's just one quick, easy to remember word. Now compare, Duck+Duck+Go. That's three words and it seems long. It looks like they didn't put much thought into this. This is not to say that DDG didn't do their homework properly, but just that it seems a little immature, given their name and their strategy. It looks more like they just read PG's essay[1] and started something out of the quick inspiration.

To kill a huge competitor like Google, you need to provide more value. Google is very hard to kill right now because, 1)Their search is vastly superior 2)a lot of people are locked into their ecosystem 3)They have created a valuable brand. No, by locked, I don't mean it's a bad thing. For example, I use Gmail, Google Contacts, Calendar, Blogger, Google Apps for my domains and a lot of other stuff because I want to. A single sign-in into their Eco-system lets me use all these services. And now, the best part is there's Android which seems to integrate all these things so easily like a snap that makes my life just a breeze.

So, first you need to understand that Google is now more than a search engine. Because if it was, Bing would have overtook it long back. You need to analyze the reasons why people still use Google. It's not just a search engine that they're using it for. Google has taken years and years to build the trust factor into their users. It has taken them years to make all these users "fit" into their eco-system and create a tremendously valuable brand . It's not like that they did it in just one day. So, just starting a new search-engine and expecting people to join on board is not going to happen. Despite so many "Ad" controversies, Google is still the king here because of the trust factor that no one else in the industry is able to provide. The trust factor that they will remain here, unlike the rest is the most important value that they provide to their users.

If you want to kill Google at this instant, you are going to do a lot more hardwork than you thought you should do, you need a brand of similar magnitude and the important essence here is the time and trust factor which everyone seems to ignore.

[1]http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html

amitamb5• 14 years ago

Although you might be right about DuckDuckGo and similar search engines, the article is not claiming that DuckDuckGo is best search engine in the world since it is subjective. It is up to user to make that choice, and given the network effects, that won't happen unless user can easily switch to it. It is about making it even harder for a supposedly better search engine than Google to acquire users.

adventured6• 14 years ago

Did Google win because users were able to easily switch the default search engine in IE to Google? No.

I remember the first times I used Google. It was like magic compared to AltaVista, Yahoo (Inktomi), etc.

DDG has no edge to offer, no 'magic.'

adventured6• 14 years ago

I disagree. From personal experience, I suffer absolutely zero lock in to Google's search engine due to their ecosystem. I use their docs, I have an Android phone, I use Gmail, and I use their search engine completely separate from any of those (regardless of any back-end tie-ins that Google performs to supposedly optimize my search experience).

I specifically go to google.com to search, ditto on my phone. Nothing in their ecosystem prods me to do so, and nothing in their ecosystem prevents me from using a competitor.

I use Google because it's vastly superior to any other search offering. Period.

davemel374• 14 years ago

I actually think their name is one of the strongest things going for them...and Google being more than a search engine to be the very reason Bing is gaining market share and brands like DDG actually have a shot at competing.

Regarding the name...it is unique and very MEMORABLE (repetition is one of the four mental glues.) It has just as few syllables as Microsoft, and is super easy to pronounce... From a branding perspective they are taking a very strong positioning play of being the Search Engine that respects privacy. Smart strategy if you ask me... to position themselves opposite the dominant brand with a hot button differentiation.

Regarding the trust factor, and the being locked in to google, those are actually both weaknesses of Google. The locked in issue is part and parcel with the privacy issue, which is the market DDG is trying to penetrate. Regarding Trust, I don't see why I need to trust a search engine to use it. In fact, the privacy thing again is the very reason I DON'T Trust Google...

People Use Google because Google focused on Search when all other search engines tried to be so much more. Once Google won the category (where people say, "Just Google It." They assumed they owned the market and started betting on the future convergence of search and social, etc... I actually think in 5 years from now, Google won't be the dominant player in search, although I do think Android will become a bigger money maker for them...

DuckDuckGo is doing a fine job with their name and brand strategy...up until this article and complaint which undermines their focused strategy. By complaining about Google, they appear to be in the game of competing as an equal search engine, not a DIFFERENT search experience, which is the play they need to make to win. It's the reason Burger King can't take over McDonalds...because they just claim to be better, not different. Pepsi on the other hand claims to be for the New Generation, Different than Coke which is classic, and the real thing. Just like Listerine has the brand of being more powerful than scope because they used the slogan,"The Taste You Hate Twice a Day." They said we are different, not better.

Human perception is near impossible to change... Complaining about monopolies is like saying, "we are better but they wont let us play."

If DDG wants to win, they need to pound hard about how they are different, and if they insist on complaining about Google, it should be consistent with their brand strategy and focus on how Google is more than search, and DDG is for when you just want to find what you are looking for with true privacy.

Surio7• 14 years ago

Agree with everything you say, except ". By complaining about Google, they appear to be in the game of competing as an equal search engine,"

The nature of his exact complaint is that Google is capitalising on people's confusion with the name "Duck something", and then proceeding to capitalise on this confusion (in a somewhat sneaky way) by redirecting "potential DDG users" back to their own page.

>> they need to pound hard about how they are different

And this point is very difficult to achieve if the "market leader" is (sort of) preventing people from accessing you in the first place.

neya6• 14 years ago

I just visited duckduckgo.com again (though full of hesitation) and as a designer I can tell you:

1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses (For Eg. Google, Bing have a very simple design). They don't design Search engines to be simple because they like it that way, because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best. For example, DDG uses a red menu-bar on the top which tells me they haven't done as much research. I keep repeating this, but hopefully enough people will realize this:

DO NOT over-use red. Red is used to denote only important elements on a website (like a sign-up button), a call-to-action element (For example, compose button on Gmail). Look at DDG, they have a whole top-bar in full red.

2) As a general user, there is no difference between DDG and Google in my eyes because both have a sponsored link at the top. Both try to benefit from my searches, so I see no perceivable difference between Google and DDG. Now, I already know Google has a superior Search algorithm, period (from what I perceive). So, there is not a single reason for me as an end-user to use DDG over Google.

And one more - Look at the irony, even you reference them by DDG and not DuckDuckGo, whereas you reference Google by just Google and not by any other short form. This is exactly what I meant. Brand Naming is something that we don't even pay attention to, but plays a much much important role.

lazyjones3• 14 years ago

> People aren't using DDG much not because of any difficulties in the browser, because they don't want to.

You are wrong and you know it. Most people use whatever is the preset default search engine in their browser and that is why Google pays a lot of money to Mozilla.

kushti• 14 years ago

Google's real motto: "Do evil and say don't be evil"

option_greek• 14 years ago

Frankly all this cry baby entitlement mentality lowers DDG in their users eyes. It makes one wonder if they are just another mouth piece for Microsoft (like Fair search camp).

ochoa• 14 years ago

This might be part of the problem

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=duck+duck+go+says+it%27s+getting+sh...

https://www.google.com/#q=duck+duck+go+says+its+getting+shut...

ekm2• 14 years ago

I am ardent DDG fan,but i cant seem to win over my non-CS buddies to use it,simply because duckduckgo sounds funny& laughable.I wish they could switch to a flashier name.

nicholassmith• 14 years ago

The biggest takeaway is that Google owns duck.com (through acquisition), duck.com pointed to a web page for the company they acquired up until DuckDuckGo made enquiries about potentially getting it, duck.com was then pointed toward google.com. That's probably the biggest dick-move Google has made, and they're perfectly within their rights to do it. It's still a dick-move, Google doesn't need to worry about DDG ever attaining marketshare in a meaningful manner, and DDG have said they're not interested in that.

bifrost• 14 years ago

DDG is my default search engine, I use it every day. It is vastly superior to using Google, and they don't track my searches, I don't really need any better reasons to use it. It is really annoying that I can't easily switch my default search engine in my phone, especially because typing things into the text entry bars basically feeds them straight into Google, which basically publicizes all I do on my phone. I can't stand Chrome as a browser on my laptops, so I don't use it, but if I did I probably would want to be able to switch my search engine as easily as you can in FF. I expect to see antitrust movement soon.

lazyjones3• 14 years ago

Current Firefox Nightly uses Google for search when something is typed in the location bar even when a) DuckDuckGo is the default search engine, b) Google is removed from the search engines list completely.

Go figure... I've lost all respect for both Mozilla and Google recently.

lazyjones3• 14 years ago

Correction: a) when DuckDuckGo is the selected search engine. Changing the default search engine (from Firefox's perspective, not what the user thinks it is) apparently requires fiddling with about:config.

saumil07• 14 years ago

I worked in Search and on Search-related problems for nearly 4 years so here's my 2c.

For most users Google is "muscle memory". It is quite good for most Search needs. The angles of attack that tech-savvy folks think are amazing (category filters, privacy, fancy CoverFlow UX, bigger index - all real differentiators tried by real companies) - most normals don't give a rat's ass about.

IMO the only real ways to compete are as follows:

a) build something specialized that is several-x better in the specialty (Kayak) b) build something on top of data that Google doesn't have (Facebook Search, whenever it stops sucking) c) go head-to-head with nearly equivalent quality and buy your way in on the CapEx and the Ad/Mktg dollars required to change muscle memory (Bing)

Beyond that, most companies have had trouble w/ direct search because Google + Wikipedia gets the job done, by and large. SearchMe? Dead. Kosmix Search? Pivoted successfully before acquisition. Cuil? Dead. Mahalo Search? Pivoted several times away from Search. Qwiki? Pivoted successfully.

The sad thing is that Search is such a fun and challenging space with so much work to be done; I want the space to be more competitive but most consumers like the status quo just fine.

Lastly - a salute to @yegg for taking this one on. He's a far braver than I, and most others on this thread critiquing his work.

capo• 14 years ago

It's very disappointing that DDG is resorting to the same whinny PR tactics as the less than savory competitors.

It's fairly easy and straight forward to add DDG to Chrome or Android, much easier than other platforms in fact, you’re not being “shut out” because you're not the default engine.

Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

Related Stories