Live data from Hacker News

Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

chicagotribune.com

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#71

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?

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.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#72
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blekko has millions behind it and does a full index of the web.

Ah now that is an interesting engine.

Checking to see if it's hit any of our sites.

3k pages, not bad. Data is kinda stale though.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#73
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

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#74
post #27

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

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

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#75
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First attempt: http://cl.ly/image/340S0R3b0K0d

DDG is really only displaying definitions, aside from hacker.org. Given that this is a dictionary "word", I'm not sure how much of this query is really due to indexing and how much is due to identification of it as a singular word. Because there is so much query specific customization with search engines, (context-dependent results), it's hard to identify what results would have been returned from their raw indexes.

If you adjust the term to "hacker movie", you get more similar results between DDG and Bing. But, overall, it does seem like DDG is returning more differing results now than in the past.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#76
post #23

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.

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.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#77
post #43
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

They definitely use Bing as their backbone as Gabriel has said somewhere before.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#78
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think this is available in Firefox for OS X, there's 2 icons in the search field and neither one responds to click-and-hold

Just click on the Google "G" (or whatever you have as your default search engine) when you are at the site and "Add DuckDuckGo" shows up as an option.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#79
post #73

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 d…

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.

Re: Google competitor DuckDuckGo says it's getting shut out

#80

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?

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.

Post reply on HN