Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

namepros.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 435 posts

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#301

Post by electrograv »

rpeden wrote: post #48
electrograv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love DuckDuckGo and use it on all my devices, but, WOW what a horrible name/branding. What were they thinking? Every time I mention/recommend it to someone the response is always a blank stare followed by something along the lines of “I would never use that if only to avoid that horrible name / brand URL”. And I can’t say I blame them.

Maybe it's a geographic thing? I feel like anyone who grew up in a region where duck, duck goose was a common game for children to play wouldn't be too confused about the name. Not that being confused about the name or disliking it is a bad thing. But I like the name, and it's part of the reason I chose to start using DDG. If they changed it to something more generic, I'd be less likely to keep using it because I'd f…

Oh, I'm fully familiar with the game it's referring to. I just don't understand the connection between a serious search engine and a silly child's game.

Is it some kind of inside joke? I just don't get it. I have nothing against the child's game; it just makes no sense to anyone that they named it after that, and it's not an easy name to pronounce or type. Bottom line: It sounds, feels, and looks bad on them.

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#303

Post by Freak_NL »

bellinom wrote: post #277
ElijahLynn wrote: post #258

Nice! Now DuckDuckGo needs to just change their name to Duck Search and it can be used as a verb. No longer will you have to say "Did you DuckDuckGo it?" and can instead say "Did you Duck it?". Even on the domain alone I will use Duck more since I won't have to type in the full DuckDuckGo.com domain. I _feel_ like this could really bring some measurable growth to Duck search. I _feel_ like I certainly will use it mor…

My partner and I use "let me quack that" instead of "let me Google it".

Heh. That works really well in English.

(Wondered if I could use this in Dutch too, but decided against it due to the seminal connotations of ‘kwak’…)

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#304

Post by electrograv »

bhandziuk wrote: post #168
electrograv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love DuckDuckGo and use it on all my devices, but, WOW what a horrible name/branding. What were they thinking? Every time I mention/recommend it to someone the response is always a blank stare followed by something along the lines of “I would never use that if only to avoid that horrible name / brand URL”. And I can’t say I blame them.

What is a "Google"? It's not even a word. It caught on though.

The most important thing for a brand name like this to be is:

  1. Simple to remember and easy to pronounce.
  2. Unique and stands out from other generic names.
  3. Aesthetically sounds/looks good.
Under this criteria: "Google" works. "Bing" works. "DuckDuckGo" does not work.

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#305

Post by macintux »

zanmat0 wrote: post #266
nroets wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be the only one, but I do think most companies don't use my data for evil purposes. For example, if a search engine can track me on the web, they can deduce which web page answered my query. Then they put that page near the top of the list the next time anyone runs the same query. Furthermore: if a retailer can use my location data to predict demand, they can optimize their logistics and save fuel.

> if a retailer can use my location data to predict demand, they can optimize their logistics and save fuel. Do you think those cost-savings will be passed down onto you?

I’m no fan of privacy violations, but if everyone uses a little less fuel there are huge gains for our future, regardless of whether the cost savings trickle down to me personally.

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#306

Post by MildlySerious »

ConfusedDog wrote: post #86

I do feel like DuckDuckGo is too long to type. That's a barrier for me. Rebranding to just Duck might be a good thing, but why "duck" ... not my favorite animal, or why animal at all...

I type out DuckDuckGo once per browser I use, make it the default search engine, and never worry about the length again.

The concern about the branding is understandable, but I haven't typed "Google" or "DuckDuckGo" when I want to use their services in aeons, and I don't even make use of bookmarks.

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#307

Post by nimbosa »

zenexer wrote: post #224
hathawsh wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More details please. :-) This sounds like it deserves a full article.

It probably does. It'll take me a while to dig through the source to find the cause, but preliminary evidence suggests that fastcgi_cache_key doesn't handle $cookie_* variables correctly. If the cookie doesn't exist, it seems to result in a unique key every time. (Edit: The workaround is to assign the $cookie_* variable to another variable and then use that in fastcgi_cache_key.) If anyone is curious what sort of inc…

nice live stats monitor, can you link a short short postmortem analysis under that, shortly? Thanks!

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#308

Post by rubyfan »

programbreeding wrote: post #292
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I envy anybody whose autocorrect suggests swearing. For me it’s a constant battle of teaching and reteaching it the different manners of expressing passion and frustration. That’s the one thing I liked about Google’s keyboard on Android: that you could enable “sailor-mouth mode”. They called it something boring though like “Suggest profane words”.

Checkout swiftkey. Mine actually tries to correct ducking to fucking.

That’s what you meant to say though right?

Re: Google transferred ownership of Duck.com to DuckDuckGo

#310

Post by tspike »

balnaphone wrote: post #297
ummonk wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same syllables sure but there has to be a hard stop between the two syllables since b and s can’t be strung together.

The two words can be strung together just fine in English. Think of the word "rub", then "rubs", then "rubs search", then "rubsearch". The final 'b' in "web" is indeed pronounced differently when linked to the word "search". For more discussion see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(phonology) Page 10 of http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/faculty/donegan/Papers/201Xhistph.…

They can but it's more difficult on a muscle level. You have to change the position of your tongue quite a bit to alter the airflow transitioning from the bilabial plosive to the sibilant, versus "Google" where you can almost say the G-L transition without moving your mouth; just a very slight adjustment of your uvula and tongue can produce an understandable sound.

Try saying "web search" without moving your mouth. Now try saying "google" without moving your mouth.

Post reply on HN