Live data from Hacker News

DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

wired.com

81–90 of 224 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#81
post #12

I know this comes up every now and again...but I find the length of the domain name a barrier to entry. I think building a brand around "DuckDuckGo" is an upward battle.

You can always use http://dukgo.com/

...but sadly not http://duckgo.com/

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#82
I'm surprised he's only paying $7000 to put up a massive billboard next to a major consumer route for a month. I'm sure billboard advertising doesn't have great conversion rates, but I still imagined that would cost more.

Anyone care to comment on their experiences with billboard ads?

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#83
post #12

I know this comes up every now and again...but I find the length of the domain name a barrier to entry. I think building a brand around "DuckDuckGo" is an upward battle.

That's what bookmark is for. `Google' is not easy to type either, at least compared to `bing'.

I put DuckDuckGo at position 3 of Safari's bookmark bar (position 1 being bookmarklet from instapaper and position 2 being bookmarklet for my posterious blog). Then I could just press command-3, and type `!w Al Franken' or `!w faithful place' or `!python tempfile'. Pretty sweet IMHO.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#84
post #44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly sure that the issue is the browser passing on the referrer, not that Google is making websites aware of any additional information. I might be wrong, of course; there's a lot of FUD about this floating around.

The browser does it, and did it long before Google existed.

Yep - if you don't want people seeing your bieberqueries, you should use SSL Google:

https://encrypted.google.com/

... or if you're super paranoid, disable sending referrer in your browser.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#86
post #12

I know this comes up every now and again...but I find the length of the domain name a barrier to entry. I think building a brand around "DuckDuckGo" is an upward battle.

DuckDuckGo is pretty memorable. After he succeeds, he can probably shell out for ddg.com I guess.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#88

Not knowing which keywords referred visitors would be terribly annoying to webmasters. Unless you're using dodgy 3rd party advertisers, I don't see what's so bad about aggregating referrer data. I have a feeling Google might be keen to hold onto their duck.com domain a little longer :)

"Not knowing which keywords referred visitors would be terribly annoying to webmasters"

Why should I, as a user, care about that?

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#89
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Yes it is, if you're a political activist. Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government.

>Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government. [citation needed]

And ye shall receive:

"An Indian man is facing five years in jail for making an "offensive" comment [against Sonya Ghandi] after Google handed his personal data to local police."

http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-...

Yahoo taken to task over China

http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.h...

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#90
Turning off HTTP_REFERER doesn't sound like a very good idea. How would you be able to tell how people found you? Knowing what link someone came in from is a great way to see where your site fits into this world wide web of ours.

It sounds to me as if the only issue is 3rd party ad networks. The antidote to this seems to me to be more reasonably the web browser's jurisdiction, ie. making the cookie policy more restrictive by default.

Post reply on HN