Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue?<p>I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. I had a scenario like this a few days ago when I googled for "fabric" -- Being a Python developer I was looking for <a href="http://fabfile.org" rel="nofollow">http://fabfile.org</a> and it shows up as the second result while logged in. If I'm not, it won't show up.<p>This may be the outlier state of mind on HN, but I think in general, as-in billboard advertising, it's not an issue. Am I wrong?
More FUD from DuckDuckGo about Google and privacy issues. Didn't we come to the conclusion that the things they are railing against Google for are applicable to any and every Website?<p>Matt Cutts stole the comment show on this one: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063619" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063619</a><p>The worst thing about this is how blindly news about DDG gets upvoted around here.<p>Edit: To my down-voters: It doesn't make what I said not true anymore.
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.
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.<p>Anyone care to comment on their experiences with billboard ads?
I'm all for a good story, and the one-man DDG going up against Google is certainly a great one. However, considering the number of armchair business analysts on HN I'm shocked that nobody seems to call out Gabriel for appearing to fall into a cliched trap: "we don't track you" isn't a product, it's a feature.<p>I genuinely wonder what DDG would do if Google simply addressed all of their referrer privacy issues. Then what, exactly? Would DDG simply pack up and go home?<p>It's a fair question.
Some questions...<p>- is DDG profitable right now?<p>- is it going to be profitable if their user base grows by 10x? 1000x?<p>- do they ever expect a need to be profitable?<p>- if required to be profitable, do they have or foresee a solid business plan that doesn't involve de facto "tracking"?
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.<p>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.
I think Wired picked entirely the wrong privacy issue to highlight in this article. Yes, my browser spews the refer(r)er all over. So what?<p>The referer isn't giving away any private information that the <i>URL of the site</i> isn't giving away already, and as a web publisher, I understand the value of knowing the exact set of terms the user used.<p>However, I love DuckDuckGo, and try to use it wherever possible, because of other privacy concerns that matter much more to me. The biggest thing I like about DDG is that it doesn't collect or store search history.
I have nothing against GW and I wish him well, but what kind of guarantee do I have of his claim that he doesn't log my search queries? (I realize that the "Referer" thing is indeed verifiable.)
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.<p>I have a feeling Google might be keen to hold onto their duck.com domain a little longer :)
It strikes me as kind of odd that the billboard says "We", implying that DuckDuckGo is a company of multiple people.<p>Then again, saying "I don't track you" would sound extremely strange.<p>I guess we (as a society) have become so accustomed to companies requiring large groups of people to be successful. I guess Gabe's ability to take on Google, the biggest tech company this decade, by himself, is a testament to computer programming being so empowering.
I understand the privacy concerns, but not the FUD about the referrer. Just turn it off and you're done! There's even a Firefox addon that allows site-specific settings.<p>RefControl
<a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/</a><p>I've been using it for years.
A quick (and perhaps slightly offtopic) question, what's DDG's revenue model? Is it just an experiment right now, and if so how is Gabriel funding this?
1. Concentrate on making your product great, instead of attacking the competition/market leader.<p>2. Don't assume everyone cares about things you do. No one gives a hoot if a website they click on knows what page they came from.
If DDG is highlighting its search privacy, why doesn't the website default to HTTPS? (I know there is more the search privacy than HTTPS, but it would reinforce the "secure" search messaging.)
Go, Gabriel, Go! :)<p>I wonder if you can change the text in a couple of week to ".. still tracking. We still don't". This should give those curious another push to go and just try DDG.
Anyone else think there should be a DuckDuckGo of browsers that is similarly proactive about privacy? There way more ways than just cookies to track people nowadays and it's about time we implemented default behavior in the browser to block them. There's no reason to wait for Google or Mozilla to do it for us either.
For anyone that just wants to see what the billboard looks like and isn't interested in the article:<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_billboard2-660x441.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_bill...</a>