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."
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.
> 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.
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.
I don't think he is making any such claim. Like I mentioned elsewhere, if you follow his full explanation, it is Google that is actually capitalising on this confusion and redirecting users to their own engine.
The confusion (if it really exists) has nothing to do with Google. It has to do with DDG not protecting their turf. When they chose their name, they could have chosen thousands of others. This isn't and shouldn't be Google's problem and quite frankly comes off as a weakness that DDG ran with this story.
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.
Effectively it is Google's fault because they are doing it now specifically in his case and not for others (as he mentions clearly)
Secondly, while it would be nice to pre-empt all angles and all possibilities etc., etc., but I don't think any of us can foresee every possible way something will come back to bite your backside in the future. So, no, I don't think that it is somehow DDG's fault that they did not foresee this and preempt it.
P.S: FWIW, google renamed themselves from googol to google because the VC mispelled their name on the cheque. Just goes to show that such things are a fact of life. People have every right to vaguely try to look up "Duck something" search engine. However, Google is definitely in the wrong for sneakily redirecting users back to their own engine in this case by misusing this vagueness.
"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!
Daniel meant to convey that he hears that line from other people who get to hear that line within their circles of recommendation -- effectively after the damage has been done.
Doesn't sound like a petty whinge according to me though at least if you follow his full explanation of Google actually capitalising on this confusion and redirecting users to their own engine.
Capitalised on the confusion? They have hundreds of domains pointing to their main site. On2.com or whatever it is showed an acquisition notice because that was the company purchased. It's definitely possible that enquiring about the domain reminded them that they had it and should forward like the rest they owned.
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.
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.
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?
Comments
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.
> 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.
Changing it now isn't a legal admission of anything.
In any case, there would still be no useful legal remedy available to us. We don't make much money, so what would the damages be?
The last thing a startup wants to do is take a big company to court. You're just asking to be bled dry.
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.
I don't think he is making any such claim. Like I mentioned elsewhere, if you follow his full explanation, it is Google that is actually capitalising on this confusion and redirecting users to their own engine.
The confusion (if it really exists) has nothing to do with Google. It has to do with DDG not protecting their turf. When they chose their name, they could have chosen thousands of others. This isn't and shouldn't be Google's problem and quite frankly comes off as a weakness that DDG ran with this story.
If you read @yegge's response (I reproduced it here)
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.
Effectively it is Google's fault because they are doing it now specifically in his case and not for others (as he mentions clearly)
Secondly, while it would be nice to pre-empt all angles and all possibilities etc., etc., but I don't think any of us can foresee every possible way something will come back to bite your backside in the future. So, no, I don't think that it is somehow DDG's fault that they did not foresee this and preempt it.
P.S: FWIW, google renamed themselves from googol to google because the VC mispelled their name on the cheque. Just goes to show that such things are a fact of life. People have every right to vaguely try to look up "Duck something" search engine. However, Google is definitely in the wrong for sneakily redirecting users back to their own engine in this case by misusing this vagueness.
[moved to correct place]
"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!
Daniel meant to convey that he hears that line from other people who get to hear that line within their circles of recommendation -- effectively after the damage has been done.
Doesn't sound like a petty whinge according to me though at least if you follow his full explanation of Google actually capitalising on this confusion and redirecting users to their own engine.
Capitalised on the confusion? They have hundreds of domains pointing to their main site. On2.com or whatever it is showed an acquisition notice because that was the company purchased. It's definitely possible that enquiring about the domain reminded them that they had it and should forward like the rest they owned.
Huh? Google has to sell you a domain which has nothing to do with your product.. because you asked for it? Wow.
Gabriel, have you considered rebranding DuckDuckGo? If the name is affecting user adoption or perception, it can be changed.
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.
Your poor marketing with an unknown name is not Google's problem.
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?
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?