
How DuckDuckGo Rode a Wave of Post-Snowden Anxiety to Massive Growth - bootload
http://www.fastcompany.com/3046943/how-duckduckgo-rode-a-wave-of-post-snowden-anxiety-to-massive-growth
======
GeorgeOrr
Am I the only one who actualy finds DuckDuckGo's search results overall
better?

The main reason, I believe, is that Google's personalized search seems to get
in the way.

Add to that the ! commands in DDG, and the fact that they aren't eliminating
things from search in the same way google is and I find DDG the better choice
for search as well as privacy.

YMMV of course, as the word "better" is so subjective, but I'd be interested
if others have that experience as well.

~~~
crdb
I switched due to being frustrated with many Google results being SEO'ed to
death. Sometimes one has to dig 3-4 pages to find a decent result. I got the
feeling that if what I was searching for was commercialised, I should expect
it to be quite hard to find neutral or deep results (kind of how when you're
looking up a company, all you'll find in the news are PR releases disguised as
industry articles).

My subjective and anecdotal experience has been that DDG filters the signal
out of the noise much better in 80% of situations. In both personalised
searches (e.g. for restaurants, which should be geo-localised, a recent search
from Singapore sent me to Connecticut...) and for some specific items where
Google has built some custom extra logic, such as movies or "site:", the added
keystrokes of !g is not much effort. So I haven't switched back. It does feel
like Google is a little smarter on some searches but - and I can't think of an
example straight off the cuff - sometimes too smart for its own good and stuck
in local optima. DDG offers a less noisy, more generalised view on the world
which I prefer most of the time.

One nice thing about personalisation is the integration if you use a lot of
Google products. For example, when my brother sent me his flight details, the
flight was automatically added to my calendar, and Google Now showed me
details on the day including the terminal and luggage belt, reminded me to
leave on time and estimated the Uber wait time and even the fee (not to
mention Maps can send you straight on to the Uber app with the start and end
points entered). These things are either incredibly creepy or, if you trust
Google and can't afford humans to do the same job, very useful.

~~~
digi_owl
Thing about Google's services is the eternal dilemma between tech and
business.

I suspect the techies that implemented the services initially had the best of
intentions with them.

But then comes the suits further up the chain, that has as their primary
motivation to maximize ROI.

~~~
crdb
I think it's simpler than that: there's a war on between the SEO lot and
Google. As SEO teams get better and better at mimicking a signal, Google needs
to keep upping their game to let the valuable stuff get through without being
drowned in about.com spam (sometimes the same text can be found in 10
successive clones of about.com) or companies upping their ranking. Then you
get feedback loops as people's expectations adjust to the new reality.

Right now, if I type "!g clothes" my top result is missguided.co.uk; if I go
to google.com and type "clothes", my top result is nastygal.com (ironic that
both of these companies have "naughty" branding, when they are so good at
spamming search results). Clearly both of these fashion companies have
excellent SEO teams, but there might also be a factor of people expecting
shops when they type a non-brand keyword.

DDG is also filled with shops (presumably affiliate links, since that's their
business model) but the top/separate result is the Wikipedia article for
clothing, which is actually informative if I wanted to read about clothes.

It's a good business decision for Google to have high quality search results.
The problem with the previous search companies is that they sucked. Most/all
of the top results were paid. There was little thought about relevance. Google
won so hard because it allowed people a way to browse the enormous amount of
information on the web in a structured way taking into account relevance. The
ads need people to keep coming, which won't happen if other search companies
are more relevant. The dynamic will be that whoever wins the search battle
will end up being the new target for SEO spam and eventually develop the same
problems.

------
justin_
DDG's !bang searches convinced me to use it as my default search. Being able
to search various sites from the address bar is really useful. And if their
results are ever poor, I can always get to Google with just a !g. I know you
could do that before with keyword searches, but with DDG I don't have to worry
about setting it up.

~~~
adventured
In your opinion, how is the bang code system superior to using
"site:amazon.com" on Google?

~~~
Majestic121
Well, instead of typing site:amazon.com you only have to type !a

That's a lot less to type

~~~
adventured
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to use the !bang system you have to memorize the
short form for every site or service you want to use it for, is that right?

For example, amazon.co.uk is !amazonuk - I don't see the meaningful
improvement there.

DDG has six thousand of them, most of which don't benefit from a great
shortening of the name. To search answers.com it's !answers - that's an
extremely small improvement over site:answers.com given the need to memorize a
bang for each thing you want to use it against.

~~~
Majestic121
It's not really hard to memorise a bang, especially if you use it often like
!w for wikipedia or !yt for youtube.

Maybe most of them don't benefit a great shortening of the name, but the most
common do.

And for the other, like answers.com, !answers is still 8 characters shorter
than site:answers.com

You should really try to use bangs for a while, I'm sure you would see the
appeal very quickly

------
hardwaresofton
Good for them. I'm glad they stepped up to serve the sector of people who
wanted increased security when searching the web. Most wouldn't try to build a
competing search engine these days.

I've been using DDG since I heard about it.

~~~
n0us
I think there's more room for competition. Google is obviously very good at
their core product, and arguably very good at delivering most of their other
products as well. These attempt's like Microsoft's Bing I feel like are just
attempts to copy Google's search but there hasn't been much in the way of
innovation in years. I wouldn't mind using a search engine that takes an
entirely different approach than the "type in a box and get a list of text
results" (and maybe a little box of information also)

I liken my feelings about Google to my feelings about McDonalds. Most of it is
delicious and satisfying, they have a core product that is the best done, some
other products which are pretty good and then some other ones that are off the
wall. I generally try to avoid what went into making the burger just like I
try to avoid thinking about what Google is doing with the information it
collects about me. In spite of any short comings you don't try to copy
McDonalds, their supply chain is too massive and well oiled and their brand is
cemented in people's minds. Google on the other hand has a supply chain of top
tech talent, a ton of servers and stuff, and they have a huge brand. I think
there is however room for other types of search even if there is not too much
room to take them on directly. We will see the Chipotles and Five Guys of the
search industry, things people didn't even know they wanted until they were
available.

~~~
hardwaresofton
Not sure if you're a DDG user, but have you seen their ! shortcuts?

For example, you can type stuff like "!newegg laptop" into the search menu (or
even easier, the address bar, if you have their browser plugin) and you can
search newegg directly. I think the one I end up using the most (at work) is
"!java8 something" to search javadoc

Not crazy on the innovation scale (as many browsers let you do keyword
searches), but definitely awesome, because there's a huge range of keywords
already available

~~~
n0us
I'm an occasional user, I've heard of the domains specific searchs but I was
not aware of the ability to do the !java8 thing, that might be really
convenient.

~~~
hardwaresofton
Yeah I use it as a browser plugin so I type that right in the address bar.
There are lots of other useful ones (like !hn)

Also, if you currently use google, it's only a short "!g" away (and it uses
google encrypted search, for what that's worth) -- I am a tiny bit ashamed at
how much I use !g :)

------
bane
Like a few other comments here, I switched to ddg a few months ago and only
rarely need to go back to google. In fact, it's kind of nice to have a few
places to search now (google, bing, ddg), reminds me of the old internet
search engine war days.

Unlike the article, I didn't do it for security reasons, I actually gave it a
go and found the search results better for most of the things I search for.
And if I don't find what I want I can !g and it'll take me right to google's
results so I get a direct like-for-like comparison.

I also generally like how DDG presents the results better than google. Little
details like checkboxes next to places I've already been are super helpful and
I miss those little touches in google. There's tons of little touches like
that all over DDG.

I find about 1:30 searches I hit google for and maybe only half of those do I
find anything anyway.

About the _only_ think I don't like about DDG is the image search, google is
far superior here still. And google sometimes does a better job bringing up
maps of places I'm searching for. But I don't see changing back anytime soon
and getting better personal security "for free" is a nice side effect.

It also brings into question how important google's personalized searches are
for relevancy if DDG can provide equivalent results without needing that
information.

~~~
rpedroso
_Little details like checkboxes next to places I 've already been are super
helpful and I miss those little touches in google._

Google does do this, and in a less subtle way -- it applies the classic,
purple styling to visited links.

Still, I find your comments compelling enough to give DDG a shot. I found the
results inadequate when I last tried a year or so ago -- I found myself using
!g more often than not, which led me to abandon DDG altogether.

~~~
djent
I'm pretty sure that's a browser thing, not a Google-specific feature.

~~~
rpedroso
Yes, it is a feature of the default browser stylesheet, but many websites
override it. DuckDuckGo, for instance, keeps all of its links black and uses
the :visited pseudo class to show the checkmark.

Even if it's default browser behavior, keeping it around is a specific design
decision.

------
Dramatize
I switched to DDG as my default search engine a few months back. Most of the
time it's good enough. If not, a simple !g brings up Google's results.

------
cletus
Is it just me or is this another in the series that can be generalized at:

"How DDG attached itself to <latest event> to make it look like it's popular"

I have nothing for or against DDG but it's like once a month I see what looks
like pro-DDG propaganda.

------
brerlapn
I haven't done a deep dive into how DDG works, but "In Partnership with
Yandex" is on the search results. Yandex is a Russian search engine, and while
you may find the NSA snooping intrusive and obnoxious, Russia isn't exactly a
privacy-respecting libertarian utopia. No one ever seems to mention the
Russian connection in discussions about DDG, though. If this is something
you've considered and reckoned through to it not being a concern, I would be
quite interested in your reasoning.

------
graeme
How long would duckduckgo have to grow at its current growth rate to reach
google's size?

[https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html](https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html)

That's not a reasonable assumption that it would keep growing that fast. But
still interesting to know for when people lambast DDG for being a fraction of
google's volume.

------
dmfdmf
The title as written is a smear against Snowden.

"How DDG Rode a Wave of Post-Snowden Security Concerns to Massive Growth"

~~~
SapphireSun
I read it as security concerns related to the NSA. I don't think it's a biased
title.

~~~
dmfdmf
"Anxiety" typically means an irrational or unfounded fear.

We have legit reasons to fear the NSA spying after Snowden.

~~~
SapphireSun

       anxiety
       n.	A state of uneasiness and apprehension, as about future uncertainties.
       n.	A cause of anxiety: For some people, air travel is a real anxiety.
       n.	Psychiatry A state of apprehension, uncertainty, and fear resulting from 
        the anticipation of a *realistic* or fantasized threatening event or situation, 
        often impairing physical and psychological functioning.
    
    

Emphasis mine. That's all I'm going to say.

~~~
dmfdmf
Does our disagreement make you anxious?

------
quaffapint
While it might be just the opposite of the main purposes of DDG - ie privacy,
is there a way to have it show local results?

Like when I search for general things in google it will show me stuff around
my area first, whereas in DDG its just generic and could be anywhere.

~~~
AdamSC1
DDG has two ways you could get local results:

1) Type in your city for example "news new york" "pizza toronto"

2) localization toggle - this sets country specific results

It's a bit of change in search style but you can get great local results while
still being private

------
gggggggg
I have not uses DDG in a while. Do they still get results from Goolge?

~~~
GeorgeOrr
The short answer is not all the results. There are many sources. Here's a link
with more details.

[https://duck.co/help/results/sources](https://duck.co/help/results/sources)

------
omginternets
The problem with DDG, as much as I respect their efforts and their official
discourse, is that you really can't be sure they aren't tracking users based
on some secret court order.

For this reason, I still have a very hard time trusting them in any meaningful
sense.

~~~
ucho
Exactly:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040471](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040471)
\- American company hosted by another American can't be NSA resistant.

