Hey.
Yea. We struggle with the extension -> navbar search requirement also.
We have found that if you're not the default engine that is easily accessible from the Navbar, you will not be able to break the Google monopoly.
We also found that many people will just do a quick search for "asd" or "weather" and then leave because those searches aren't really differentiated (and just can't really be).
Our extension is 33kB and has no other features. It's easy to see the source so you can see that it does nothing interesting or sketchy. It changes the setting. You can change that setting manually and get the same effect and usage after. But most users don't know how to change a setting and you got some large 2tr$ monopoly that doesn't want you to change...
I strongly second not gating the service. Honestly, I laughed and closed the tab when I saw that I had to install an extension.
Furthermore, literally drawing a search-box and then having it not actually perform a search is a dark-pattern. If you have to trick people into doing an action, it's probably not the right thing to do.
If you have differentiating features, show people them! Optimize your flow on how you're different. If there aren't niches (e.g. some people use Bing for differentiated image search or travel) that people will come to you instead of going to Google for the same purpose, you won't see adoption. Google has such an advantage not because of their market position, but because of the huge amount of person-years they've spent developing their product.
If you're privacy first, that's great, but you are competing with DDG not Google. Privacy doesn't keep users coming back. Build a better product, people will come.
And that starts with letting your users search how they want to search, not how you want them to.
Agree with all the other commenters. I'm not necessarily against eventually downloading the plugin or changing my navbar setting, but, to be blunt, there is no way in hell I'm doing that before I get to try it out. I'm not going to trust you until you've given some evidence that you're worth trusting. Especially since your tagline is "built for devs", in my experience devs are the least likely to put up with unnecessary hoops and user hostile gates in order to try out a product.
DuckDuckGo seens to have been able to do this just fine, even with the weirdest name for a company ever. Their growing by word of mouth from geeks like us. I set DDG as default on all of my family/friends browsers. Focus on making a good search and users will come
Gabriel (the founder of DDG) wrote a fabulous book (called Traction) on growth.
Tl;dr is that it was much more than just word of mouth. They have been very deliberate and methodical about growth from the very beginning and employed many different growth tactics throughout the lifetime of the company.
Well, to be complete, DDG also advertises on radio, on streaming, on billboards, and in newspapers. I think TV is the only place I haven't seen a DDG ad.
No, but when they first launched they needed 5,000 users to grow 10%, now they need 5M(?) to grow the same? So investing in other means is probably necessary.
Actually I saw a ddg ad on TV. I started rolling my eyes thinking it was a Google ad lying about privacy but was pleasantly surprised by the duck logo.
Having the extension and letting people try it on the web seems like a more reasonable choice. People need to try it out.
That said...there is a search textbox at the top of the page and it worked for me in Firefox and Chrome. Did people just miss it? If so, it should probably be in the middle with the big blue button.
it takes 5 seconds to install and uninstall an extension.
we will open source it also so people can see how simple and benign it is.
It feels like 5s to help move the internet away from a privacy invading monopoly isn't too bad?
If you like privacy and agency of your information diet, or saving lots of time while coding, or Reddit results always accessible to browse for most queries, etc.
Then the 5s install will be worth it for you :)
PS: You can try in incognito mode (though some apps wont work due to hardcore privacy and no location sharing, etc.)
You've got this super expensive domain for a new project, it's normal for tech people to be wary.
Please could you quit thinking we're idiots with that 33kb bit you're doing? We get it, it's fine and safe and beautiful. Right now. We live in 4 dimensions though bud. We don't just care what it does now, we care what it'll be doing next year too!
From my point of view this extension doesn't need to be installed. Therefore I assume it will almost certainly update and fuck me over one day, you will need to monetise eventually and this feels like it's being defended super heavily for no reason
What's the plan here? It's only 5s now sure, how much time is it going to cost when the plot reveals itself?
Your onboarding is too intense mate. HN has fallen out of your funnel because of this extension. It's too weird of a scenario to the point I actually trust you less having read your responses! Where there's smoke there's fire and this extension is giving off all sorts of funky smells
Also someone needs to mention it - I don't want to change my search engine right now. Just be a search engine, quit being so needy! It took like 5 years for me to switch from Google to DDG lmao, you don't get first dibs on my search data like this. Ease into it
That is incredibly dismissive of legitimate feedback, and you should honestly be ashamed of your response. I personally find your attitude in these comments to be absolutely reprehensible, and will never use this site -- or anything you're involved with.
You're apparently not even aware that every browser has the ability to add a keyword to the search engines, so that users could type "you: search phrase" and it goes to your site. Being oblivious to this is a huge red flag, and betrays that you really haven't thought this through.
I think you are kind of missing the point. Regardless of the reasons, people do not want to install an extension from an unknown provider to test out a search engine (at least on HN), you’ll even get a very hostile response.
If you aim to make your search engine a success, regardless of your reasons for that. You’ll have to deal with that problem. Trying to convince people with some idealistic talk does not seem to be working from what I can see in this thread (and anyway, is not scalable).
Alternatively, you can try launching somewhere else, but I imagine the reception on Reddit will be just as hostile.
I already have privacy from Startpage and DuckDuckGo. What I don't have is personal knowledge of whether your search engine is any damn good. Until I find out, I'm not likely to install your extension.
(And fwiw, I use Startpage every day without needing an extension for it.)
Forcing users to install some random extension to use a privacy search engine is probably the worst value prop you can offer. What is the subset of privacy seeking users are part of the group of users willing to install random extensions exist?
I get how useful it is for growth but a defensive answer like this does more PR harm than good. also misses the question.
i have tried your search engine and it is great. i can tell a lot of work has gone into it, but i had to think twice about giving it a second go after being put off by your first impression.
It takes less than 5 seconds to upload personal data to a server from a compromised extension.
Not saying you're doing this but it was the first threat scenario that came to mind and it's not even something particularly uncommon in the browser extension world.
I'm going to go ahead and say it then, this is suspicious as fuck.
It would have been slightly less suspicious if the response to "this is a security concern" would have been "oops yeah we see that now, let's disable that requirement until we gain some trust first".
I do not trust a company that brands itself as privacy-oriented when they insist on peddling a security vulnerability to their users "because Google is evil so trust us". Google may be selling my data but at least they have a lot to lose so they are likely to abide by legal guardrails.
Especially since there is no value-add to the extension. It's whole purpose is to make it harder for less tech-savvy users to stop using the service.
Maybe a compromise would be keeping the button to install the extension but add a link along the lines of "Don't want an extension?" that explains how you can use it without installing the extension and your reasons for the extension.
I can see that private mode isn't enabled by default. What's the point haha, you've already set a tracking cookie by the time I've found the option to enable it
> We also found that many people will just do a quick search for "asd" or "weather" and then leave because those searches aren't really differentiated (and just can't really be).
This is an interesting point, I've seen other apps tackling this issue providing different pre-defined use cases that you can just click to use them. For example, online apps where you can upload a photo and get a somehow tweaked version of it (like cartooning your face or something like that), so users that want to give it a quick try can click on pre-uploaded pictures from a list and see results.
For this case maybe providing a good handful of search use cases where users wanting to give it a quick try could just click and see results could work to keep them away of dumb queries.
We tried sth similar a while back and it confused some people who thought that the entire site could only be used for the 3 examples we provided.
Other users just clicked out of it.
Maybe we can find a way to bring that back without interrupting any flow :)
I appreciate the reply and opportunity to open dialog. I think the flaw in that reasoning is that you're not talking specifically about people for whom search is a problem. Someone searching for the weather forecast, or something that strongly references a Wikipedia article, is already getting a good search experience. People like me, on the other hand, are power users of Google but consistently struggle to quickly find information.
I downloaded the extension so I could reciprocate with useful feedback. First let me say I appreciate the minimal design, although it would be nice if my re-ordering and configuration of the interface remained the same between searches (if I hit the arrows to push Stack Overflow results to the top, every subsequent search pushes it down to a random position). I ran some of my Google searches from earlier today - one was "typescript define class as type", since I didn't really know exactly how to describe the TS syntax I wanted. The second Google result was to a Stack Overflow answer that effectively resolved my query - this answer isn't in the SO results when I searched on You, and the overall search experience for that one isn't great. Obviously that is an edge case with imprecise wording, but it's the best example I could come up with for why it's hard to ditch Google (even though many of us want to).
I ran some other queries where You was actually a much better experience - I was searching for a specific JS library (Nunjucks) and entering queries like "nunjucks define a filter" - the Google results start with a link to the documentation, followed by endless low-quality blog posts. On You, I could easily scroll through and see that people are talking on Reddit about the library - right now I effectively do the same thing on Google by adding "site:news.ycombinator.com" before a query.
Again, appreciate the reply and look forward to following your progress. I am sure that even the naysayers here can agree that it would be nice to see an end to search monopolization :)
Edit: FYI, to add to the argument against the Chrome extension, the moment I navigated to google.com I got a prompt with "yes" as the default answer for switching back to Google as the default search. So I really don't think fighting the search monopoly in this way is going to be easy - to echo another commenter, DuckDuckGo has managed to build a successful business off great search results alone.
Best growth hack: add a link to Google below your first results page. That way, more people will use your engine as their first choice, because they can easily fall back on their previously preferred search engine.
I can't emphasize the parent's comment enough. Being able to look through a set of results and then quickly get Google results if I don't find what I'm looking for are key to getting me to try any other search engine (For historical reference, this is how Excel killed Lotus 123 a few decades ago - by making it super easy to do Lotus exports from Excel so that people who tried Excel didn't feel like they were "trapped" into being outside of the Lotus 123 ecosystem at the time).
I saw the Google link you mentioned, but (at least on mobile) it didn't stand out. I would at least try doing a test where you put something super prominent up at the top of results: "Didn't find what you're looking for? Try your search on Google instead."
I agree with your sentiment about being the default engine to break people free of google, but do you have evidence that the browser extension is the way to get people to do that?
On the other side, you have a search bar on the page, so I'm not exactly sure what people are complaining about.
If you open it up in Chrome, then first off the main search bar in the middle of the screen turns into a button to install the extension.
There remains a search bar in the upper left hand corner of the screen, but if you actually search, no search results are given. Instead the result page is replaced by a link to install the Chrome extension. So effectively, as far as I can tell, on a normal Chrome browsing session there is no way to actually use the search functionality without installing the extension.
This does not seem to happen on other browsers or in incognito mode.
It is a 5 second install or uninstall.
Tbh, the browser extension is the best method for now but it's clearly not where we want to stay.
Even after you install it and make a search from the navbar, Google will encourage you to change it back to Google and make the default button change the setting back.
We hope to eventually be an option in the default search engines list.
Eventually, maybe antitrust will encourage browsers to provide a randomly ordered list of search engines to choose from.
I think the mob has spoken Richard. You can't force people to install the extension, and I think devs are both more likely to work with browser extensions, and less likely to install them.
You've clearly put a lot of great work into the tech. I suggest you sit down with a marketing person to help you figure out how to get people using it. NOT HOW TO GET IT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE. Those are two different things. If the best thing your marketing person can come up with is to have a browser extension, get a better marketing person.
Start small and expand. Perhaps your browser extension is your start small. If so, then it just isn't for me, and that's ok. Maybe you've got a plan of how you grow.
As an example, look at DDG. They started small, and grew, and grew, and grew. They didn't need an extension to do it.
Of course you want everyone to use it, and you want everyone to use it today. But that's not the choice.
I sincerely hope you find your 1,000 true fans, and that those fans can lead you to 1,000,000,000x more.
the truth is that most users have no other easily accessible way for them to switch away from a monopoly that sells them, their data and privacy to the highest bidder and requires all companies to pay a tax to exist in the online economy...
if you are an expert, you can change your settings manually and hence not require the extension.
Sorry, I went to make a search without the extension installed (because I did try) and I got hit with a full screen error message saying I needed to install the extension.
My mistake was obviously typing in the search bar at the top of the screen. I should have edited the address in the address bar manually. If you don’t have the extension installed, the search bar serves only to take you to an ad to install it.
A UI element that appear to be a search box but is actually an ad for your extension, I would characterize as user hostile design.
Google’s practices, if you don’t agree with them, doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want because you’re the little guy. Offering an extension is fine. But disabling searching if the extension isn’t installed is not helpful.
Yeah when I tried a search and got that "download our extension" message, my immediate gut reaction was that it was trying to hack me. If I hadn't started from HN, I'd have been convinced of it, closed the browser immediately, and never gone back.
Respectfully: because nobody knows who the fuck you are, and your reasoning doesn't make sense.
You want to offer a privacy focused search service, but the users need to install an extension because otherwise <some gibberish about google evil here> instead of just having a regular web frontend for the masses to try. Then it's too hard for lusers to switch; you created this problem for yourself.
The more you respond, the more it looks like this is some poorly thought out lead capture, or you're so focused on the service you don't understand the broader security concerns.
You broke the site guidelines with this comment. Putting "respectfully" in front of something disrespectful does not make it ok.
It's particularly important not to pile on someone when they're presenting their own work—the Show HN guidelines have additional rules about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html.
I don't see anything disrespectful in that comment; it was made entirely in good faith.
That concept becomes tricky in situations like this, because you're assuming bad faith, and then tone policing based off that. My point of view is that you got it wrong this time, but that doesn't really matter, you're the one with the hammer, boss. o7
Fwiw, HN needs an alert/messaging system of some kind to deliver these moderation messages to users. If I don't see you responded in an official capacity before I post enough to push it to second page of my profile, I may never see it, which means it's not serving it's entire purpose. The public signaling part works, but the direct signaling could easily get lost. I know usually you aren't doing this a day later, but in those cases, there's gotta be a better solution.
You packed so many swipey phrases into your comment ("nobody knows who the fuck you are", "<some gibberish about google evil here>", "you created this problem for yourself", "the more you respond", "this is some poorly thought out", "you don't understand") that the post came across as something between a harangue and an outright an attack. This is not a good way to communicate respectfully on the internet. (Doubly so in the context of a mass pile-on, which is what this thread became.)
I believe you that you wrote your post in good faith, but intentions aren't enough. All too often, a comment comes out in a way that doesn't at all make its good intent clear, and damaging effects don't become less when the damage is unintentional. Therefore the burden falls on the commenter to disambiguate intent (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
(Yes, it's on the list to eventually build a better way of signaling moderation to accounts. I'm sure there is a much better solution.)
and then this subthread, where we're having this conversation after dinging me.
The OP didn't disclose the requirement of a browser extension. The linked site didn't function in two out of three browsers, and prompted extension installs on Chrome. It was also breaking in user tests.
The users responded as they did. When the extension requirement became the core topic, OP rotated between multiple reasons for why, including some rather bad generalizations about google being a $2trn company, users not being smart enough to switch the default search provider, and almost-but-not-quite admitting it's user capture.
They were back in the other thread debating back and forth, and called out about dishonesty in regards to more of their product claims since. They also removed the extension requirement.
Where were you?
You dinged me, a day later, but never said a word to OP about the need to disclose unexpected software installation requirements for a search service? You allowed them to post, in two separate threads, and market their product with dark patterns.
That's how pile-on's happen, Dan. The product didn't work as submitted, as it required an undisclosed software installation on only one browser, and didn't function at all on others.
Did you test the landing page before sticking their promotional comment?
Did you test it at all?
Do you verify any of the submissions?
If so, why didn't you verify this one?
Why are Show submissions allowed to promote their products with dark patterns?
The people that care about this community's fellow members rightly piled on, because you weren't doing anything about it. This is not the first time this situation has happened. That pile-on is the public screaming warnings to those who might be unaware of potential danger.
Good faith says you just missed the context because you're swamped, I get it man.
When you start dictating what other peoples words mean, without context, and trying to redefine their communication styles to fit your preferred format, on top of the perspective I just shared; How do you think that looks?
I think your approach on this, from the initial submission up, is either disingenuous or careless. I think you fired from the hip, based on my comment, and didn't do anything to actually address, or understand, the cause of the issues in this thread, or the other one.
I'm sure you have a lot of good points in here but I don't see anything that changes the specific moderation issue that I was posting about, that your comment went against the site guidelines.
A couple points of clarification in case it's useful:
I pinned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29165602 to the top of the thread because that's standard moderation practice for Show HNs. When people post an introductory blurb about the project they're presenting, we pin it to the top (assuming we see it!) and turn off replies. There are two reasons: one is that the introductory blurb is really a companion piece to the original submission and therefore belongs at the top. The other is that people often reply to that blurb with general feedback about the project, which (most likely unintentionally) is a kind of topjacking, i.e. it privileges their response higher up on the page, relative to other users who post general feedback in the thread at large. By turning off replies to the blurb comment, we're treating the blurb as part of the original submission and putting all user responses on a level playing field. It's a nice solution! Sorry for the long explanation (no time to make it shorter &c).
As for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167680 — I never post anything by script! I do have a lot of keyboard shortcuts in my mod-client-browser-extension to help speed things up. But all posts are done manually. I don't think it would be in the spirit of HN to do otherwise.
The first part of your opening sentence is demonstrative of my point, followed by both explanations. You manually touched the thread 3 times, and did nothing to verify or proactively protect the community, but speech you missed the context on is actionable. You've responded to me multiple times, but you still haven't done anything to correct the problem we were all addressing.
..and yeah, I disagree, as I did originally. I think you're being intellectually dishonest here now. So that's three shades.
The analog to 'because I said so' in the world of tools, is a hammer. As I said, it's your hammer, swing it or don't, but spare me the links to your own search results about communication when you aren't actually participating genuinely.
You aren't communicating in good faith now, Dan. You're speaking through a communication framework, using conversational tactics. Those tools are wonderful when used to better ones own communication: be aware it becomes manipulation when used as a control on other's. This isn't confrontational, this is just direct and purposeful dialect.
Let's run this back, and this is the last time I'm engaging with you on this specific topic.
I said what I said, you responded that I broke the guidelines, and accused me of disrespect. Respect is a currency earned in grave experiences, to me. I understand you don't know that, but as a policy in this world: quickly questioning someones respect can be inflammatory. For clarity: Everything I say to you is with respect, care, and purpose.
I responded that it wasn't disrespectful, and voiced my disagreement.
You responded to that by cherry picking and scare-quoting collections of words, irrespective of the context of the entire comment, and flow of the conversation at the time.
That's against the spirit of HN: you already know this. The framework you're communicating through: seeking clarity, I don't understand, etc; entirely disingenuous when you actually know better. You violated the rules to make a point, while trying to tone police me, and coach me on how to communicate in a style you prefer.
Respectfully: "nobody knows who the fuck you are"
Absolute truth with levity, as a combined response to several posts by the OP repeatedly responding with incredulity that everyone wasn't happy to install an undisclosed extension while they advertised a search engine service on a website. It's an entirely obvious and honest response.
"<some gibberish about google evil here>"
Levity, brevity, and actually a small kindness. [1][2][3][4][5] Those are just the google related comments. To expound: that's childish circular logic, manipulative talking points, immature tribalism: gibberish is not out of bounds here. This isn't a garage project, this is a corporate venture with major backing; the second thread using other's names as social currency. Poor communication style: avoidant, defensive, while being deceptive: what about guidelines? Respect the house.
Follow the thread, I refuse to engage with you when you're choosing to ignore conversational flow. They created the undisclosed requirement, the requirement was the most mentioned complaint: they created this problem. That is not a slap, it's a valid observation, and an opportunity to adapt early. Which they have, despite some other questionable ongoing issues.
"the more you respond"
Read my last response, and follow the conversation, they reverted to repeating the same meaningless statements.
"this is some poorly thought out"
They marketed a search service hosted on a website, without disclosing the extension requirement: and further we sink into your missing context; it was user capture.
"you don't understand"
His job title is CEO; is it proper form to question a CEO about deployments, or do we live in world where people have domain expertise in specific fields? Again, you fired from the hip without paying attention to context. Your bias, as I pointed out originally, intellectual dishonesty, and not in the spirit of HN.
If I hadn't made it clear, I'm taking the ding either way. It's your house, but at some point you need to ask yourself if your tao of communication became the site guidelines over time.
Then the actual major issue, that you refuse to acknowledge or engage on: predatory marketing and dark patterns in Show submissions, and your inaction in regards to them. This topic is going to come up again, as it predates this thread. This is a community concern.
Best interpretation is just a mistake, fully respective of workload and personal life. That's great, maybe then you and the community can have a conversation about better processes and ways for us to respond and we can build a solution together. Perfect is an enemy of good just as good enough is an enemy of better. Maintain the house respect.
The only alternative is you're complicit, and intellectually honest reasoning: company policy, employment requirements, etc. This is one of those binary things; the shades of grey begin after the fork.
Disambiguate intent: agreed; now, please. You mentioned damage, and here we are. We can disagree about the tree, and let it be, but I'm also talking about the seemingly untended fire in the forest.
Like I said, I respect the house, I respect the mission, I respect you and the
work you do. You quote the show guidelines, they broke the show guidelines: you quote the house guidelines, you break the site guidelines; practice what you proselytize. Do as I say, not as I do is near the peak of intellectual dishonesty. Securing the flock is a shepherds first job responsibility.
I get it. There are tons of sketchy extensions.
We'll open source our extension so you can see the entire 33kB that's needed to make one settings change.
Also, you can try it out in incognito mode or change those settings manually and hence give it a try :)
But most people need the simplicity and convenience of a few clicks in order to give it a proper try.
bruh, i use a chromium-based browser which doesn't support extensions (or an incognito mode) as of this moment. i ain't installing chrome just for some stupid setting, just saying.
There does seem to be a regular web front end, you.com. The link in the HN post was to a search for you.com on you.com. There's also a search bar at the top of that 'results' page.
Edit: I now believe the website was, in fact, changed.
Original comment below, most individual bits still relevant aside from the overall conclusion that the pieces added up to accidental confusion. Apparently concluding HN folk were bad at understanding even poorly displayed tech was not wise. Who knew? I probably should have realized that was not a good bet.
At this point I consider the apparent lack of understanding from the OP willful ignorance at best. All this seems like kind of a waste now. Oh well.
---
Unless the website was recently changed (final edit: yeah... unless...), I think the problem here is a combination of the link that was submitted and uh... excessively effective design, if I want to put it nicely. You're doing too good a job of directing attention to the extension, and people are missing the actual means of using your website.
Right now the link is https://you.com/search?q=you.com&fromSearchBar=true. That page currently has a little search bar in the top UI bar which is prefilled with a search term, and the contrast that identifies it as a text input is pretty minimal. Dark Reader further hides that fact with some elements like the 'x' in the input not getting adjusted to be more visible. These aspects make it extremely easy to overlook as a text input. My first instinct is to ignore it as part of the wasted space in the top bar, and it does a poor job of standing out as anything else.
Furthermore the banner for the extension is pretty freaking huge and draws all the attention. The copy on it also pretty strongly implies you need it to use the website.
The multiple comments from other HN folk that have clearly been mislead about the importance of the extension further feeds that perception. I'm sure some people haven't even actually checked for themselves - I know I almost didn't. It also wasn't immediately obvious to me what was going on once I did visit the submitted page, and I nearly fell into the same trap.
Meanwhile https://you.com/ offers a much more familiar design that does not contain so many opportunities for confusion. I think you may have been better off submitting that.
While I'm at it, I have few other thoughts. I continually find myself expecting many of the non-ads to be ads. I keep ignoring them or even getting annoyed with them, until I remind myself I should look again. This happens on both the submitted page with the various blurbs/links down at the bottom and the search results page. My very first response to attempting a search was essentially a dismissive and annoyed eyeroll as I thought you'd tried to load up an entire screen full of ads.
I'm not entirely sure what the whole problem is. I'd guess it's partly being conditioned by other search providers about the very top 'results' and partly the overall style. Maybe grids of little boxes with so-perfectly-rounded corners and strong titles just seem like ads to me. On the submitted page, I'm sure having a bunch of company names there in the Media section doesn't help.
Again, this is just my immediate impression of the UI elements. I don't believe them to actually be ads, but I'm constantly having to fight my instincts to treat them otherwise.
Which browser are you using? Firefox appears to be not getting the agressive prompt to install the Chrome extension, they were clever enough to check for that.
We have found that if you're not the default engine that is easily accessible from the Navbar, you will not be able to break the Google monopoly.
We also found that many people will just do a quick search for "asd" or "weather" and then leave because those searches aren't really differentiated (and just can't really be).
Our extension is 33kB and has no other features. It's easy to see the source so you can see that it does nothing interesting or sketchy. It changes the setting. You can change that setting manually and get the same effect and usage after. But most users don't know how to change a setting and you got some large 2tr$ monopoly that doesn't want you to change...