30 ms·
Duck.com (not the search engine you might expect)
- danielsiders 15y agoIf they did move it intentionally it's a stupid move. It can't be winning them users and someone will mention it and depose staff about it the next time antitrust proceedings are brought against google. They should offload the domain to DDG, redirect it while maintaining ownership, or start a service named duck something that's unrelated to search and use it for that.
- arb99 15y agoall in google's details (and same registrar as their main domain) Domain Name: DUCK.COM Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC. Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 19-nov-2010 Creation Date: 23-feb-1995 Expiration Date: 24-feb-2015 edit : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027691 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027691
- mcritz 15y agoDick move, google.
- phzbOx 15y agoduck move.
- jmilkbal 15y agoI'd like to think that the evil chocolate factory is so scared of DDG such that they would buy up a related domain name, but the domain was owned by On2 technologies which, as you may recall, was bought by Google for their video codec. Of course, Google may be undermining competition in other ways. I'm sure they are. They should just donate the domain to DuckDuckGo if only to squash conspiracy theorists.
- nknight 15y ago> They should just donate the domain to DuckDuckGo if only to squash conspiracy theorists. No, it should go to Black Duck Software. Or perhaps Duck Records. Actually, it should go to Disney. Duck Guides Inc.? How about Automatic Duck Inc.? Or perhaps redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck ? There's a Flying Duck Inc. in Berkeley, heaven only knows what they do, but they've existed since 1998, why don't they get the domain?
- hobin 15y agoI have seen ducks in my garden. Why don't I get the domain?
- epi0Bauqu 15y agoBackstory: https://duck.co/topic/duck-com-redirects-to-google https://duck.co/topic/duck-com-redirects-to-google tl;dr no reason (IMHO) it should point to Google search -- it's just confusing people.
- artursapek 15y agoDoes it seem to violate their "Don't be evil" mantra to anybody else? This was clearly a conscious decision to confuse people.
- notatoad 15y agoplease, for the love of god, stop with the "google is evil" crap. every single post about google, there's at least a couple comments saying google is violating their don't be evil principle. it's really fucking annoying. can't you find a criticism that's at least a little bit more original?
- artursapek 15y agoYou shouldn't dismiss my question just because it reminds you of things others have said. I'm not those other people, I have no idea what you've read. I'm sorry my question isn't "original" enough for you. Google is a huge tech company and anyone who reads tech news hears a good amount of criticism about them. You don't find it weird that they changed duck.com to point to their domain when DuckDuckGo's founder inquired about it? It seems more likely that you didn't even think about it because I brought up their slogan.
- acavailhez 15y agoI have read here comments along the lines of "Anyone doing that would be evil, but here it's Google. So it's OK. Google would never do any harm" (it was a post about privacy) The "Google is evil" trend may be an overreaction to those comments, but it embodies a sane criticism in my opinion. It gives a counterpart to the awkward "Google is my big brother"
- melvinram 15y ago
- unreal37 15y agoHow is this "confusing"? The other search engine is not called Duck is it? No one uses the term Duck to refer to it? And when people enter duck.com and go to Google, are people thinking they are at DDG? Doubtful. Anyone who uses DDG knows they went to the wrong site by mistake.
- epi0Bauqu 15y agoI get consistent feedback that it is confusing people.
- nknight 15y agoDefine "consistent". There are over 300 million people in the US alone. If 1% of them are stupid enough to be confused, you could get as many as 3,000,000 such pieces of feedback. That doesn't mean it's a substantive problem.
- nitrogen 15y ago3,000,000 people is a substantive problem, no matter what percentage of some population they comprise.
- nknight 15y agoNo, it really isn't. These are the same people that can't locate the Pacific Ocean on a map.
- nitrogen 15y agoAs ericd said, it depends on the percentage of DDG's userbase, as well as the effect on the bottom line. From a business perspective, that's 6,000,000 highly impressionable eyeballs that aren't generating ad revenue. From an ethical perspective, those are human beings that "deserve" access to a good search engine to e.g. help them learn how to read a map.
- freakinjoe 15y agoFirst: Registration Service Provided By: Namecheap.com Domain name: duckduckgo.com Creation date: 11 Nov 2007 17:24:00 Expiration date: 23 Jun 2019 03:59:00 Second: Domain Name: duck.com Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com Created on..............: 1995-02-22. Expires on..............: 2015-02-23. Record last updated on..: 2011-06-28. Stop with cheap publicity. got guts? beat google fair & square. *google user since 90s
- TomGullen 15y agoDoesn't this qualify as domain squatting?
- nash 15y agoBy duckduckgo or google?
- electic 15y agoI think this is great for DuckDuckGo. Brings more awareness.
- rglover 15y agoI get how this could be confusing (after all, a lot of people access URLs by googling them first). Regardless, this isn't Google being evil but rather, taking advantage of a fortunate coincidence. They acquired a company in the past that owned a domain. Ironically, that domain happens to be similar to a competitor in the present. They have no immediate use for the domain, but why not redirect it to Google (just in case someone was trying to get to their competitor)? That's not evil, that's business. If DDG is that concerned about it, make an offer to Google for the domain name.
- tensafefrogs 15y agoI don't think Google is doing anything evil here at all. The purchase of On2 (where the domain came from) very clearly had nothing at all to do with duckduckgo. That said, if they wanted to be more neighborly they could put up a landing page like this one instead: http://omnisio.com/ http://omnisio.com/ (also a company that was acquired by google/youtube).
- notahacker 15y agoIn all honesty, that "neighbourly" action would be even less helpful since you can't even find DDG from a basic landing page which might cause the same confused users to think DDG was one of the assets that Google acquired. Of course, Google could provide a disambiguation link to DDG on that page, but I can't honestly see any reason why they would or should provide a competitor with free advertising. They could sell the domain, but I can't see any reason why they would or should set an affordable price for a highly-brandable generic four letter domain name.
- moocow01 15y agoI'm sure Google knows what they are doing. They have a competitor and were able to obtain a domain name that in some cases will direct people away from DuckDuckGo and to Google. Yes its seemingly evil but its competition. Yes, yes but its Google and they are 'not evil'. BS - they aren't evil or nice - they are a corporation. They will do whatever helps their profit machine. If you don't like this particular action raise awareness around it and maybe someone at Google will reconsider that this move may put them in a negative light that impacts their profits in other ways. Lastly it makes me somewhat sad that people seem so shocked when Google does something seemingly evil. You're personifying something that despite all the marketing is by its nature setup solely to most efficiently make money. Google's "don't be evil" is just marketing in that their products inherently require the public's trust to be profitable. I would actually argue that by the nature of their business plan and profits, Google has to be one of the most responsive to scrutiny by the public. In other words, in comparison to other corporations, Google should be one of the easiest to get to change 'evil' actions.
- Terretta 15y agoGoogle's "WebM" video codec is derived from work by a company they acquired, On2, which was formerly Duck, with a codec called TrueMotion[1]. Duck.com belonged to that company, which Google bought. This Duck.com[2] is from long before DDG existed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S 2. http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.co...
- moocow01 15y agoThats fine but I think many are misinterpreting what occurs upon acquirement of a company. The assets get broken up and each asset is analyzed to decipher how it should be put to use or disposed of for the company. Some person or work group made a decision to point the duck.com new domain name at search. Its not like when they acquire the domain names they just automatically all switch to Google.com. I actually don't find it to be incredibly evil. There are a number of teams at Google that try to best understand how to best put these domains and assets to use in the interest of Google. They pointed it at search and continue to do so because they have gotten some benefit from it. Additionally, if Google wasn't getting benefit from this wouldn't it make more sense to point this domain at something WebM related for customer transition?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jorgem 15y agoIt is domain squatting. DuckDuckGo could consider hiring lawyer for UDRP -- could probably win the domain.
- jorgem 15y agoSigh, The grounds for an ICANN UDRP complaint require: (1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and (3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith Domain squatting has nothing to do with who had it first. You may not like it, but downvoting me doesn't change it. EDIT: Really, only #2 is questionable in this case. That is why UDRP arbitration might be worthwhile.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- nknight 15y ago> (1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry > (2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and They were called Duck. Their early codecs were often referred to as Duck. Assorted patents are still assigned to The Duck Corporation. Why did DDG decide to infringe on their trademark? > (3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith It was registered by The Duck Corporation, and pointed to their home page. That corporation has eventually wound up as part of Google, and the domain now points to Google's home page. Seems pretty straightforward. > Domain squatting has nothing to do with who had it first. Trademarks have a lot to do with it. By the way, why is DuckDuckGo infringing on the trademark of the Oregon Ducks? What about Duck® Brand duct tape?
- zyglobe 15y agoUnicorn.com (not the technology solution you might expect)
- loceng 15y agoFun domain to own.. what a waste.
- kjhughes 15y agogooglegooglego.com is available as of the moment.
- j_col 15y agoI sense a parody site coming on ;-)
- nikcub 15y agoI had no idea what was being referred to here, and I am a DDG user. I thought duck.com was a search engine in the 90s, or something
- tsieling 15y agoI guess Google isn't so much into helping people find what they might be looking for. Or they are, so long as what you're looking for is Google.
- edanhewitt 15y agoI thought duck.com would redirect to the Cyberduck application, at cyberduck.ch Which is now nag free: http://isharefil.es/Dm9C http://isharefil.es/Dm9C