31 ms·
I don't think the name is a negative. It's made of simple words that people can spell. It's cute/friendly (just like "google"). It has a mascot. I think the ene
by vy8vWJlco 13y ago
I don't think the name is a negative. It's made of simple words that people can spell. It's cute/friendly (just like "google"). It has a mascot. I think the energy that would be needed to "re-brand" to overcome imagined difficulties that I would attribute to more to normal lack of familiarity would be better spent improving the product further to address search coverage and context/language intelligence.
I have found it easy to recommend to non-technical people. (In the early days of Google, I had to spell it for people too... at least this is 3 common words.)
I think the emphasis on converting non-technical people is also often misplaced. Non-technical people don't care about any of the issues that lead to development. The number of people using Skype shows most people don't care about privacy. That doesn't mean DDG's offering is not unique or valuable, it's just that the people to recognize that value will not be the majority by any stretch - but, it never is - and converting people who have the hardest time understanding that value should be a low priority IMHO.
In promoting privacy, DDG captures the union of early adopters, technically literate, and digital evangelists - all groups that are most likely to understand as well as turn around and effectively promote it (for example, by setting the homepage and default search engine after cleaning up a system for a friend)... This is the crowd to keep happy (without raising the barrier to entry either... for example, late adopters will not use bangs or care that you search Hacker News too, but the early adopters appreciate it greatly). These were the same types of people promoting the early Internet to the masses, who barely saw the point in having a computer.
In that vein, one of the best things for DDG, IMHO, would be to make setting ALL browsers as easy as possible (homepage+default search). (I know I'm not saying anything new...) There are add-ons for individual browsers, for example (which I tend not to use, because I like vanilla installations without extensions to upgrade later), and conventional methods (which I prefer, but have been de-emphasized in favor of add-ons), but further-centralizing the process of applying these customizations would be nice. For example, I'd rather download a single native app or portable script (WSH) that was capable of searching out browsers and - through check-boxes - setting their homepage and search (ideally to the SSL search), via the browser-native method (or add-on method), in one pass (usable offline, and ideally at an easy-to-type URL like "duckduckgo.com/tools"). This would help high-turn-over scenarios like tech-support shops, which has the chance to affect the most users but are also under pressure, so want to do the minimum possible (Idea: actively promote to these places).
On a different note, I'm curious how the costs associated with this XMPP service are expected to grow and how it is seen from the business side. If 100000 people started to use it for messaging, would it become too burdensome and be discontinued, or is there a plan for cost-recovery (or is the ddg bot enough of a case)?
- ronaldx 13y agoI like the name, but one barrier is that DuckDuckGo doesn't verb comfortably. I can't imagine ever saying "I DuckDuckGoed it" - since that breaks the verb 'to go'. Although I've conditioned myself over several years to say "I searched for it [on DuckDuckGo]", I sometimes still find myself saying "I Googled it".
- espadrine 13y agoI ducked it.
- jlgreco 13y agoHard to say "duck it" slightly flippantly in conversation without the risk of being more offensive than intended. ;)
- crayola 13y agoI duckduckwent there.
- braveheart1723 13y agoI ducked halle berry
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago"I googled it" didn't make a lot of sense for the first 5 years either... I tend to say "duckduckgo it" or "ask the duck" when referring to duckduckgo. It's hard to capture that last 5% of linguistic serendipity, so I'm not sure how it could be any better without sacrificing its identifying uniqueness. Idea: "I duckduck GOT it!"