1. Ill look at the scholarly results later out of curiosity. So far, the "found what Im looking for metric" is very strong anecdotally with widespread acceptance. Maybe Ill change my mind. We'll reject all opinions on the effectiveness of the engine in favor of whole, search histories on DDG and Google with terms and resulting HTML files as sole form of feedback in HN comments. Each user will do it for same terms for reproducibility or countering per-user generation biases. We'll discuss these specifics. This will lead, instead of claimed "good" or "bad" results, to claims of X terms or Y category having Z probability of accuracy or acceptance. Our discussion of DDG will be objective, scientifically accurate, possibly free QA for DDG, and likely be ignored by almost everyone everywhere (including most HN readers) outside CompSci or startups studying search engines. Im game, though, if there's a consensus here that we only discuss search constructively, objectively, and scholarly. ;)

2. DDG has contact info. I maintain that it's better to send data directly to them if one is troubleshooting it or helping them improve the product. Hoping a random employee is on same tech forum is a stretch despite it happening here more often than average. So, if we all did search data, we'd post it on a dedicated forum they host after we email them about the project.