I specifically go to google.com to search, ditto on my phone. Nothing in their ecosystem prods me to do so, and nothing in their ecosystem prevents me from using a competitor.
I use Google because it's vastly superior to any other search offering. Period.
Regarding the name...it is unique and very MEMORABLE (repetition is one of the four mental glues.) It has just as few syllables as Microsoft, and is super easy to pronounce... From a branding perspective they are taking a very strong positioning play of being the Search Engine that respects privacy. Smart strategy if you ask me... to position themselves opposite the dominant brand with a hot button differentiation.
Regarding the trust factor, and the being locked in to google, those are actually both weaknesses of Google. The locked in issue is part and parcel with the privacy issue, which is the market DDG is trying to penetrate. Regarding Trust, I don't see why I need to trust a search engine to use it. In fact, the privacy thing again is the very reason I DON'T Trust Google...
People Use Google because Google focused on Search when all other search engines tried to be so much more. Once Google won the category (where people say, "Just Google It." They assumed they owned the market and started betting on the future convergence of search and social, etc... I actually think in 5 years from now, Google won't be the dominant player in search, although I do think Android will become a bigger money maker for them...
DuckDuckGo is doing a fine job with their name and brand strategy...up until this article and complaint which undermines their focused strategy. By complaining about Google, they appear to be in the game of competing as an equal search engine, not a DIFFERENT search experience, which is the play they need to make to win. It's the reason Burger King can't take over McDonalds...because they just claim to be better, not different. Pepsi on the other hand claims to be for the New Generation, Different than Coke which is classic, and the real thing. Just like Listerine has the brand of being more powerful than scope because they used the slogan,"The Taste You Hate Twice a Day." They said we are different, not better.
Human perception is near impossible to change... Complaining about monopolies is like saying, "we are better but they wont let us play."
If DDG wants to win, they need to pound hard about how they are different, and if they insist on complaining about Google, it should be consistent with their brand strategy and focus on how Google is more than search, and DDG is for when you just want to find what you are looking for with true privacy.
1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses (For Eg. Google, Bing have a very simple design). They don't design Search engines to be simple because they like it that way, because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best. For example, DDG uses a red menu-bar on the top which tells me they haven't done as much research. I keep repeating this, but hopefully enough people will realize this:
DO NOT over-use red. Red is used to denote only important elements on a website (like a sign-up button), a call-to-action element (For example, compose button on Gmail). Look at DDG, they have a whole top-bar in full red.
2) As a general user, there is no difference between DDG and Google in my eyes because both have a sponsored link at the top. Both try to benefit from my searches, so I see no perceivable difference between Google and DDG. Now, I already know Google has a superior Search algorithm, period (from what I perceive). So, there is not a single reason for me as an end-user to use DDG over Google.
And one more - Look at the irony, even you reference them by DDG and not DuckDuckGo, whereas you reference Google by just Google and not by any other short form. This is exactly what I meant. Brand Naming is something that we don't even pay attention to, but plays a much much important role.
Enough people have already said it. I feel like a broken record but what's very complex about a text box and a logo?
> because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best.
Interesting. Do you have any citations to back it up? I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface. Or bing for that matter.
> DO NOT over-use red.
The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. Even if I started listening, I would never have a definitive, agreed-on opinion.
> Red is used to denote only important elements on a website (like a sign-up button), a call-to-action element (For example, compose button on Gmail)
Where is this definitive design rule book of yours? As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements. Are you saying if I have a red background and a white compose button with black text, user will somehow see the background as call-to-action and not the button? Now don't go on how red background will not look very good. That's not the point. The point is color alone doesn't decide which section of the page is important.
> Look at DDG, they have a whole top-bar in full red.
Since they merge in serach box with the bar, that section is important.
> Now, I already know Google has a superior Search algorithm, period (from what I perceive).
This has been done n times. There is no clear pattern when it comes to choosing google vs bing results in a blind search result. As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior.
> Look at the irony, even you reference them by DDG and not DuckDuckGo,
What's the irony here?
> whereas you reference Google by just Google and not by any other short form. This is exactly what I meant. Brand Naming is something that we don't even pay attention to, but plays a much much important role.
Oh my. How much it has hurt Microsoft. They should have just called themselves MS and be done with it. I can't fathom how much of a hit y-combinator and hacker news are taking because their names can be abbreviated.
/s
Y-Combinator/HackerNews is even less a consumer brand. Of course, that's only a problem if you are trying to appeal to the mass market, YC/HackerNews isn't, but DuckDuckGo is.
You don't hear much about International Business Machines, but you do hear a bit about IBM, because IBM built it's brand around the abbreviated form which is easier to remember. Likewise, HP is now the word du jour to refer to Hewlett-Packard.
Abbreviated forms are fine, and have actually been used to bolster (or change) a company's image. Outside of tech circles if I say MS I'll most likely get awkward glances, but the moment I switch to saying Microsoft I'll get immediate brand name recognition. Likewise, you don't hear many people talking about P or C&C, but drop the name Pepsi or Coca-Cola and you'll also get instant brand name recognition.
So the question becomes is DuckDuckGo really an easily recognizable, easy to memorize, that generates imagery associated with the given product/service? Is it really that appealing?
Surely, it's memorable due to it being so weird, but is it memorable in a way that I'll link up with search? I dunno, but there's some validity to what's been said so far about the name being a bit too long or awkward for the company's sake.
1. http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/199... p.11 "Accordingly, the criteria rated most important were relevance to product category (5.99), connotations and images generated (5 X3), and overall appeal (5.79). They did not lose sight of the fact that names should be memorable. Ease of recognition (5.77) and ease of recall (5.42) also were rated highly."
People preferred pepsi to thumsup in blind tests. Thumsup sweetened its drink and faced a major backlash. Thumsup drinkers associated themselves with Thumsup brand and took pride in "not sweet as pepsi".
I do understand that brand plays a major part for the consumer.
What I was questioning was the ridiculous assumption that somehow calling DuckDuckGo as DDG is diluting its brand, and always calling Google as Google is indicative of its strong brand.
And I do not think it's ridiculous to assume that repetition builds brand awareness. The study I linked to said as much, indicating that repetition was one of the best ways to establish brand identity in the minds of consumers. That's why as a company you're best served by aligning your brand name with whatever moniker people are more likely to use and hence why a short, memorable brand name is more powerful than a unique but long-winded archaic name (at least in this day and age).
What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do you have a knack for details (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) but for the sake of others, I've compiled a list of comparisons:
1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex. Gradients in general are used to add complexity. However, not in every case - For example, Apple's website uses a lot of Gradients too, but it is one of the most clearest and simplest sites you will ever find. Google also uses gradients, but it is very subtle and you don't even notice it most of the times.
DDG also uses a lot of prominent borders on the gradients, Google and Apple uses them to, but it's very very subtle. This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.
2) Padding is another element - DDG uses too much padding for most of its elements, whereas Bing/Google uses a lot less padding.
3) If you notice, Google uses red only for certain important elements like the Plus one button, Compose button in Gmail and so on. DDG uses a whole menu-bar as a red block. This is a general rule of thumb that I didn't come up with certainly, but is what most top-notch companies follow. It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important. Contrast this with the entire signal metal frame painted in red, that would be a bad idea. Not that you can't live with it, just that it's a bad UX.
>I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface
You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.
> As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements.
I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.
>As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior.
Did you read the entire entire comment? I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away. Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.
>The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs
Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too. Please read my other comments, I am not a follower nor a fan of Steve Jobs. Nor am I trying to be like him. I'm just a designer with experience and I'm critiquing a design that has a certain level of flaws. You are free to critique my criticism, provided:
1) You have enough knowledge about the subject - (N/A) 2) You don't attack on me personally - (Which you do)
You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name. Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again...
>What's the irony here?
You're proving it time and again. Please don't comment next time without reading what the other person has said fully.
References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html
And since it appears as a text box and a logo, doesn't it make the point about having a lot of details moot? It's slightly different than google or bing, but vastly similar. Let's not make shit up here.
> (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!)
Take a breath. Web development isn't the same as web design. It's kinda sad that I have to point it out.
> 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex
Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.
> This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.
To you. I missed the meeting where you were appointed the authority on design. Since you are all pumped up about how you get design, I will be interested to know what have you built.
> It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important.
For the nth time, stop making shit up. Red is used because it scatters less(higher wavelength) and can be seen more clearly from a distance.
> You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.
I checked that before commenting. Your user survey about usability doesn't say google researches whether padding is beneficial for search.
> I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.
So what exactly are you not listening to? That contrast attracts attraction? Wow.
> Did you read the entire entire comment? Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.
May be I should have been clear. I am saying your perceptions are made-up.
> I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away.
What comments would that be? I can't say the same about reading yours. The cover is enough to drive me away from the book.
> Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too.
I don't know about you and I am not commenting about you. I am commenting about the behavior where everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. That's what you are demonstrating by assuming you know everything about design and other people don't. Since you are so cocksure, I am asking again. Have you ever built something, or do you just comment on internet forums?
> You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name.
Please tell me this is a fucking joke. Do I have to discuss my handle now?
> Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again..
I won't. You clearly don't understand what irony means. BTW, is it too much to ask to actually know what irony means before throwing it around every other sentence?
> References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html
Google is doing usability study is not the same as google has researched what padding to use.
The one you claim to do on your homepage talks about involving design, which is why I referenced it. And which you absolutely have no idea about.
>Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.
It's more than just using just gradients (which is just one thing), which was my point. See, you're just proving it time and again.
>I will be interested to know what have you built.
I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this:
http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg
For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too.
>May be I should have been clear.
Yep, you never are. You like to make vague statements to attract controversy.
>Since you are so cocksure
Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye.
My homepage talks about design doesn't mean I have to design.
> I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this:
http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg
That thing is called a prototype. And you are not obliged to tell what you have built, but when you are throwing shit all around, at least have some credentials. Either don't be an asshole, or at least be correct. When it comes to opinions(and not absolute facts), who has it is an important factor in evaluating it.
> For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too.
In case it didn't occur to you, rest of the world doesn't give a shit about a petty internet argument. When I did the prototype, it was open for everyone to see. I don't see the point in your declaration about the whole world seeing what I built. Different strokes for different people. Some people build things and move on if it doesn't work; some people post comments on news forums with nothing to back them up and then go digging something to feed their vanity. Vain people are a big pain in the ass, not because they are vain(that too) but because they sustain themselves on putting others down, rather than getting themselves ahead.
> Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye.
It isn't like I am being benefited from getting in argument with some random designer on some internet forum. And do you always lobby others to cry for you?(rest of the world to see, "no one's time" rather than "my time")
Your one example is use of the color red, which may be an issue of taste or branding but not really simplicity. (And there are reasonably popular sites with very prominent red elements, like cnn.com)
In fact I prefer it to Bing's look in particular. Less clutter.
Thanks.
The nature of his exact complaint is that Google is capitalising on people's confusion with the name "Duck something", and then proceeding to capitalise on this confusion (in a somewhat sneaky way) by redirecting "potential DDG users" back to their own page.
>> they need to pound hard about how they are different
And this point is very difficult to achieve if the "market leader" is (sort of) preventing people from accessing you in the first place.
I still use Google as primary despite multiple attempts to switch to DDG over the last 3 years. While I have found DDG superior for generic informational queries, it has been, in my experience, much worse for finding source documents of quotes I remember loosely or searching for error messages, so I always find myself headed back to Google. Would love to switch to a search-dedicated search engine.
First, I agree that they should not lump themselves in the same category. Second, I am not sure there is any point in crying yourself hoarse about how "different" you are when the general public who are looking for you using natural language constructs are not being allowed to access you in the first place by the "market leader". Going forward this that line of thought, I am reproducing my reply from below to your point, as it seems relevant here as well. (Apologies for the multiple posting).
If you read @yegge's original response from below (I reproduced it here)
This only started happening after I asked about the domain name. It used to point to a history page about Duck Corporation (previous name of On2 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20100802014055/http://duck.com/), similar to http://www.on2.com/, which was acquired by Google in the same acquisition.
Google should legitimately not sell it to me, though it would have been of course nice to do so when I first asked in 2010. I think an appropriate remedy would be to either point it nowhere, point it to the original page it had been pointed to for many years, or point it to the acquisition page (as http://on2.com still does) -- all things they do in other cases if you look at past acquisitions.
Effectively it is Google's fault because they are doing it now specifically in his case and not for others (as he mentions clearly) (because from their own tracking of searches, they probably found out that DDG is gaining significant traction -- this is my own opinion)
Secondly, while it would be nice to pre-empt all angles and all possibilities etc., etc., but I don't think any of us can foresee every possible way something will come back to bite your backside in the future. So, no, I don't think that it is somehow DDG's fault that they did not foresee this and preempt it.
P.S: FWIW, google renamed themselves from googol to google because the VC mispelled their name on the cheque. Just goes to show that such things are a fact of life. People have every right to vaguely try to look up "Duck something" search engine. However, Google is definitely in the wrong for sneakily redirecting users back to their own engine in this case by misusing this vagueness.
I remember the first times I used Google. It was like magic compared to AltaVista, Yahoo (Inktomi), etc.
DDG has no edge to offer, no 'magic.'
Firefox managed to severely dent IE in a similar default situation, despite needing to be downloaded and installed, which is a huge effort wall compared to using a search engine. Ditto for Chrome.
If you build a superior engine I have no doubt users will type the address in manually or bookmark it or even go through the couple clicks it takes to switch defaults.
This is important because I almost never search by going to google.com and typing a search term. The location bar does this automatically using google.
You are wrong and you know it. Most people use whatever is the preset default search engine in their browser and that is why Google pays a lot of money to Mozilla.
People aren't using DDG much not because of any difficulties in the browser, because they don't want to. This is a very lame excuse. Google never won its users because they were able to convince users to set their Search Engine as default in their browsers.
As for DDG, the problem starts their name - "DuckDuckGo". You don't need to be an analyst with years of experience to say that this won't work because even their name is not something that is a)Catchy b)Easily rememberable c)Simple. Contrast this with Google. That's just one quick, easy to remember word. Now compare, Duck+Duck+Go. That's three words and it seems long. It looks like they didn't put much thought into this. This is not to say that DDG didn't do their homework properly, but just that it seems a little immature, given their name and their strategy. It looks more like they just read PG's essay[1] and started something out of the quick inspiration.
To kill a huge competitor like Google, you need to provide more value. Google is very hard to kill right now because, 1)Their search is vastly superior 2)a lot of people are locked into their ecosystem 3)They have created a valuable brand. No, by locked, I don't mean it's a bad thing. For example, I use Gmail, Google Contacts, Calendar, Blogger, Google Apps for my domains and a lot of other stuff because I want to. A single sign-in into their Eco-system lets me use all these services. And now, the best part is there's Android which seems to integrate all these things so easily like a snap that makes my life just a breeze.
So, first you need to understand that Google is now more than a search engine. Because if it was, Bing would have overtook it long back. You need to analyze the reasons why people still use Google. It's not just a search engine that they're using it for. Google has taken years and years to build the trust factor into their users. It has taken them years to make all these users "fit" into their eco-system and create a tremendously valuable brand . It's not like that they did it in just one day. So, just starting a new search-engine and expecting people to join on board is not going to happen. Despite so many "Ad" controversies, Google is still the king here because of the trust factor that no one else in the industry is able to provide. The trust factor that they will remain here, unlike the rest is the most important value that they provide to their users.
If you want to kill Google at this instant, you are going to do a lot more hardwork than you thought you should do, you need a brand of similar magnitude and the important essence here is the time and trust factor which everyone seems to ignore.
[1]http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html