• http://wp.me/Igbc Prattle On, Boyo

    Uh no, I did, in fact, read your reply. Don’t get pissy because I called you out on a blanket statement that the average person would interpret in the same manner I did. Gotta love the internet and the ppl who can’t stand to have anyone disagree with them.

  • andrekibbe

    You didn’t read it, “average person” strawman notwithstanding, otherwise you wouldn’t have assumed I was agreeing with Danny.

    And you actually didn’t disagree with me, which was the point of my response to you. You assumed I was saying that “no one” other than the people I personally know couldn’t have possibly gravitated to DDG over privacy concerns.

  • Faiz Ahmed Faiz

    The Tesla example is seriously superb!!

  • Faiz Ahmed Faiz

    A very valid point Anand..people are still unaware of Google replacements else this trend would have been even higher. I wonder if Google is idle about this…from what I know of them, they must be up to something, undercover.

  • Fact_Feed

    Considering the pivotal point you make in your first paragraph (“article came off of many headlines that suggested that so many people cared about the PRISM allegations that they were seeking an alternative with Duck Duck Go”) — I don’t blame you in the least for ‘calling them out’ on that irresponsible, insupportable claim.

    You were just as indignant as I was about your claim – AND for the exact same reason.

    That PRISM articles and claims you refer to shamelessly over-reached and made inferences that, as you said, are absolutely unwarranted and unsupported by the data they cite for their proof. I whole-heartedly agree with you 100%.

    But your response committed the exact same ‘offense’ and went too far the other way, in trying to discredit the unwarranted PRISM claims.

    The only accurate response is simply to explain precisely WHY the data does not support, in any way, the wild, reckless, over-reaching claims and inferences made. That is all that I have done with regard to YOUR article. The data in know way supports either the PRISM claims or your headliner claim.

    The bedrock reason ‘we’ are indignant is that these are articles that claim to be “speaking for all of us” — when in fact, they do not. In fact, they are not even faithful to the data and stats they cite as the ‘basis’ for their conclusions. To falsely claim to speak for ‘all of us’ using misrepresented, misconstrued data as the launchpad and linchpin, it is understandable that many people will vehemently protest — because it takes on the look and feel of a fraud being perpetrated in order to attribute a ‘false impression’ about how “The People” (all of us) actually do feel about the matter.

    It’s as though it was an effort to “disenfranchise” The People, on the grounds that we don’t need to hear from them because ‘the data’ has already spoken for them.

    That is why I responded so strongly. And that is why I detest ‘statistics’ and its habitual abuse.

    As for your argument, stated with absolute, petrified certainty, claiming that the Google Ad solicitations I receive are not from Google . . . Well let’s just say it serves as a ‘case in point’ iron-clad example of how horribly, profoundly WRONG you can be AND how horribly clueless you are when you are dead-wrong.

    Attached is the documentary proof showing just how dead-wrong you are. This documentation is absolutely conclusive. Not a shred of doubt remains. The official U.S. postmark states unequivocally that it was paid by “Google.” You are clearly dead-wrong.

    Google has a Conflict of Interest Because selling ads on their search engine page Compels them to skew the search results! WHY? Because if the search engine worked as it should It would kill their ad sales – rendering Ads unnecessary.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Thanks for sending me it.

    Yes, that was a mailing from Google, inviting you to buy AdWords.

    No, it is not at all what you described as saying:

    “ad solicitation snail-mail shake-down letters monthly, warning me my websites ‘WILL NEVER BE FOUND’ in a Google search if I don’t buy ad space”

    There was absolutely nothing like that in that letter.

  • Fact_Feed

    You have been relentlessly stating, with matter-of-fact absolutist certainty, that “Google’s not sending [me] those [ad solicitation] letters because they are not.” With the same rigid absolutist dead-certainty you insist “Google couldn’t even provide the service you are describing.”

    And to cap things off, you emphatically state, as indisputable fact, that because the Google ad solicitations are sent to me by U.S. Mail (USPS aka ‘snail mail’), it “is even further unlike how Google operates and very much like how third-party firms that try to scam businesses.”

    You basically assert that it’s a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY that Google is relentlessly sending me monthly Ad sales solicitations for my websites.

    So when I send you the conclusive evidence, the Google mail solicitation with an official USPS postmark stating Google paid the postage and sent the ad solicitations — When I conclusively, decisively demonstrate, beyond all doubt, that you are dead wrong, you simply PRETEND you never made such off-the-wall outlandish erroneous claims, and just argue that the content doesn’t say what I claimed it said. You’re a piece of work.

    I have received hundreds of pieces of Google ad solicitations mail via both USPS and via Email. I sent you just one.

    The undeniable fact is that Google has a Conflict of Interest — because selling ads on their search engine page COMPELS them to skew the search results! WHY? Because if the search engine worked as it should it would kill their ad sales – rendering Google Ads on Google search pages utterly unnecessary.

    Danny, you can pretend that you “don’t get it” — but I guarantee you EVERYONE ELSE “does get it.” I’m now convinced you are just a Google lackey. There’s no doubt in my mind this blog website is NOT a neutral, objective forum for discussing the latest search engine developments and options – THIS is a GOOGLE-LACKEY website designed for the sole purpose of promoting The Google Search Engine, and designed to denigrate, disparage and malign all Google competition. I suspected this from the outset. But YOU have now proven it beyond all doubt.

    The one thing you did get right — Google’s conflict-of-interest ad solicitations REALLY DO resemble the practice of “firms that try to scam businesses.”

  • Fact_Feed

    You have been relentlessly stating, with matter-of-fact absolutist certainty, that “Google’s not sending [me] those [ad solicitation] letters because they are not.” With the same rigid absolutist dead-certainty you insist “Google couldn’t even provide the service you are describing.”

    And to cap things off, you emphatically state, as indisputable fact, that because the Google ad solicitations are sent to me by U.S. Mail (USPS aka ‘snail mail’), it “is even further unlike how Google operates and very much like how third-party firms that try to scam businesses.”

    You basically assert that it’s a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY that Google is relentlessly sending me monthly Ad sales solicitations for my websites.

    So when I send you the conclusive evidence, the Google mail solicitation with an official USPS postmark stating Google paid the postage and sent the ad solicitations — When I conclusively, decisively demonstrate, beyond all doubt, that you are dead wrong, you simply PRETEND you never made such off-the-wall outlandish erroneous claims, and just argue that the content doesn’t say what I claimed it said. You’re a piece of work.

    I have received hundreds of pieces of Google ad solicitations mail via both USPS and via Email. I sent you just one.

    The undeniable fact is that Google has a Conflict of Interest — because selling ads on their search engine page COMPELS them to skew the search results! WHY? Because if the search engine worked as it should it would kill their ad sales – rendering Google Ads on Google search pages utterly unnecessary.

    Danny, you can pretend that you “don’t get it” — but I guarantee you EVERYONE ELSE “does get it.” I’m now convinced you are just a Google lackey. There’s no doubt in my mind this blog website is NOT a neutral, objective forum for discussing the latest search engine developments and options – THIS is a GOOGLE-LACKEY website designed for the sole purpose of promoting The Google Search Engine, and designed to denigrate, disparage and malign all Google competition. I suspected this from the outset. But YOU have now proven it beyond all doubt.

    The one thing you did get right — Google’s conflict-of-interest ad solicitations REALLY DO resemble the practice of “firms that try to scam businesses.”

  • Fact_Feed

    For the record, I stated that Google’s extortionist shake-down Ad Solicitations (to website owners), with ominous scare-tactic ‘warnings,’ are basically contending that your website link will never be found IF YOU DO NOT PAY FOR GOOGLE ADS (i.e., “A Google Ad is the only way anyone will ever find your website”). This is a monumental impeachment of Google’s search engine bias and skewed functionality. There is nothing about this claim that is “NOT believable.” What else are they going to say in a Google Ad Sales solicitation? — “You really don’t need a Google Ad because there are only two cat-crawler widget seller websites like yours in the state of Maine – so disregard this ad sales letter” ???

    Google has an enormous, irresistable, all-conquering incentive to skew and clutter their search results with mostly third-party profiteering listing sites — those pointless, unnecessary third-party leeches, scavengers, parasites and blood-suckers who only list their “paying customers.” Google loves these unnecessary, pointless, profiteering third-party blood-sucker parasites. WHY? Because they help muck-up the search results, thereby making Google Search Page Ads ‘NECESSARY.’ And also, Google loves them because these third-party leeches often pay for Google Ads – often in addition to the website owner paying Google for Google ads.

    Bottom line – Google trashes their search result with garbage and DDG does not because DDG does not sell ads for their search result page and does not clutter the search results with deceptive brain-dead ads. And Google profits handsomely by skewing their search results so that ads become necessary. Ads are not necessary at DDG because their search engine is not skewed or biased (sabotaged). In fact, DDG’s “lean & mean” search engine clears-out most of the garbage third-party parasite links from its search results so you can cut-to-the-chase and get to the sites you need.

    I do not expect a Google Lackey like Danny to ever concede the legitimacy of this point. “And frankly my dear, I don’t give a dammn.”

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    I’ll give it one last go, and then I think I’ve probably done all I can to try and explain things to you.

    You said Google was sending you letters suggesting that you can’t rank well unless you buy ads, or that if you buy ads, they’ll give you a number one ranking.

    I said that wasn’t the case, because with the former, it’s just nothing that’s ever been seen before (and would have been big news) while with the latter, the system doesn’t work that way.

    You sent me a Google mailer that’s rather plain-language just saying “Hey, try AdWords.” There are absolutely no claims like the type you alleged.

    If you had earlier said, “Google sends me a mailing each month suggesting I buy ads,” I’d have had no problem believing. But you said something far different, made completely different claims that are not backed up by the mailing you sent.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    As I replied to you above, there’s not much more for me to say, so I won’t beyond this. You said Google was making some fairly unbelievable and surprising claims about advertising with it through mailing you were getting. You sent me a mailing that had none of these claims. That’s about it.

  • Fact_Feed

    I’ve never once mentioned ‘ranking’ – either implicitly or explicitly. I am not talking about rankings at all.

    What I said was the Google ad solicitations basically warn website owners that “A Google Ad is the only way anyone will ever find your website”. I characterized this as a blistering impeachment of Google’s search engine abilities, bias and skewed functionality.

    If someone is looking for a computer repair shop in Allentown, PA they should be able to readily locate EVERY computer repair shop website in Allentown — or at the very least, every computer repair shop website in Allentown that was ‘registered’ with Google. There’s only a limited number of puter repair shops in Allentown.

    But the Google ad solicitations, in essence, warn website owners that people will never find your website from a Google search — you will need an ad for that to happen. And Google is right, because its search results are so cluttered with ads and irrelevant garbage results.

    And I am arguing that this is a blistering impeachment of Google’s search capabilities — solely due to the conflict-of-interest it has because it would rather sell ads and make money than maintain an effective FREE search engine. Yahoo is just as bad.

    DDG has none of these problems because it does not sell search-page ads. DDG gives you good, clean, ‘lean & mean’ relevant search results.

    NOTE – not once did I ever talk about Google “ranking.” Ranking is just code language for the AD BIAS built into Google’s search engine.

  • Melinda Colos

    as Bradley explained I am inspired that a single mom can earn $9606 in 1 month on the internet. did you see this web page w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • http://josephratliff.com/ JosephRatliff

    Or, it could be just easier for them to keep using Google, which has nothing to do with “trust”.

    Us being humans and all, and most humans aren’t geeks or technology experts, they might care about their privacy… but don’t know enough to consider switching search engines at all. Not knowing enough (or not caring to know enough in the first place) is much different than the title to your article suggests (that they just plain “don’t care”).

    I know the difference, and I’ve been using Duck-Duck-Go as a test to see if it’s worth it. My next door neighbor said “Duck Duck who?”.

  • Andre Richards

    You don’t understand how SSL works, do you?

  • Bruce Brownlee

    Actually I do. We used to beat SSL with man in the middle attacks as far back as 1999. Since then, there have been a truckload of vulnerabilities exposed. Try Googling for “ssl vulnerabilities”. Some are very entertaining, such as the story at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/11/state_of_ssl_analysis/ So there are attacks on the algorithm, on the transport, on the certificates and the CA, and on the client underneath the algorithm.

  • http://www.seriouslyspain.com/ Seriously Spain

    Absolutely agree. Never seen a bigger load of tripe in my life.

    Searches on Google have dropped almost 10 percent since Prism hit the news and, in Europe, a massive market for them, they’ve dropped a lot more. In dollar terms, that is several BILLION dollars. Meanwhile, searches on DuckDuckGo have gone up by 50 percent.

    Put it this way, what with Google’s now-garbage search results after their endless Panda and Penguin updates and Prism, I don’t know anyone who still uses Google.

  • Cszell

    Then there should be a such thing as private. The attitude that there is no such thing as private leads to authoritarianism at best.

  • Cszell

    Ixquick acts as a “Google condom” by providing a private way of using it

  • Cszell

    But by using DGG instead of Google the customer A. frustrates the NSA’s efforts (they have to try harder) and B. It punishes Google for caving into the NSA

  • Cszell

    Will that change if Snowden posts Obama’s nude pics?

  • Cszell

    Startpage/Ixquick acts as a “Google condom”, using the search engine but anonymizing it for others

  • Cszell

    There are “Google condoms” like Ixquick/Startpage which piggyback off of Google but don’t send data to it

  • ddgovercome

    This is the same thing people said about Microsoft in the 90′s. Microsoft cannot be overcome. Microsoft will never let competitors take away their business. Now I see more Google and Apple devices these days than Microsoft. The giants can only stay on top for so long. Look at IBM and Hewlett-Packard as other examples. The technology ecosystem changes so rapidly that when a company reaches critical mass they can’t respond fast enough. Even with billions. Besides, some of us are raising our children to understand, respect, and desire privacy and security along with the convenience of technology. If others did the same, future generations wouldn’t be as ignorant and naive about the world around them.

  • http://www.kitgarrett.com/ Kit Garrett

    Yeah I used to use Scroogle Scraper back in the day. G-based non-G alternatives exist, but present the same problem – you’re still trading a suite of services for a negligible amount more privacy.

    I guess I should caveat what I originally said – my statements hold true only for the average user. Anyone in need of additional protection or security should avoid G like the plague :P.

  • Cszell

    About average users: One thing to consider too is that Joe Blow may not understand what he faces in the future. He may get into a high profile political conflict, and his opponent may try to silence him. Maybe he decides to get a career as a politician… or he files a lawsuit with a company schmoozing with the US Government…

  • Man Drake

    Best comment of this thread is from Cszell and is worth repeating. Many comments on here stating there is no privacy on the web and anyone thinking so is naive. If true, we should be outraged and demand change. From Cszell …

    “Then there should be a such thing as private. The attitude that there is no such thing as private leads to authoritarianism at best.”

  • Robert

    This doesn’t prove no one cares, it just proves lazy-gullible slaves to FedGov don’t care.

  • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael Luik

    If people cared about privacy they’d type “private search engine” on Google and find DDG. ;)

  • johncocktoaston

    I and many hundreds of thousands of others care. The problem is that only smart people understand the ramifications of a surveillance state. That amounts to only about 20% of the population. What’s really hurting Duck Duck Go is that it returns lousy porn search results.

  • Mark Schroeder

    Given DDG’s continued growth since your article, I’m curious about whether you’ve amended your views at all?