DDG is flattered by GOOG's imitation of Lockable Safe Search | Hacker News Reader

DDG is flattered by GOOG's imitation of Lockable Safe Search

duckduckgo.com

25 pointsepi0Bauqu30 comments

I absolutely love the "mostly info sites" feature. This is so useful when searching for a review of a specific product instead of being spammed with 200 price comparison sites, purporting to offer reviews, but they really don't

For example, shared offices often use one IP address. If someone locks safe search there, it is locked for everyone. But as a small company that strives to offer a real alternative to Google, we can deal with an IP based implementation.

So how does the DDG solution actually solve the problem?

It doesn't.

What about parents who don't want filtered sites on their own computers, just on their kids? I think Google's approach is really reasonable. If you know how to clear cookies, you know how to go to a different search engine to find what you want. The colored balls also make it easy to check from a distance what your child is up to.

I wouldn't want to be blocked based on IP, especially since it appears your implementation doesn't allow it to be undone. People search for porn, including parents. I like what DDG is up to, but this implementation is majorly flawed.

Duck Duck Go is now my primary search engine. Google has become such a bloated crap with their local searches, blog searches, video searches, adwords ads and suggestions.

I too will give it a try. Setting my address bar (and "g") alias search to Duck Duck Go. I wonder if I can start loving it. Currently I use Scroogle, a proxy to Google.

Either way, please send me your feedback.

Why didn't Google use IP addresses too? Because doing so poses its own problems that a big company like Google doesn't want to deal with. For example, shared offices often use one IP address. If someone locks safe search there, it is locked for everyone.

This is a cool idea, but, as you admit, exceedingly error prone. There is no reliable way to determine who actually owns an IP address. With dynamic IPs it can even lead to one user blocking search for another user. Lock safe search, renew DHCP license, repeat.

How do you plan to deal with these conflicts?

Unless and until there is some compelling reason to do so, I don't.

It seems like mustpax just presented a compelling reason to do so.

No, a compelling reason is when you have lots of users in the same or similar situation asking you to do so.

So how do you handle dynamic IP spaces?

Otherwise, it's not all that hard for one Comcast or AT&T user to lock safe search for their neighbors.

It's really meant for schools and businesses. However, if someone locks safe search for their neighbors, that is OK with me.

I think you're going to have to either re-evaluate this at some point in the future, or be forced to deal with claims of censorship.

It's obvious that you don't care right now, but your current algorithm clearly creates a diminishing market for "unsafe" search users, until they're forced finally to buy themselves fixed IPs which hopefully haven't been locked by the previous owner.

I'll stick my neck out here and say that, dammit, I ought to have the ability to find pictures of naked people, and that someone else should not be able to make that choice for me. And, furthermore, that there's nothing wrong with that.

DuckDuckGo has done an amazing job. It must be weird to basically be the beta version of the beta version of what the bigger search engines are going to try next.

One weird thing I've noticed: your normal search is more informational and less commercial than Google's. For example:

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=credit+cards&v=

Dmoz and the FTC outrank "creditcards.com"!

Are you disregarding a lot of the stuff companies do for SEO? Or what?

It is weird. Yes, where possible we're trying to get links from other, non-commercial and less SEOd sources. Of course, those sources pose their own problems...

We also have a non-commercial search type accessible from our home page that further tries to reduce commercial links.

Is this a business decision or a how-the-world-should-really-work decision?

Both, though the business tie-in was somewhat of an afterthought. That is I started out being fed up with spam, pseudo-spam and SEOd commercial links in Google. Then I slowly realized that when you back all those out, the end result is indeed an interesting alternative worth pursuing in its own right. Hence, the non-commercial ("less shopping sites") view.

Yahoo! Search had lockable SafeSearch settings long before either DDG or Google (although, like Google's new implementation, it's cookie-based).

Do you work on search? What is the vibe like inside Yahoo right now?

I do. That's a pretty broad (and off-topic) question. I can't speak for everyone at the company, but if I had to sum up how I personally feel: hopeful.

I apologize for the off-topicness. I'm looking forward to more Yahoo search innovations :). DDG uses both BOSS and YUI btw.

Didn't mean to scold; was just explaining my terseness. :)

I would take you more seriously if you had a better name and less-kiddish website.

People seem to either love or hate the branding, which is fine by me because there is love in there. With lockable safe search in particular, it works rather well IMHO.

I have a suspicion that were you to create a HN poll on the name you'd find one category significantly larger than the other.

In the HN community, yes. Outside the HN community, it is completely the other way around.

Yes, you need a serious name, like "Google" or "Yahoo".

I suggest "Splooploo".

love the service, hate the name. means nothing to me. and is long. and you sound retarded saying it.

I know it comes up in every thread, but your name is really, really terrible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com