Slashdot Mirror


Google, Which Owns Duck.com, Confuses Users Searching For Its Rival DuckDuckGo and Redirects Them Back To Google (twitter.com)

Commenting on the record $5 billion fine on Google by the European Commission, privacy focused search engine DuckDuckGo said this week it welcomes the decision as it has "felt [Google's] effects first hand for many years and has led directly to us having less market share on Android vs iOS and in general mobile vs desktop." The company said: Up until just last year, it was impossible to add DuckDuckGo to Chrome on Android, and it is still impossible on Chrome on iOS. We are also not included in the default list of search options like we are in Safari, even though we are among the top search engines in many countries. The Google search widget is featured prominently on most Android builds and is impossible to change the search provider. For a long time it was also impossible to even remove this widget without installing a launcher that effectively changed the whole way the OS works. Their anti-competitive search behavior isn't limited to Android. Every time we update our Chrome browser extension, all of our users are faced with an official-looking dialogue asking them if they'd like to revert their search settings and disable the entire extension. Google also owns http://duck.com and points it directly at Google search, which consistently confuses DuckDuckGo users. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is google," wrote security researcher Mikko Hypponen, summing up the story.

Update: Google makes amends.

71 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. hmm by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The other stuff sure. Amen.

    But I, for one, would not for any reason think that I would find "Duck Duck Go" at duck.com ....

    1. Re:hmm by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don’t think people do.

      But maybe they search for “duck” in the browser’s address bar expecting it to find DuckDuckGo instead it adds .com and sends them to duck.com which redirects to Google. A bit weird but I can see the issue. And why would Google have bought duck.com for ANY other reason than to screw with DuckDuckGo?

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Duck.com redirects to Google because it was a byproduct of the purchase of On2 Technologies (VP# video codecs). On2 Technologies was formerly called the Duck Corporation."
      https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Google-continue-to-redirect-duck-com-to-google-com-when-it-is-so-close-to-duckduckgo-com
      http://web.archive.org/web/20040824015111/http://www.duck.com/

      (That's also mentioned in TFA: "Yes, duck.com came as an asset in the unrelated On2 acquisition (On2 used to be known as Duck Corp).")

    3. Re:hmm by mydots · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, see my explanation.

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      I also commented below about this being old news.

    4. Re:hmm by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Auto autocomplete needs to die.

    5. Re:hmm by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 2

      > And why would Google have bought duck.com for ANY other reason than to screw with DuckDuckGo?

      I advice going to duck.com and read.

      Though, I may copy&paste for you:

      _____________________________________

        Google
      On2 Technologies

      Google acquired On2 Technologies and its video products and technology in February 2010.

      The On2 products Flix Pro, Flix Standard, Flix Exporter, Flix PowerPlayers, Flix Live, Flix DirectShow SDK, Flix Publisher and Flix Engine are no longer for sale.

      Please note that On2 was previously called the Duck Corporation. So if you typed Duck.com, you are redirected to On2.com:

              If you meant to visit ducks.com, click here. Note that it redirects to Bass Pro Shops.
              If you meant to visit the search engine DuckDuckGo, click here.
              If you want to learn more about ducks on Wikipedia, click here.

      --
      urd
  2. Now that's one *uck up duck... by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

    Someone else already bought Duck Duck Google. Still a generic landing page. Whoever owns it should just point it to Bing.

    1. Re:Now that's one *uck up duck... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Domain Name: DUCKDUCKGOOGLE.COM
      Registry Domain ID: 2064927099_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
      Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.register.com
      Registrar URL: http://www.register.com/
      Updated Date: 2016-10-10T16:21:40Z
      Creation Date: 2016-10-10T16:21:39Z
      Registry Expiry Date: 2018-10-10T16:21:39Z
      Registrar: Register.com, Inc.
      Registrar IANA ID: 9
      Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com
      Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
      Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTr...
      Name Server: DNS1.REGISTER.COM
      Name Server: DNS2.REGISTER.COM
      DNSSEC: unsigned

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. "Don't be evil", LOL by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah yeah I know: Google dropped that motto a while back, but this sounds like something Microsoft would do.

    1. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      This is almost worse the MS. It would be like windows buying lunix.com, lenix.com, or any other misspelling and redirecting to windows.com.

    2. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Five bucks says Miscreant-o-soft does exactly that in the near future.

    3. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Also, where I work (major chip manufacturer, LOL) the proxy/firewall blocks those domains you provided as examples, so $SOMEONE thought of that already; bet's off. xD

    4. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Perhaps. But duckduckgo seems a little disingenuous as well. They apparantly 'aggregate' search results from all the Google competitors and provide you with generic, ad-supported search results. All well and good, I guess - except for my suspicion that the reason those Google competitors allow DDG to use their search results is that they can't compete with Google, and are quietly 'funding' a privacy-oriented alternative with free data. And I'm guessing that of all those competitors, Bing is the primary data source. And if DDG ever caught on, they'd probably pull the plug.

      There's no shortage of evil out there. I guess you kind of have to pick your poison...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by giggleloop · · Score: 1

      Why are you homophobic nutjobs always so obsessed with sticking things up other men's butts?

    6. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      ... but this sounds like something Microsoft would do.

      Google: When I left you I but was the learner, now *I* am the master

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    7. Re:"Don't be evil", LOL by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh, that. I dare to speak my mind on any number of subjects, and I tend to not pull my punches at all (and why should I, when it's how I really think, and besides which who else pulls their punches on the Internet, anyway?) so I've got at least my fair share of enemies around here, some of which have mod points, or who shitpost like the above, or both. Trollololol. Pay them no mind.

  4. Re: Anti-competitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thatâ(TM)s the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Competitiveness means succeeding on your own merits, not because you control a completely unrelated business segment.

  5. Partly their own fault by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Don't get me wrong. I think Google should fry if they're blocking competing search engines from their browser. But:

    Google also owns duck.com and points it directly at Google search, which consistently confuses DuckDuckGo users.

    They wouldn't be so easily confused if the DuckDuckGo landing page didn't look nearly identical to Google's landing page. Contrast to Bing, Yahoo, Ask, Startpage, Qwant, Yandex (#1 in Russia), Naver (#1 in South Korea). The only other major search engine which makes the same mistake of copying Google too closely is Baidu (#1 in China).

    1. Re:Partly their own fault by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure what you're talking about. DDG looks closer to Bind, Ask or Startpage than Google. And Google looks pretty similar to all of them (although distinctive from all of them a little bit.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Partly their own fault by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be so easily confused if the DuckDuckGo landing page didn't look nearly identical to Google's landing page. Contrast to Bing, Yahoo, Ask, Startpage, Qwant, Yandex (#1 in Russia), Naver (#1 in South Korea). The only other major search engine which makes the same mistake of copying Google too closely is Baidu (#1 in China).

      They don't look "nearly identical" to me.

    3. Re:Partly their own fault by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      They all appear the same to me they have a search box with the company logo/name above or to the left of it the search button to the right or below. When you search the results show up from top to bottom. Though some have garbage all over their sites and some just the search feature.

    4. Re:Partly their own fault by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing much similarity TBH, the only way Google would be confused with DDG would be if they're running a Google Doodle with some similar shapes and color schemes. I'm not sure that's ever happened.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Partly their own fault by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I don't find it at all confusing and never did.

      And I don't think your example addresses the use case this article is about anyway. New users, who have *never* seen the duckduckgo.com start page use google to try to find the "duck" search engine.

      Also, at least for the real google site, when you put in duckduckgo or duck search engine, the top result is duckduckgo.com.

      Also, on my android smart phone, if I type in duck search engine, the top link is duckduckgo.com so it seems this entire discussion is based on some kind of edge case.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:Partly their own fault by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      TIL: Ask.com still exists!

    7. Re:Partly their own fault by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be so easily confused

      Don't be daft. The users aren't confused in a way that they think they are using Google. They are confused as to why they landed at Google when aiming for DuckDuckGo.

  6. This should have been posted before /. poll by mykepredko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The current question is "What do you think of the EU decision to fine Google $5 billion?" - I would think that after reading TFA, this would change some people's minds and explain one of the reasons why the (in my opinion) the fine was justified.

    1. Re:This should have been posted before /. poll by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      I would think that after reading TFA, this would change some people's minds....

      It changed my mind. The fine is certainly justified.

    2. Re:This should have been posted before /. poll by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You mean a little over 1 day's borrowing for the annual US deficit?

      A gigantic fine, or a feather light one, depending on your rhetorical angle of attack.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:This should have been posted before /. poll by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You're ridiculous. If the fine doesn't exceed the benefit of the bad behavior, the company will just keep paying fines as a cost of doing business.

  7. Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

    I've been using DuckDuckGo.com on my ChromeOS laptop for the past few months. Works great and I haven't found any problems with my searches.
    Happy to have an alternative.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      On Chrome? I'm wondering... what's the point, then?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Yes, Chrome browser.
      The point is to use a search engine that doesn't track me.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re: Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The whole while using a browser that does?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re: Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      That's great, you've covered the browser.... sort of. What of the OS, though? Before you scream that I'm moving goalposts, I'm merely placing them back where you originally had them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

      It's ChromeOS.
      What about the OS?

      https://www.pcworld.com/articl...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re: Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read that article?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    8. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      It says use DuckDuckGo as your search engine.
      Also:
      Chrome OS is already tops at security, but with a few extra tweaks you can ensure the gates are even more secure.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re: Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference between security and privacy. Perhaps read the article again with that in mind. Go ahead and use what you want -- hell, I have a Chromebook Pixel and I love it -- but don't delude yourself.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    10. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you are trying to prove.
      I merely responded that I use DuckDuckGo on ChromeOS and that it's less intrusive into my privacy than Google search.
      I have no illusions that I could be 100% private and secure.

      Don't you have something else better to do today?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    11. Re: Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Don't you have something else better to do today?

      Yes, and now that I'm done debunking your claims, to the point where you've begun backpedaling and deflecting, I'm off to do those things.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    12. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

      My only claim was that it works on the Chromebook.
      I'm retired so I have lots of time.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    13. Re: Works on ChromeOS by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So you made no other claims during our conversation? None, whatsoever? Okay.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    14. Re: Works on ChromeOS by mspohr · · Score: 1

      None.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  8. Same Old News Slashdot by mydots · · Score: 5, Informative

    I explained this one years ago here
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Obviously they don't care to undo my changes from when they bought On2/Duck.

    1. Re:Same Old News Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is the post for reference:
      ----------
      by mydots ( 1598073 ) on Friday November 23, 2012 @01:21PM (#42074845)
      ----------
      I started working at The Duck Corporation (duck.com) in 1996, a few years before it went public as On2 Technologies/The Duck Corporation (on2.com and duck.com), and was working with Google/Duck/On2 until a year and a few months after the acquisition in 2010. At Duck/On2, I was responsibile for everything related to building our networks and maintaining all the hardware, software, servers, domains, networks and a ton of other stuff, you know the typical system administrator job.

      Prior to the acquisition, but after going public as On2, we likely didn't sell duck.com because that was still my primary email address and I and a few others still actively used it, and we still kept up a basic website for information about our old and basically no longer supported software; and it was just one of those things still tied to the company with a lot of history as The Duck Corporation, so we decided to keep it. Feel free to blame me, since I always requested that we keep it when we saw the many offers for the domain over the years, mostly in the hundreds to couple of thousand dollar range; and because of my history with the company, I am sure I was a big part of that decision to not sell it.

      When Google bought us, I knew I was still going to be there for a while to make sure all our company data, and some specific services that had to stay up, was migrated into their servers. Since we hosted all our own servers with our own hardware and software and they had to ulimately be shut down, I had to get things moved over and still needed to get my duck.com email.

      So at that point, since I was still getting a lot of duck.com emails and had my duck.com email address for literally many hundreds of websites, publications, mailing lists, business contacts and other things, since I mainly used duck.com for well over a decade, I wanted to make sure Google's DNS and email was configured to still get duck.com emails. I actually had started trying to switch all my duck.com to google.com, but it was an overwhelming process. I still wonder how much email is still going to my duck.com email address.

      I took it upon myself to learn the Google way of configuring their public DNS, email and a bunch of other things because I was nosey and wanted to learn and did learn some really cool and interesting stuff about them while I was there. I made sure the MX record for duck.com was still configured to deliver my email (and a few other email addresses) to my Google email account. Since it was decided to no longer keep the website up, I can't give you a real explanation, but I ended up configuring duck.com websites to point to the google.com main page instead of nothing. So you can go ahead and blame me, but no one at Google specifically told me to point duck.com to their site.

      ----------

    2. Re:Same Old News Slashdot by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      Stop ruining it! People are trying to be angry at Google!

  9. I Googled for DuckDuckGo.... by sinij · · Score: 5, Funny

    I Googled for DuckDuckGo and was told by Google to check my privilege and go back to using Google, or else they index me as an oppressive member of patriarchy.

    1. Re:I Googled for DuckDuckGo.... by sysrammer · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's fupped duck.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:I Googled for DuckDuckGo.... by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

      I Googled for DuckDuckGo and was told by Google that you are a fucking liar.

  10. Bugs and Daffy by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    "Duck Season!"
    "Duck Season!"
    "Duck Season!"
    "Duck Season!"...

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  11. Re: Anti-competitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like anti-competitive meddling to me. This is exactly why we elected Trump, to reduce regulations and allow business to succeed rather than have government hinder them.

  12. 2012 Called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Note the date of the article in the URL:
    https://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/30/we-bet-you-dont-know-who-owns-duck-com-and-what-it-redirects-to/

  13. Re: Anti-competitive? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Sounds like anti-competitive meddling to me. This is exactly why we elected Trump, to reduce regulations and allow business to succeed rather than have government hinder them.

    Oh, how right, now let's live under a russian controlled mafia council instead and be hindered only by daily street corner executions on 5th avenue, while converting the national parks to toxic waste dumps.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  14. Re: Anti-competitive? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    No. Its what happens when one competitor wins the competition.

    No, it's what happens when a company with market control breaks the law.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  15. Good old trickery, but its not unique to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Meh, Google controls almost everything on the web including its domination of web browser and search. DuckDuckGo is a noble attempt but falls way short of gathering any interest from the masses. Other then tin foil hat people who obsess over privacy of which I really do not think many actually do anymore.
    The EU fails to understand that people choose Google search and nobody is forcing you to use it. While I agree Google does its best to steer you into its products. I could say the same about Microsoft or Apple, or any other company.

  16. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ikr? Same with HotBot, and InfoSpace and Lycos and Metacrawler and WebCrawler and Dogpile and Looksmart and so on...

    I get these confused ALL THE TIME with Google!

  17. Premature deducktion. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Google also owns http://duck.com/ and points it directly at Google search, which consistently confuses DuckDuckGo users.

    Everyone knows you never stop after just one duck.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  18. Re: Anti-competitive? by BronsCon · · Score: 2

    MS was penalized for anti-competitive behavior after it won the desktop market

    They won the desktop market by competing, and good on them for it. What they were actually penalized for was being anti-competitive in an entirely different market when they tried to leverage that win to bolster their position in the browser market.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  19. In retaliation by Pollux · · Score: 2

    Can someone please buy the DNS googlegooglego.com, and redirect it to duckduckgo.com?

  20. The redirection thing by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    It is true that duck.go redirects you Google. It is also true that you end up in a page of Google search results, at the top of which is DuckDuck.go. This aside, the problem is that DuckDuck.go is not very good. I used it as my default search engine for two weeks a couple of months ago, and had to reluctantly acknowledge that it is has (it did then) a long way to go to become comparable to Google's. Which sucks big time, for I am sick and tired of Google :-(

    1. Re:The redirection thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is true that duck.go redirects you Google. It is also true that you end up in a page of Google search results, at the top of which is DuckDuck.go. This aside, the problem is that DuckDuck.go is not very good. I used it as my default search engine for two weeks a couple of months ago, and had to reluctantly acknowledge that it is has (it did then) a long way to go to become comparable to Google's. Which sucks big time, for I am sick and tired of Google :-(

      It has been my default for 2 years. The results are just *different*. The major site are all up there in the first results. It shows another webscape, which is good for a change.

      CAP: esteemed

  21. DuckDuckGo by thePsychologist · · Score: 2

    I've been using DuckDuckGo for my main search engine. It almost completely replaces Google.

    The one area where Google excels is finding things like reviews of tech on people's blogs. Even with the term 'blog', DuckDuckGo returns a lot of the typical mediocre reviews from the popular tech sites.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:DuckDuckGo by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Agreed - I’be been using DDG for a few years now, and it’s fine. I used to have to add “!g” (send my query to Google) fairly frequently... but I don’t do that much now, and when I do I’m generally disappointed in the Google results as well.

      DDG implements the old “I’m feeling lucky” function, which is incredibly useful for certain searches - something Google discarded years ago because of the lost ad revenue. It does site-specific searches. It does Wikipedia specific searches. It has a ridiculous number of specialized (bang - !) searches available.

      I think it also helps that Google is getting worse, though - both in terms of search result quality and in terms of corporate behavior.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  22. Don't be weevil by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I just tried to get ahead of the curve and register "peetape.ru" but apparently someone already beat me to it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  23. Re: Anti-competitive? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

    But they won the Office application market by tying it to the desktop OS. And they won the desktop OS market (for Windows, that is) by cutting deals to throw it in for free along with MS-DOS, for which they already had questionable deals to require a payment on every machine they sell. That's not so different than Google's 'if you sell android on any device, you can only sell the real android on all your devices'.

    But as far as search is concerned, Google had won search long before Android came along. And part of the reason for Android was to prevent Microsoft from being the OS alternative to Apple - and bundling Bing to hurt Google. So we may have ended up in a bad place, but how we got there is a long and winding road, littered with lots of bad behavior. And 'bad' is relative, since Android already provides as much or more flexibility than Windows does in terms of letting you replace the built-in default software. And OEM's are even allowed to install competing options on new devices - which Microsoft still doesn't allow...

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  24. Re:I don't buy it by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    If it gets suggested on radio, you might not realize the difference when searching.

    Rush Limbaugh has been pushing duckduckgo versus google for a while now.

  25. I hate DuckDuckGo by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    When I try to look up the weather for San José I get information for Carmen, Provincia San José. Ok, so I try "weather San Jose, CA", it still finds the city in Costa Rica. So I try using a zip code, "weather 95126". Nope, still Costa Rica. The folks at DuckDuckHack make some painful to watch bugs.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  26. Domain by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Is okay, I just bought the domain name for dontbeevil.com

  27. Google == USG? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    If not, that comparison is just...dumb.

  28. Whoa! by Trikoloko · · Score: 1

    Has anyone actually tried to access www.duck.com? Come on, try, i'll wait...

    --
    My cellphone ringtone is a ring tone.