Talk:DuckDuckGo

External link

A number of IP editors have repeatedly added links to the DDG TOR service portal. When clicked on by a non-signed in Tor user these come up as broken links. I have removed these because the link requires a sign-in and therefore does not comply with Wikipedia's guideline on external links which says: "external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." This link also conflicts with WP:NOTMANUAL. I have instead added a paragraph on the subject explaining what it is, using Weinberg's posting on the subject as a reference, which includes a link to the TOR service. This is, I believe, the best way to present this information, as anyone who is interested in the Tor service can quickly find it without having to have a link that for most readers will result in a broken link. Unless anyone can give a good reason to retain this link I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Lacking any objections over the past week we have a consensus to remove the link. - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not list the link as plain text with a note to view to Tor article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.124.141 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldn't this be renamed into DuckDuckGo (without spaces), as that's how it shows up on the site's front page, as well as their about page: https://duckduckgo.com/about.html 76.10.141.110 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question, the governing policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. The majority of the third party refs cited use spaces and DuckDuckGo links here as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

blatant pr

most of the 'history' subsection is resume padding filler for the CEO that has little to do with the subject, probably either written by himself or ddg's PR team imo. i tried deleting it but it got reverted because "Ugh is not a reason to remove text". hopefully someone else will recognize this. 71.96.68.185 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that anyone connected with the subject of the article has been editing this article. Please read WP:AGF. I have reviewed the text you attempted to removed and restored it because it is sourced and relevant to the topic and because you did not give an acceptable reason for removing it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it either, as it is not really relevant to understanding this search engine. However, I also agree that my dislike isn't a great reason to remove this material. Besides, it is already in a History section, which seems appropriate. I would suggest moving the History section to the end as a compromise. David Spector (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A brief mention of directly relevant past activities is certainly OK, but additional only vaguely related details about a separate topic should be avoided - the sub-topic has a separate article anyway. I have trimmed that part down to a basic uncontroversial fact (the ref didn't even mention Weinberg btw). And I also just noticed, that the OP is from 2011, but is hopefully resolved now :). GermanJoe (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

I've created a userbox for those who would like to have one. If anyone else wants his own, go ahead and add here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Code	Result
{{User:Czarkoff/userboxes/DuckDuckGo}}	This user uses DuckDuckGo as a primary search engine.	Usage
{{User:Ahunt/DDG}}	This user searches with DuckDuckGo.	Usage

I like your new version - more creative than mine! - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

what about using the actual DDG logo? 93.130.63.17 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted logos are not permitted in userboxes as they do not qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law, see Wikipedia:USERBOX#Caution_about_image_use. This makes using the real logo in a user box actually not just against Wikipedia policy, but also illegal in the USA, where the Wikipedia servers are located. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my original intent, actually. Interestingly, the official logo is included in GitHub repo of DuckDuckGo (here), and there is quite a lot of user-submitted modifications. I'm actually not entirely sure about the license: back then I found no information on the topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In general logos are copyrighted unless you can find documentation that shows they are released under a permissive licence, like CC or GFDL. Except for some free software projects, where the logo is expressly released under a free licence or where the logo does not make the standard of originality for copyrighting, this generally keeps most logos out of userboxes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

maybe they would not mind about it being used in this context? couldn't hurt to ask.. 77.176.233.210 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of permission, Gabriel Weinberg would have to release the logo under a permissive license for it to be used. Weinberg is very familiar with free software and free licences so I think if he wanted to do that he probably already would have do so. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From his reply to my query: "Not yet ready to release the logo for commercial use. Not exactly sure why, but haven't thought about it enough yet." – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the logos are licensed under CC BY-NC-SA and I have a permission to use it from Gabriel Weinberg from the time when their usage permissions weren't documented at all. The problem is that only the content under GNU FDL, CC BY-SA and/or similar terms can be used, and CC BY-NC-SA is less permissive. Specifically it prohibits commercial usage which is incompatible with WP:NONCOM (in fact with Wikimedia Board's resolution from 2007). – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the crux of it. He does need to think about it carefully. If it is more openly released then people may use it in ways he didn't indend to identify products that aren't DuckDuckGo. This is exactly why Ubuntu and Mozilla keep their logos copyright, even though the software itself is open source. The pitfalls are many and not always obvious. Incidentally is the licence for the logos posted on his website somewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are CC BY-NC-SA bits. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Official site external links

I changed to https for the two urls. An IP was also listed in the infobox, but without a reference. As this is a non-standard field, is not referenced, and without justification why we should avoid DNS (here or in the article), better we err on the side of not assuming the IP is on a par with the DN (I don't know but for load balancing they may at any point switch to DNS load balancing a-la-google) -> removed and put here "|ip = 184.72.106.52" Widefox; talk 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Crowdsourced"?

I put a "cite needed" on the claim that it is "crowdsourced". Most of DuckDuckGo's organic search results come from Yandex or Bing, says DuckDuckGo's own blog.[1]. DuckDuckGo says they use Yahoo BOSS, which is Yahoo acting as a Bing reseller. Blekko really is "crowdsourced", with a pool of volunteer editors, but DuckDuckGo is not. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The cited ref shows that DDG does use crowd sourced sites, like Wikipedia for results. There is no claim that DDG uses crowd sourcing itself directly to produce results. The actual text currently says: "DuckDuckGo is an Internet search engine that uses information from crowdsourced websites such as Wikipedia to obtain its results." That is supported currently by the ref cited and is factually accurate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved that paragraph around today; while it is factually accurate that DuckDuckGo generates search results from Wikipedia as well as from other search engines, that isn't the most important thing about DuckDuckGo, so I put the point about the protection of user privacy first. --Amanda French 15:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf7e (talk • contribs)

I have had a look at your changes and they are an improvement to the lead para! - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

now 'filter bubbles'

It now offers search results based on location and I think bookmark history regardless of no such mention in search terms. 117.199.0.182 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Observe

Given that they specifically say that they don't do that it sounds unlikely. The reference to back up your claim is where? - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely or not, this is a fact I can confirm. Source: Tried it out. 141.20.212.86 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It didn't work for me when I tried it. (09:15, 30.03.2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.116 (talk)

I suspect that is because the original claim was in error. DDG specifically doesn't do this, see http://dontbubble.us/ - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i bug

An unsourced addition was recently removed from this article about how searching for "!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i" will redirect you to Google Images showing various kings. I can't find a source, but I just tested it, and it's true. Can anyone find a source for this? Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 23:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly a bug the "!i" is supposed to give a Google image search from DDG, what Google does with that search string is not a DDG issue beyond that. - Ahunt (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Didn't think about Google's end of the redirect. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 02:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that Google interprets the ! and i's as roman numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.207.178 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

WHOISGUARD PROTECTED domain registration out of Panama

Seeing as duckduckgo.com is now uses private domain registration in Panama, how is any of this article now relevant to duckduckgo.com itself, except via "I heard..." or "It is written that..."? I mean, technically, there is now way to tie the duckduckgo.com website to anything at all, except via a Panamanian warrant. 68.71.70.33 (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That does not matter: we have reliable sources claiming the connection between the information and the site. We may assume that this change does not affect the subject unless we have sources stating otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken References-Link

Reference 11 links to https://www.younoodle.com/startups/duck_duck_go which ends in a 404 for me. 62.109.89.71 (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here, it is indeed "404". I couldn't source it on Archive.org, so I have tagged it as per WP:LINKROT. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Shopping and non-shopping results

The article states that "DuckDuckGo offers the ability to show mostly shopping sites or mostly info (non-shopping) websites via search buttons on its home page." But I don't see these options on the site (I'm in the UK), and a Community Manager's answer on the DDG Forum suggests that the feature has been removed. Should the quoted sentence be edited out then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sroyon (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have been a short-lived feature as it isn't there now that I can see. I think that makes it "non-notable" and so i will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

More accurate location

Hello, everyone.

@Ahunt: About revision #692562888: Is there a rule, policy or guideline forbidding the address?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Just WP:NOTDIRECTORY, although it doesn't specifically prohibit business addresses, it is just in general we don't list exact addresses. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Uh, not only do I think WP:NOTDIR is a weak reason (it forbids lists, not single addresses), there are other factors:

• WP:FACR requires the article to be comprehensive. Making one single address more clear certainly counts towards comprehensiveness.
• "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies [...] or the laws of the United States." But I don't see a Wikipedia policy violated here. You say we don't do it. The answer is: Why not? Have you considered that maybe you should?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, personally I don't care either way. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

is DuckDuckGo still alive

Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at duckduckgo.com. Is duckduckgo still working. because firefox keeps giving me no server available, and it does it on Opera as well, any one know if it's now smoke and ash, did it burn up and blow away. 12th jan 2017 Can someone please just say yes or no, from official site team please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.75.154 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just tested it and it is working fine. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought DuckDuckGo might track you, it doesn't

Partial source of page https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=DuckDuckGo+does+track+you

            <div class="result results_links results_links_deep web-result ">
          <div class="links_main links_deep result__body"> <!-- This is the visible part -->
          <h2 class="result__title">        
            <a rel="nofollow" class="result__a" href="/l/?kh=-1&amp;uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F2151527%2Fduckduckgo%2Dthe%2Dsearch%2Dengine%2Dthat%2Ddoesnt%2Dtrack%2Dyou%2Dfinally%2Dchallenges%2Dgoogle.html"><b>DuckDuckGo</b>, the search engine that doesn&#x27;t <b>track</b> <b>you</b>, finally ...</a>
          </h2>
            <a class="result__snippet" href="/l/?kh=-1&amp;uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F2151527%2Fduckduckgo%2Dthe%2Dsearch%2Dengine%2Dthat%2Ddoesnt%2Dtrack%2Dyou%2Dfinally%2Dchallenges%2Dgoogle.html"><b>DuckDuckGo</b>, the privacy-focused &quot;search engine that doesn&#x27;t <b>track</b> <b>you</b>,&quot; saw its usage skyrocket in the wake of Edward Snowden&#x27;s NSA revelations, but that ...</a>
            <div class="result__extras">
                <div class="result__extras__url">
                  <span class="result__icon">
                      <a rel="nofollow" href="/l/?kh=-1&amp;uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F2151527%2Fduckduckgo%2Dthe%2Dsearch%2Dengine%2Dthat%2Ddoesnt%2Dtrack%2Dyou%2Dfinally%2Dchallenges%2Dgoogle.html">
                        <img class="result__icon__img" width="16" height="16" alt=""
                          src="//icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/www.pcworld.com.ico" name="i15" />
                      </a>
                  </span>
                  <a class="result__url" href="/l/?kh=-1&amp;uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F2151527%2Fduckduckgo%2Dthe%2Dsearch%2Dengine%2Dthat%2Ddoesnt%2Dtrack%2Dyou%2Dfinally%2Dchallenges%2Dgoogle.html">
                  pcworld.com/article/2151527/duckduckgo-the-search-eng...
                  </a>
                </div>
            </div>
            <div style="clear: both"></div>
          </div>
        </div>

So if you follow the link you arrive to
https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F2151527%2Fduckduckgo%2Dthe%2Dsearch%2Dengine%2Dthat%2Ddoesnt%2Dtrack%2Dyou%2Dfinally%2Dchallenges%2Dgoogle.html
that redirects you to
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2151527/duckduckgo-the-search-engine-that-doesnt-track-you-finally-challenges-google.html.
Exactly like Google does. --Kissg (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That is WP:OR, what you need is WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia articles must not contain original research? This is exactly why I did not modify the article itself. However we are on the the talk page where we can discuss e.g. if the article correct or not etc. --Kissg (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but the talk page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not just general discussion of the topic. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Step2.
AFAIK somebody states that DuckDuckGo's slogan is a lie. "Can anyone find a source for this?" At least a footnote about this phenomena would improve the article. --Kissg (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to base a footnote on. No reliable sources agree with what you are saying here. I have followed what you have written above and tested it out myself and I don't see that there is any tracking involved at all. All I can see is a search result, which when clicked upon takes you to the PCWorld article. There are no cookies, URL referers or other trackers detected. How is that tracking a user? - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop the press. I was wrong.
Finally I found the explanation why DuckDuckGo applies this redirection trick. (Unfortunately it is indistinguishable from the method used by other sites to track users.) I'm really sorry. I would delete the whole section but it is no use. Thanks for your patience. --Kissg (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No sweat, it is always worth questioning things like this, so thanks for bringing it up! - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DuckDuckGo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150124074006/https://duck.co/help/results/sources to https://duck.co/help/results/sources
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317053629/http://ostatic.com/blog/duckduckgo-a-new-search-engine-built-from-open-source to http://ostatic.com/blog/duckduckgo-a-new-search-engine-built-from-open-source

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

deletions Comment

May 23, 2018 BeenAroundAWhile made many helpful changes, but also deleted brief sections on Voice search, bangs, privacy browser and business model, which are relevant and significant. All were cited to duckduckgo, which is a primary source. Primary sources are allowed for facts: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Numbersinstitute (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think these should be restored. I am also not at all convinced the drive-by tagging is justified. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have restored them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to the WP:NOR change, which I had never seen. It is quite odd, because it flies in the face of previous guidelines that stipulated that we could not simply accept what any given source said about itself. But that's not a matter to be discussed here. I will go over there and take a look at how this major change got into Wikipedia. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment here. I am not sure this is a change to anything. We have always accepted builders/manufacturers/creators factual claims about their products, but not opinion claims. So, for instance, we accept an aircraft manufacturer stating that the cruise speed of their aircraft design is 100 knots, but not that "it is the best design in its class". The latter would be for independent third parties to review it and write about, which we would then quote. - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong place to talk about this, but I wouldn't use that aircraft mfr's claim for the color of the paint unless it had a disclaimer right in the sentence, as "Superspeed Corp. claims." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CLAIM on that issue. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Is 'Duckgo' part of the 'DuckDuckgo' organization?

When connecting to DuckDuckGo I often am directed to a site called 'DuckGo.com'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.96 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

.onion mirror?

Does DuckDuckGo operate a .onion mirror?

I am unable to find sources talking about this, but unreliable forum posts spread the rumor that DuckDuckGo the company operates a .onion version of its website.

Does anyone have any source to cite? I would have expected a press release, promotional statement, and media coverage. The rumors report a 2013 opening of the site. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Tor Hidden Service, it's in the article. .onion links are blacklisted by Wikipedia. O3000 (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the reason for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

Beetstra explains that at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2017#Onion links. AGK ■ 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that the official link should be whitelisted for the concerns expressed there. There has been a large tendency to change the addresses to something else on some pages, likely for phishing etc. reasons. Do not evade the blacklist with <nowiki> tags so you are able to mention the address, as that will give you the same problem. The official address should be whitelisted and any change to the whitelisted domain should be reverted immediately (and if the domain changed, the new one should first be whitelisted). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I got my first edit reverted because it was an unexplained duplicate. I believe adding the v3 address is not a duplicate because the v2 site is being depreciated soon. Sorry if this is not the place for this. I'm new. I was under the Tea4all account before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funducks (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a reliable source which proves the .onion address. Just search anything in DuckDuckGo and look in your browser's web dev tools under the Network tab. In response headers it will show the address to the onion site.

• Reference, Direct source: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=a&ia=web > file "/?q=a&ia=web" (type=html) > Headers > Response Headers > headers > "name": "content-security-policy" > "value": "[...] https://duckduckgogg42xj oc72x3sjasowoarfbgcmvf imaftt6twagswzczad . on ion/ [...]"
• Reference, Other site: https://tor.taxi/

It is basically common knowledge. --User123o987name (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Search vs. Metasearch

I believe, DuckDuckGo as several other engines on Wikipedia are wrongly labeled as search engines, rather than metasearch engines. While this might sound as a technicist, not important detail, it is in fact a clear distinguishing between engines providing full fledged crawling and query decoding and those creating added value by agregating results from other search engines. I'm willing to update the article in this way. - michal.feix (michal.feix) 15:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you do with an engine like DuckDuckGo that combines other search results with its own crawling (DuckBot)? - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2019‎ (UTC)

Hybrid search engine. Part meta part self. Greatder (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser

It's a browser DDG makes, for at least Android (not sure about other OSes). Not sure which rendering engine it's based on. It seems to be popular; the Google Play Store reports over 10 mil downloads. First released on 8 April 2011, and actively maintained (latest version, as of this writing, released 18 November 2019). Has a 4.7 out of 5 rating (with about 300,000 ratings), which is pretty remarkable. Probably worth at least a section here (and a browser-categorized redirect) if not an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference? - Ahunt (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

here it is https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duckduckgo.mobile.android&hl=en_US and https://apps.apple.com/us/app/duckduckgo-privacy-browser/id663592361

-beeveria september 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeveria (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Probably should have its own article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't there a Wikipedia article about Gabriel Weinberg?

When you look at the size of the DuckDuckGo article -- that is to say, the obvious significance of the search engine -- it is very surprising that there's no article about its creator, Gabriel Weinberg. Apparently people have tried to write articles about him, but they keep getting deleted...why? Obviously he's significant, as the creator of a major search engine that's been around for 12 years. And there are plenty of references to him online, so objective sources aren't lacking at all. I can't imagine why Weinberg's name isn't a hyperlink in this encyclopedia. Perhaps some automated Wikipedia process is just repeatedly preventing it from happening? Chillowack (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, his bio was not deleted by any bot process. If you check here you will see the history. Mostly he is only known for one thing and that is best covered in this article, see WP:1E. That policy is there to prevent what would essentially be a duplicate article. What would his bio say that isn't covered here? There is also a draft at Draft:Gabriel Weinberg, but which has very little content and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:1E does not prohibit writing an article about a person who is notable for only one thing: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Clearly the event is highly significant, and Weinberg's role in it couldn't be larger; so both criteria are met.

As for what Weinberg's bio would say: a Google search of his name turns up hundreds of pages about him. At the very least the bio itself could be a stub, like many other stubs on Wikipedia that passed the article vetting process. Additional info could be added and further references appended over time. I have no doubt that if the article were allowed to go forward, population of information would not be long in coming. This article seems like a no-brainer to me. Chillowack (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you think there are sufficient sources to make WP:BIO then the best way to proceed is to expand Draft:Gabriel Weinberg into a credible biography and then make the case to move it to mainspace at Gabriel Weinberg, thus overcoming the reasons for the article creation block being in place. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ownership of DuckDuckGo

Particularly in this ever-increasing environment of censorship, propaganda, and corporate groupthink, consumers are increasingly interested in knowing which parent company, CEO, political organization, or multi-billionnaire controls the experience of the products they use, especially if those products are a gateway to information. Personally, I came to this article wanting to know whether indeed, as rumored elsewhere on the web, Google now owns DuckDuckGo. I would have much appreciated a section on this article devoted to who owns DuckDuckGo, who controls it, and what politics or ideologies may bias its results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4902:C610:845C:E358:AF60:3648 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

170.76.243.118 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

yes

No edit requested, closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Copy edits

I got reverted. Now it is back to It uses various API of other websites to show quick results to queries and for traditional links it uses the help of its partners (mainly Bing) and its own crawler. What does that even mean? There is surely a better way to word that. That unnecessary "quick" word also gives this a slightly promotional tone, in my opinion. Inferior all around. The only "not an improvement" here is the sentence quoted above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

They are "quick" results because they are displayed at the top-right of the search result and thus quickly found. Your proposed wording was not an improvement. If you think this needs changing then propose some revised wording here and let's discuss it and find a solution. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Russia vs West fallout, censorship announced

March 10, 2022, DuckDuckGo's CEO, Gabriel Weinberg, tweeted the following:

"Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create. #StandWithUkraine️

At DuckDuckGo, we've been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation."

Refs:

“DuckDuckGo slammed for downrating Russian search results” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/duckduckgo-slammed-for-downrating-russian-search-results

“Gabriel Weinberg, DuckDuckGo CEO, openly admits censorship” https://12bytes.org/gabriel-weinberg-duckduckgo-ceo-openly-admits-censorship/

But as we all know nobody has a monopoly on the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.199.245.161 (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article, please check the History section. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022 - regarding DDG blocked search results, under history.

"In April 2022, DuckDuckGo blocked search results for some major pirating websites, including The Pirate Bay, 1337x and FMovies."

Citation (source) was updated saying DDG never "blocked" TPB search results and they do show up normally on results if you include phrases like "pirate bay" or simply by the abbreviation "tpb". This line should be removed. KopaZ (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft tracking

There is evidence of Duckduckgo having some Microsoft trackers in the browser. This is a form of hypocrisy as the CEO two weeks ago said " tracking is tracking" 2600:1011:B114:905:5CF4:92FF:FE43:D3CA (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Already in the article, two days before you posted this. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

In the introduction there's a line "Because of its anonymity, It is impossible to know how...." Change "It" to "it" (make the capital 'I' lowercase.) Panamitsu (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

New e-mail beta

Recently, I got a notifcation from DuckDuckGo mentioning an 'Email Protection Beta.' Should that be mentioned on the article? 104.187.66.104 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A private beta version of the company’s email service was launched in 2021. By 2022, the beta program has been completed and is ready for public consumption. The service is called @Duck.com, and as expected, the primary idea here is to protect your privacy. In this method, the user uses either a personal or a private “duck” email address to shield their real email address from companies. 45.115.59.107 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I got a text today stating that DuckDuckGo has partnered with Google Chromb 2600:1700:4EB0:A9F0:95B7:35D:27D:2EB6 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Privacy

Hello @Ahunt:, why is this unacceptable:

DuckDuckGo does not track its users. DuckDuckGo keeps favicons anonymous. Your location is never sent to DuckDuckGo servers, even when you allow a third party to collect your geolocation. DuckDuckGo offers limited third-party tracking protection, third-party cookie protection, CNAME cloaking protection, limited device fingerprint protection from third parties, link tracking removal, Google AMP replacement, and do-not-track requests. DuckDuckGo connects users to regional servers based on their geolocation. Captchacatcher (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

That version is not a problem, but that is the version I left it at before you reverted it. Your version is not acceptable due to two additions:

You added DuckDuckGo sends device attributes, such as personal IP address, browser type, language, screen size, operating system, preferences, etc. with hosting and content providers, which can be used to fingerprint users. but this information contradicts the ref you cited which actually says When you visit our search engine or our other websites, your device sends some information about itself automatically, like its IP address, browser type, and language, and may send additional information upon request like its screen size, operating system, and preferences. However, we only use this information temporarily to deliver content to you and, for security, to ensure you’re not a malicious bot. We don’t save your IP address or any unique identifiers alongside your searches or visits to our websites. We also never log IP addresses or any unique identifiers to disk. The text you added is wrong and needs to be removed.

You also added ..., including servers located in the Fourteen Eyes. The cited ref again says nothing about "fourteen eyes" or "five eyes". The inclusion of this is strictly original research and frankly scare mongering. There is nothing in the ref or anywhere else to indicate tat DDG is sending information to intelligence agencies, which is what you are implying. If you want to include this you need a ref for it that directly ties the search engine to this as a risk factor, otherwise it must be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I accidentally copied the revision you made. Here is the full for reference:

DuckDuckGo does not track its users. DuckDuckGo keeps favicons anonymous. DuckDuckGo sends device attributes, such as personal IP address, browser type, language, screen size, operating system, preferences, etc. with hosting and content providers, which can be used to fingerprint users. Your location is never sent to DuckDuckGo servers, even when you allow a third party to collect your geolocation. DuckDuckGo offers limited third-party tracking protection, third-party cookie protection, CNAME cloaking protection, limited device fingerprint protection from third parties, link tracking removal, Google AMP replacement, and do-not-track requests. DuckDuckGo connects users to regional servers based on their geolocation, including servers located in the Fourteen Eyes.

First, what I said about fingerprinting in no way contradicts what the reference says. According to DuckDuckGo privacy policy, on their page: "When you visit our search engine or our other websites, your device sends some information about itself automatically, like its IP address, browser type, and language, and may send additional information upon request like its screen size, operating system, and preferences."

The fact that DuckDuckGo themselves does not save this information is practically immaterial, as it is being sent to third parties (the websites). These websites (hosting and content providers) do not have the same privacy model as DuckDuckGo. Many will argue it doesn't matter, as you cannot truly escape fingerprinting without something like Tor anyways. That also matters little, as this is pertinent information for anyone interested in privacy (the main selling point of DDG).

Second, the fact that the U.S. is located in the Fourteen eyes is not considered original research. Not unless you would consider someone saying that New York is located in the United States is original research... But you have been on Wikipedia for a long time, so I believe you already know this Wikipedia:No Original Research. This concern is not necessarily tied with DDG currently sending their information to intelligence agencies either. For example, related to fingerprinting above, there are data prevention laws in these countries that government entities may force companies to part with.

I'm not trying to be hostile. I also like privacy services, including DDG. But I also believe Wikipedia should not be a place to advertise, and should give a neutral overview. Since DDG is a privacy service, this is very pertinent information for people to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it. And DDG is free at any time to either correct any problem it may have with privacy, or to respond to it. They likely already responded to some of these points, so in my opinion, it may be better to give their response rather than just deleting it because it goes against something you like. Captchacatcher (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a question of what I like or not, it is a question of sourcing and the text reflecting what the sourcing says. Your implication that DDG is feeding private user information to intelligence services goes well beyond WP:BLUESKY, it needs proper refs cited that link DDG to 14 eyes intel gathering. So far I have not seen any. Do you have a ref that says that? if not this does not belong in the article.

As far as DDG providing your IP and other information to search result websites, the ref you cited makes it clear that is not correct: Keep in mind that when you visit other websites by navigating to them directly, by clicking external links on our search engine, or by using our !bang shortcuts, the privacy policies and practices of those other websites apply, including any information you submit to them. While our apps and extensions provide many safeguards against online tracking, we can’t completely protect you when you visit other websites and apps. For example, if you browse Facebook, Facebook will know what you do on their site. Our Web Tracking Protections page details how our various protections function and their limitations. If you search for Facebook it will show a link to FB, but no information goes to them unless you click on the link and connect to FB. DDG is not supplying information to FB, you are when you click on the link, then and only then will FB have your IP, etc. The statement you added, DuckDuckGo sends device attributes, such as personal IP address, browser type, language, screen size, operating system, preferences, etc. with hosting and content providers, which can be used to fingerprint users. contradicts the cited ref. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I believe you are correct, I accept your reasoning on the fingerprinting.

I disagree with what you say about the 14 Eyes, but I will back down now because of the references. Though DDG does say their workers have access to the servers, and in countries like the USA, the government would easily gain access.[2]https://etherrag.blogspot.com/2013/07/duck-duck-go-illusion-of-privacy.html

Captchacatcher (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Blogspot is WP:SPS, not a reliable source. Otherwise, okay I will fix the article. If you do find a ref that indicates there is a 14 Eyes issue here please do come back with it! - Ahunt (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo browser

I feel it is time that the DDG browser deserves its own page with expansion on its development, platforms, versions, etc.. Is there support for this?

Enquire (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Has the browser become more notable recently or received extra coverage? I wouldn't be opposed, but I'm afraid it could be mostly my bias of respect for the company. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. There are plenty of less-notable browsers that have their own articles. I just added a template to the browser section here; it auto-populated the wrong Repository, which may correct itself if this section was moved to a new article. -Pmffl (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Since this is obviously notable enough, I went ahead and made the new DuckDuckGo Private Browser article. The template is fine now. -Pmffl (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)