Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

Google Throws DuckDuckGo a Bone, Adds Redirect on duck.com Landing Page

posted by martyb on Sunday July 22 2018, @05:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the all-your-ducks-in-a-row dept.

takyon writes:

Google owns Duck.com, but it'll give rival DuckDuckGo a shoutout anyhow

Google owns Duck.com, which has been driving rival search engine DuckDuckGo up the wall for over six years. Because when you type "duck.com" into a web browser, you get Google.com. Doesn't make a lot of sense, yes?

But after a new round of complaints this Friday, Google has relented. Google comms VP Rob Shilkin just quacked tweeted that a new landing page will give people an opportunity to click from Duck.com straight through to DuckDuckGo. Or to the Wikipedia page for ducks, because that's only fair.

From on2.com:

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.

Related: DuckDuckGo Is Google's Tiniest Fiercest Competitor

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Google Throws DuckDuckGo a Bone, Adds Redirect on duck.com Landing Page | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 35 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 22 2018, @08:39PM (2 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday July 22 2018, @08:39PM (#710880)

    No, he is saying that stupid people make most of the population (which is obviously an oxymoron since obviously that cannot be true by definition) and getting rid of them is economically disadvantageous if your revenue model predicates on having a large consumer base to be successful.

    The smart people run ad blockers so DDG doesn't even earn anything from them, unlike Google who can at least do some first party tracking on you even if you block ads and third party trackers.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by dry on Sunday July 22 2018, @10:41PM

    by dry (223) on Sunday July 22 2018, @10:41PM (#710921) Journal

    DDG just has a couple of one line ads (clearly marked) at the top of the search results. Not much for an ad blocker to block and at least I don't mind them.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:32AM (#711069)

    which is obviously an oxymoron since obviously that cannot be true by definition

    By what definition? There is no inherent reason that most of the population can't be considered stupid; it depends on the standard.