From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External link[edit]

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 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Name[edit]

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: (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[edit]

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. (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)


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
Cyberduck icon.pngThis user uses DuckDuckGo as a primary search engine.
Duck3.jpgThis user searches with DuckDuckGo.
I like your new version - more creative than mine! - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
what about using the actual DDG logo? (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.. (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[edit]

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 =" Widefox; talk 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs)

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'[edit]

It now offers search results based on location and I think bookmark history regardless of no such mention in search terms. (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. (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 (talk)

I suspect that is because the original claim was in error. DDG specifically doesn't do this, see - 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[edit]

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 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

WHOISGUARD PROTECTED domain registration out of Panama[edit]

Seeing as is now uses private domain registration in Panama, how is any of this article now relevant to itself, except via "I heard..." or "It is written that..."? I mean, technically, there is now way to tie the website to anything at all, except via a Panamanian warrant. (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 (talktrack) 09:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken References-Link[edit]

Reference 11 links to which ends in a 404 for me. (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Shopping and non-shopping results[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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:
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[edit]

Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 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 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

DuckDuckGo does track you[edit]

Partial source of page

            <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;"><b>DuckDuckGo</b>, the search engine that doesn&#x27;t <b>track</b> <b>you</b>, finally ...</a>
            <a class="result__snippet" href="/l/?kh=-1&amp;"><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;">
                        <img class="result__icon__img" width="16" height="16" alt=""
                          src="//" name="i15" />
                  <a class="result__url" href="/l/?kh=-1&amp;">
            <div style="clear: both"></div>

So if you follow the link you arrive to
that redirects you to
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)

AFAIK somebody states that DuckDuckGo's slogan is a lie. "Can anyone find a source for this?" Face-smile.svg 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. Face-sad.svg
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! Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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