Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

Your right on a privacy front from an absolute perspective. But, it's almost certain that Google paid for this change. A stronger Mozilla (financially speaking) is good for privacy and free software.

Also, normal users expect Google. So, having it in the default provides a more familiar experience for them to possibly switch to Firefox.

If you are allowed. My work machine is locked into bing. I can bookmark google.com or duckduckgo.com but default/quick searches go through bing. (Google.com redirects to google.ca which drives me crazy sometimes.) I'd bet the majority of bing traffic comes from such workplaces.

Mozilla would cease to be without a viable revenue stream. Either users need to pay or they're going to have to trade most of their privacy for a tiny bit of money for the same goal. Which is the better deal?

But then they'd have the same issue they had with Yahoo. Where users would be put off by the default not being Google.

They are clearly trying hard with this release to get back users now.

What if it's actually an improvement in search results?

Everyone will search for something with a different set of words based on their experience. If most of those sets of words, all used to search for the same topic in the end, return the same results, isn't it an improvement?

Unfortunately, as you said, it doesn't help when trying to tweak the results you see to find your answer, but most people probably don't search in depth to find THE answer, but are looking for AN answer.

Agreed. I am getting irrelevant results WAAY more often than I used to, and it only gets worse.

It could also be due to the quantity of indexed data

SEO won. There were no economic incentives for Google to continue to fight it; they have no significant competitors. A better strategy for Google is to buy pieces of or provide services to the companies that dominate the first page.

Dollars put into the branding of being the best search aimed at the current userbase are been more effective than actually innovating on search anyway. People don't objectively rank search results between engines. They do defend their current habits, though, and solid branding material gives them something to tell themselves to counteract any (rare) arguments to switch.

I think the problem is that making a worthless website (by this I mean worthless to users) is so cheap but also very lucrative for content farms. A webpage with garbage content but that has taken the right SEO measures has a good chance of getting on the first page and getting clicked, and these can be cloned ad infinitum with different content.

It's very easy now for good content to be hidden amongst clickbait.

I agree. It's incredibly difficult to find anything that isn't a basic, low-value result when you're looking for advanced, detailed content.

Maybe I'm looking up practices on how to write efficient SQL queries. All of the results I find are just slideshare presentations and basic blog posts on how to add an index to your select statement.

It feels impossible to find depth nowadays, when everything that search engines deem relevant are the big, heavy-SEO websites with the lowest tier of query-relevant information. Sure, the results may be good for people who want just-the-basics about what they're searching, but anything more than that feels hidden away.

Hi, I work on Google search. Can you share any examples of the types of search queries that used to work better for you?

I feel the same way.

Probably because search providers (e.g.. Google/DDG) will pay more for exclusive preference on the search bar.

Did you mean: something you definitely did not mean?

  Showing results for something you definitely did not mean
  Search instead for something you meant

No, Google, that's not what I meant. Put these links way, I did not mean that. I meant what I said.

Bandcamp's search is particularly bad in this regard, and doesn't even give you the option to quote or manipulate your search terms.

This is an increasing trend across the industry. I've been calling it "technological paternalism".

I'm on 56.0 until Ubuntu publishes an update but... if I click on the search glass icon, a dialog pops up with a set of suggested alternatives, and a change search settings button.

Did that actually change in Quantum?

I use DDG as default, and have all my other engines set with keywords. Searching wikipedia (mapped to 'wk') for instance is as easy as:

ctrl+l

wk <search_key_word>

How to switch off search-engines panel in url-search?

There was never any real commitment to the "best" search engine in a region. Mozilla has been paid by Google to be the default search since 2004.

The deal before the Yahoo one made Google the default everywhere (even China and Russia and other places where Google wasn't the best search engine).

I don't work there so I don't know if they could've gotten the same amount that Yahoo agreed to without continuing to make Google default in all localities.

With Firefox 57, the UI changed to look almost identical to Chrome. The tabs are now boxy, not round anymore. The hamburger menu changed from the useful big box with big icons to a long menu that looks 99% like Chrome incl the unusual page zoom buttons in the menu. Now we may know why, Google is paying them again, after Yahoo deal is no more.

My guess is the other way around: Yahoo backed out of their contract with Mozilla. The biggest difference for either of these companies this year is that Verizon now owns Yahoo, and probably doesn't want to pay for search market share. If the deal's a yearly cost or something similar, the bill's coming up in December.

And, to be fair, most users probably want Google to be their default.

Considering how heavily Mozilla’s been recently touting Firefox as the privacy-oriented alternative to Chrome (in Facebook ads, and probably elsewhere), to me it makes Mozilla appear flippant.

It's already the default in Europe from what I've seen.

I've been out of reading news about it are they still shuffling cash to Mozilla?

Did they ever lose it? Chrome has over 50% browser usage and FF less than 10%. I bet most of those Chrome users haven't changed their default search.

Was their punchline also at odds when they used Yahoo/Bing or was that different?

Which is a great choice IMO. Open source software needs funding, and I'm always a fan of projects finding ways to be self supporting rather than relying solely on donations.

Changing default search is trivial enough for anyone who cares to, and if they did go with Duck Duck Go or similar as the default, I think you'd likely find many/most users changing the default search to Google anyway.

"We exercised our contractual right to terminate our agreement with Yahoo! based on a number of factors including doing what’s best for our brand, our effort to provide quality web search, and the broader content experience for our users. We believe there are opportunities to work with Oath and Verizon outside of search," Mozilla Chief Business and Legal Officer Denelle Dixon said in a statement.

I'm seeing a checkbox to disable DRM content playing in preferences. I know it's just one item in your list, but at least it's an option.

Don’t forget the plugins which are a shell of their former selves.

> mandatory telemetry Explain? > mandatory pulseaudio Don’t know enough to have an opinion on this > pocket Does FF send data if you don’t use the feature? Actually not sure. > video chat thing You’re avoiding a browser because of… a feature you don’t use? > DRM add-on literally no one asked for …except for the tiny fraction of FF users that are also Netflix subscribers

And use what instead? Out of all the mainstream options, Firefox is the best when it comes to privacy and giving users the power.

You have options to decline sending any potentially personal data back, and then telemetry would include only basic, anonymised usage info to help them improve Firefox. Pocket is now part of Mozilla and you can still just remove the button from the toolbar and ignore it completely. I assume that video chat thing was only ever proof-of-concept, at least I don't see it anywhere anymore. As for EME, well, most people want their Netflix/Hulu fix. If Mozilla declined to support EME then they'll quickly become obsolete.

Why can't people get rich while making a difference? These same people could be working for other companies who are not fighting for our privacy and an open web.

I agree that what is considered high paying salary is completely insane these days with wealth inequality and the idea that such sum of money if more than an individual will ever have use for. But that is a different topic.

A non-profit status doesn't always mean charity. In Mozilla case they are a Foundation, another entity eligible for non-profit status. They have different goals than a charity.

One of the things they do to earn this status is grants. And they have lots of grants.

Now what is funny is you exclude the $0 the five Directors made. Also Mitchell Baker doesn't get their entire pay from salary. That why it is in the second column. Last salary report on her was $400k. Which is weird cause that was in 2014 the same as this public disclosure form. Not sure why you purposely left out the fact their salary isn't actually 1 millions. But total compensation.

So their 'disingenuous' nature isn't so black and white as a headline 'non-profit chair has a 1 million dollar salary'.

They just switched from Yahoo as the default. So it's not like there's only one company paying the bills (and pulling the strings).

> It seems wiser to judge the ethos of a company based on their actions and decisions instead of their corporate tax status.

I do. I judge them based off the tools they build and the fine line they walk between making boatloads of money and actually providing services for people who care about privacy. Sometimes they get this wrong, but they try really hard.

And, really, the alternative is Google. That's not to say Mozilla shouldn't strive to be the best that they can, but if they were to disappear, we'd be using a closed-source browser built by the biggest ad company in the world who has demonstrated over and over that your privacy is antithetical to their business.

While it's true that Mozilla pays its people well (necessary, to compete for high end tech talent) and we (I work for Mozilla) are in no way free from commercial concerns, I think you're missing a big piece of why being a nonprofit is a distinguishing factor: Mozilla doesn't have the insane pressure for growth that most startups and all publicly traded companies have to reckon with. Any company that has gone public, wants to go public, or wants to get acquired has a never ending pressure for user and/or revenue growth at all costs. Mozilla doesn't have that pressure for growth. Of course we need to maintain enough market share to stay relevant, and we'd love to have more and more and more users, but ultimately as long as we can make enough money to pay for our operations then we're golden. This gives us a lot more freedom of choice when making decisions about what and how to make money.