Eliciting emotion
gabrielweinberg.com
gabrielweinberg.com
Keep up the good work Gabriel. There are many who appreciate the product.
That said, I looked through those comments that Gabriel linked to and I find the comment of:
> which collectively are the most vitriolic I've seen under a single story (about us)
... to be the wrong way to look at that thread.
If I were working on DDG, I'd be thrilled with all that great criticism. Some of it could have been said more gently. Some of it ignores that DDG has a different mission than Google. Overall, though, it's a raw look into what some people are thinking -- even if it's a bit rough and tumble.
Gabriel, keep up the great work. Take that criticism and use it for what it's worth and forget about what's left.
Sometimes, though, being in an echo chamber isn't what is best for your ideas or your company. It's good to step away from the DDG Fanbois and see what the contrarians are thinking.
What are the other good places where you get feedback from?
Exactly. When you show an idea to someone you should ask them (which is what I do) "tell me all the things you don't like about it - pick it apart". Nothing is worse then sharing an idea with someone (like your mom or a relative) and have them tell you what a great idea it is w/o any negative feedback.
As an aside I hate when in a restaurant they ask you "how is your meal". Of course people who are really upset will speak up. But what about the people in the middle or are just slightly satisfied. They will normally just say "it was good" or something like that.
a) already know what you are going to say (if they've done enough volume the complaints generally are the same)
b) if "a" isn't true then does it matter if you have a thousand happy diners and 6 don't like the napkins from a profit perspective
c) they don't want to put a negative thought in your mind by asking you (negative priming?)
d) they feel they cover this with surveys that they do
e) they don't want to hear a complaint and then have to comp you (profit)
f) none of the preceding they just don't do it because they are lame and/or busy.
Anytime I've been asked this type of question though it's been over the phone by a bank employee who hits me with "is there anything we can do..." and I don't feel like giving any help to an automaton basically. In general I don't do any phone surveys. If someone with a clue called me and had a real conversation I would. I hate surveys.
Of course if the restaurant is really on the ball they can see whether there is a problem I guess also by watching the diners.
Interesting if anyone in food service could chime in on this issue.
http://www.reddit.com/comments/tzfhy/the_hippest_mens_socks_...
I think there is a great takeaway here that negative feedback is often useful, but you should not blindly try to please everyone. For us, comments like that will certainly help refine our pricing and marketing strategies. Trying to convert that person into a customer, however, would be a waste of energy and focus.
Your commitment to feedback is what has locked in DDG as my search engine. I toyed with it for while and noticed something - made a comment - and got a response that very day that seemed very personal, accepting, and considered.
That response and the ones from the 5 or so other suggestions I have made to DDG has only increased my interest in using and contributing to "my" search engine.
I use other search engines on occasion but only when "my" search engine doesn't have what I seek - which is to say rarely.
Keep up the personal touches and voice. It works. And thanks (said with some emotion).
Bang on the head. Gabriel just described most top comments on HN threads. :)
Don't dismiss comments because they are not written like essays and they are negative.
And here are my points:
- DuckDuckGo is stupid name for search engine.
- DuckDuckGo has the worst interface that any search engine in the market.
- DuckDuckGo does not handle very well integration from different sources. For example, if for some reason your company does not have the exactly same twitter handle as a company name - DDG might just merge some other twitter handle with your search (the fact that company website links to 'twitter' handle for that company is kinda ignored - hey names are important). Amazingly Google search does it right....
- And of course, DuckDuckGo search sucks - at least it needs to have something to differentiate.
- I really really want DDG to succeed.
- My English sucks.
And of course, DuckDuckGo search sucks.
Unless you describe how it sucks, this is just a personal opinion.
DuckDuckGo SERPs DO suck. If you've used the service much, I don't think this requires a more detailed description but since you're asking I'll try to be more specific:
* The top links frequently link to content unrelated to what I'm looking for (Jasmine tea rather than the Jasmine testing framework e.g.). How google does this I don't know but rarely do they get it wrong in the same way
* It frequently takes more time/clicks for me to find what I'm looking for searching on a generic DDG search than google. (of course bang searches mean I'm only sometimes using generic/plain search on DDG.)
* The results on google are frequently just better. This is to say even if I find something that sort of answers my question on the list on DDG, there will be a better answer, higher, on google.
Basically, if you are searching the name of a company or something unmistakably clear, ddg performs just as well as google, but when you get into longer queries on more obscure subjects, the gap in performance between ddg & ggl widens really fast.
Is it clear what's meant by DDG results sucking? I don't think that's the nicest way to put it but as a long time DDG user I won't dispute the assertion.
I also feel like people who have criticisms often feel like they have a right to be heard. Not always. Some people criticize to feel important under the guise of trying to be helpful. Those people are the ones I ignore at all costs.
In our digital isolation, it's natural. We want to scream "They are wrong and I am right! Look at me!" When we see someone else getting attention, we want to divert the stream of eyeballs and admiration to ourselves.
It's exactly "Why wasn't I consulted?" syndrome (http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html). People see words in front of them, and think they are being consulted and prompted to respond. Here's a hint: you don't have to say anything.
People feel ignored when they see an opinion they don't believe getting attention. Nobody likes being ignored. To counteract the feeling of being ignored, let's just be doubly blunt and vitriolic so you give me more attention instead of the existing roving opinion. Fuck your logo and your little dog too! (and your engineering, where you live, and your obtuse hairstyle!) My opinions are clearly superior. I win.
The commenter suddenly assumes the role of CEO and decides to pass judgment on a third party. What the heck? It's simultaneously insane and natural (it must be natural -- see every youtube comment ever).
Humanity needs a firmware upgrade. Until then, act less negatively, don't inject vapid personal opinions ("This is cool!!!" "this is so dumb"), and help people who may not understand get up to speed.
A lot of us here really want ddg to succeed. I honestly want an alternative to google, their privacy views are antithetic to mine. But I don't use it because it's just not up to it.
We want to help, we want to say why we're not switching. And tferris' post sums it up perfectly. I doubt he's saying it out of spite or a want to jump in as a nay sayer. He's saying it out of frustration that ddg seems to be adrift in a calm sea.
Where DDG really scores over Google is that it is cruft-free. It's not inviting me to look at maps, images, my G+ account, it's not got sidebars, and it doesn't break up the search to add in image/shopping results. My brain is working optimally on the task of scanning the results, I am <s>fitter</s>, happier and more productive. That's DDG's killer feature for me. It's not even an original feature, Google used to have it but they got rid. In short, DDG isn't a Google killer, but it's a great companion.
"Update2: I feel I've been a bit misinterpreted. I love
feedback of all kinds, including negative. And I am
listening to and appreciate it all. What I was trying to
get at is for other people (who have less thick skins),
it can really get them down. But it shouldn't since if
they're eliciting emotion that's great."
As always, thanks for taking the time to describe and share your insights!
tferris took time, energy and effort to elaborate on some of the things that caused him to view ddg as an inferior product. I don't think that's "vitriol", I think it's constructive criticism. When I think of vitriol, I think of people being mean for meanness's sake (which sadly does happen on HN sometimes).
I have much broader concerns about DDG, but if Gabriel thought what tferris wrote is vitriolic, there's virtually no chance he'd appreciate my point of view.
My most serious concern is that I can't quite bring myself to believe that a VC-backed company, founded by the creator of a classmates.com style company actually cares about privacy in any meaningful way. My perception of your values erodes any potential trust; it feels like a gimmick to get innovators and early adopters to use it. This also destroys your most obvious value proposition.
My weaker concerns are centered more around design (a lot of awkward and modestly confusing pieces that others have identified), and results that were never noticeably better than Google for me, but were sometimes noticeably worse.
I really hope you take my stated concerns in the right spirit. I know it's not nice to have some stranger you've never met say he doesn't trust you because of his perception of your past work, and his concerns about likely business models. That's why I waited until after the holiday to respond, so at least there wouldn't be tons of people reading the thread when I said it.
All the best.
But that's the thing with criticism done over the Internet: readers will tend to lend the worse intentions to the poster, an effect that is multiplied when the reader is also the target. Had I written this criticism in an email to you instead of a HN thread, I would have sugar-coated it in order to be listened. There is no better way to have your opinion ignored than to make it sound as an attack on your audience's identity.
Still: do consider a rebranding of your product. The best niche to start from if your are a search engine is probably the niche of top hackers, rather than middle-aged women. Mainstream markets are conquered by starting with the knowledgeable power users for the kind of product you're building (PG has said that quite a few times I believe). If your name & graphic identity are disliked by a significant proportions of people on HN, it's a sign something is wrong.
Thanks for listening.
I suspect DDG has enough "top hackers" for whom the aesthetics are a secondary issue using it already that making inroads with a more mainstream audience like middle-aged women has much more business value.
Having said that, it would be nice to have named it something that can be used as a verb. Note to self, something to consider when naming my next projects.
Considering a rebranding is fine, agreed... but jumping to rebranding based on what a single niche (i.e., "top hackers") thinks is not.
To me, it sounds like the problem is NOT the branding; a lot of sites started out with ugly UIs (e.g., Amazon, Google, Facebook), and I happen to think the little duck is kinda charming. Unless you're 1-800-GOT-JUNK, it's highly unlikely that your name or logo will make or break your success.
It sounds like part of the problem is that GW hasn't targeted the right niche yet for DDG.
I don't think top hackers are the right people to target.
To say top hackers are the "knowledgeable power users" of search engines is to say top hackers are the KPUs of all web-based services: just because you can program it doesn't mean you're the market for it. Search power users could be SEO and PPC gurus, researchers, even admin assistants --- people who spend boatloads of time every day using search engines and getting frustrated, not thinking about how they're built or algorithms.
The problem is: I can't see you. Without visual cues, poor writing sounds violent. Quadruply so when only using bulleted lists. (Hint: email someone and list their faults in a bulleted list. Then have them do the same to you.) Would you say to Gabriel's face, "You have a crappy logo. And your domain name is too long. Plus, I could sleaze a four letter domain name out from under somebody else. Why can't you? You must be pretty incompetent. Your product is awkward and you don't even live in san francisco. Why won't you just go away?"
That's what the comments sounded like to me.
You have no right to be heard. Constructive criticism is criticism without temper and a slight acknowledgement you appreciate being listened to at all: "Hey Gabe, I was thinking about duckduckgo and had some feedback about things that feel off to me. Maybe you'll find my opinions useful. I think the duck logo is kinda strange. It looks too duck-rapey to me. Your center aligned results are a little quirky (everybody else is 'more left'), but I like the inline favicons. I used to think the auto-wikipedia results were distracting, but google started polluting its results with much worse things now, so you were ahead of the curve there. The name always trips me up too -- maybe spinning off an alternatively-branded domain name could make it better? At least your name isn't as tragic as blekko. Thanks for listening."