[ulber]

I found your pitch really interesting, I'd love to try it. I, however, refuse to install an extension and change my default search engine just to be allowed to type in a search query.

I'm sure you have some "growth hacking" reason for this that is compelling to you. Maybe you hope that the slight annoyance of switching back will outweigh the inevitable annoyances with a new product like this.

It does come off as user hostile though - you're trying to badger me to switch rather than selling me on the merits of you.com.

[primitivesuave]

I strongly second this. I immediately gave up on trying it out once I realized I had to download something. Your KPIs should be around how sticky your search features are, it seems like it is currently based on download counts.

[cududa]

If they published the extension source that might be more reasonable. I assume the extension is so a lot of heavy lifting on hitting individual apps/ API's happens locally to alleviate costs or rate limiting

[richardsocher]

Working on it right now :) Extension changes your navbar setting. It's 33kB. All the heavy lifting happens on our servers so as to not slow browsers down for users.

[mh-]

FYI, 17kB of that is a PNG icon that will never be rendered above 128x128.

edit: actually, you have properly sized favicons additionally. Not sure what the 17kB one is for.

[rameshvel]

If its just 33 kb, whatever it does can be done in the webpage itself.

To try the search engine, I have to install an extension or make it as a default search engine. Not cool at all.

[cududa]

sorry you got downvoted so much! But would be great to know the purpose of the extension, and why the service can't work without it

[richardsocher]

Hey.

Thanks. We got lots of love in other places like Twitter, LinkedIn, ProductHunt, Facebook and others. So that made the launch an overall big success :)

The only purpose of the extension is to make it convenient and easy to change your default on Chrome. Convenience usually wins on the internet.

The extension has permissions to write to one field. No read access. Chrome flags and lets you verify permissions when you install an extension.

Sadly, most users on the internet would not go into their settings to make a change.

Of course, here on HN there are a lot of experts who care about their privacy and can make that change manually.

We've listened and it's not required anymore to try it out. Being fully open is ultimately more aligned with our values of trust, facts and kindness.

[richardsocher]

Hey. Yea. We struggle with the extension -> navbar search requirement also.

We have found that if you're not the default engine that is easily accessible from the Navbar, you will not be able to break the Google monopoly.

We also found that many people will just do a quick search for "asd" or "weather" and then leave because those searches aren't really differentiated (and just can't really be).

Our extension is 33kB and has no other features. It's easy to see the source so you can see that it does nothing interesting or sketchy. It changes the setting. You can change that setting manually and get the same effect and usage after. But most users don't know how to change a setting and you got some large 2tr$ monopoly that doesn't want you to change...

[16bytes]

I strongly second not gating the service. Honestly, I laughed and closed the tab when I saw that I had to install an extension.

Furthermore, literally drawing a search-box and then having it not actually perform a search is a dark-pattern. If you have to trick people into doing an action, it's probably not the right thing to do.

If you have differentiating features, show people them! Optimize your flow on how you're different. If there aren't niches (e.g. some people use Bing for differentiated image search or travel) that people will come to you instead of going to Google for the same purpose, you won't see adoption. Google has such an advantage not because of their market position, but because of the huge amount of person-years they've spent developing their product.

If you're privacy first, that's great, but you are competing with DDG not Google. Privacy doesn't keep users coming back. Build a better product, people will come.

And that starts with letting your users search how they want to search, not how you want them to.

[richardsocher]

Thanks for your feedback. Makes sense. We dropped the requirement and now can more easily share some differentiated searches like: https://you.com/search?q=%23send%20sms%20in%20twilio&safe_se... or https://you.com/search?q=%23read%20csv%20file%20into%20panda... or https://you.com/search?q=best+headphones

We definitely have to work on our onboarding and showcasing the features better. We're still a super small team and this is just our MVP at launch.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Agree with all the other commenters. I'm not necessarily against eventually downloading the plugin or changing my navbar setting, but, to be blunt, there is no way in hell I'm doing that before I get to try it out. I'm not going to trust you until you've given some evidence that you're worth trusting. Especially since your tagline is "built for devs", in my experience devs are the least likely to put up with unnecessary hoops and user hostile gates in order to try out a product.

[fractalf]

DuckDuckGo seens to have been able to do this just fine, even with the weirdest name for a company ever. Their growing by word of mouth from geeks like us. I set DDG as default on all of my family/friends browsers. Focus on making a good search and users will come

[hartem_]

Gabriel (the founder of DDG) wrote a fabulous book (called Traction) on growth.

Tl;dr is that it was much more than just word of mouth. They have been very deliberate and methodical about growth from the very beginning and employed many different growth tactics throughout the lifetime of the company.

Edit: typos

[reaperducer]

Their growing by word of mouth from geeks like us

Well, to be complete, DDG also advertises on radio, on streaming, on billboards, and in newspapers. I think TV is the only place I haven't seen a DDG ad.

[corobo]

It does now. Were they busting out the billboards when they first launched?

[freediver]

No, but when they first launched they needed 5,000 users to grow 10%, now they need 5M(?) to grow the same? So investing in other means is probably necessary.

[Jim_Heckler]

Actually I saw a ddg ad on TV. I started rolling my eyes thinking it was a Google ad lying about privacy but was pleasantly surprised by the duck logo.

[DennisP]

Having the extension and letting people try it on the web seems like a more reasonable choice. People need to try it out.

That said...there is a search textbox at the top of the page and it worked for me in Firefox and Chrome. Did people just miss it? If so, it should probably be in the middle with the big blue button.

[drusepth]

For me, the textbox at the top of the page was disabled and said "Install the extension to search" in Chrome.

Edit: I refreshed and it wasn't disabled, but when I searched I got a "install the extension to view your results" page.

[richardsocher]

it takes 5 seconds to install and uninstall an extension. we will open source it also so people can see how simple and benign it is. It feels like 5s to help move the internet away from a privacy invading monopoly isn't too bad?

If you like privacy and agency of your information diet, or saving lots of time while coding, or Reddit results always accessible to browse for most queries, etc.

Then the 5s install will be worth it for you :)

PS: You can try in incognito mode (though some apps wont work due to hardcore privacy and no location sharing, etc.)

[corobo]

You've got this super expensive domain for a new project, it's normal for tech people to be wary.

Please could you quit thinking we're idiots with that 33kb bit you're doing? We get it, it's fine and safe and beautiful. Right now. We live in 4 dimensions though bud. We don't just care what it does now, we care what it'll be doing next year too!

From my point of view this extension doesn't need to be installed. Therefore I assume it will almost certainly update and fuck me over one day, you will need to monetise eventually and this feels like it's being defended super heavily for no reason

What's the plan here? It's only 5s now sure, how much time is it going to cost when the plot reveals itself?

Your onboarding is too intense mate. HN has fallen out of your funnel because of this extension. It's too weird of a scenario to the point I actually trust you less having read your responses! Where there's smoke there's fire and this extension is giving off all sorts of funky smells

Also someone needs to mention it - I don't want to change my search engine right now. Just be a search engine, quit being so needy! It took like 5 years for me to switch from Google to DDG lmao, you don't get first dibs on my search data like this. Ease into it

E: also I'm using Firefox anyway haha

[bryans]

That is incredibly dismissive of legitimate feedback, and you should honestly be ashamed of your response. I personally find your attitude in these comments to be absolutely reprehensible, and will never use this site -- or anything you're involved with.

You're apparently not even aware that every browser has the ability to add a keyword to the search engines, so that users could type "you: search phrase" and it goes to your site. Being oblivious to this is a huge red flag, and betrays that you really haven't thought this through.

[Aeolun]

I think you are kind of missing the point. Regardless of the reasons, people do not want to install an extension from an unknown provider to test out a search engine (at least on HN), you’ll even get a very hostile response.

If you aim to make your search engine a success, regardless of your reasons for that. You’ll have to deal with that problem. Trying to convince people with some idealistic talk does not seem to be working from what I can see in this thread (and anyway, is not scalable).

Alternatively, you can try launching somewhere else, but I imagine the reception on Reddit will be just as hostile.

[jay3ss]

It did not go well on Reddit either

https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/qqc210/to_us...

[DennisP]

I already have privacy from Startpage and DuckDuckGo. What I don't have is personal knowledge of whether your search engine is any damn good. Until I find out, I'm not likely to install your extension.

(And fwiw, I use Startpage every day without needing an extension for it.)

[0des]

Please don't be like that. We don't want to install an extension. If your focus is privacy, please understand where we come from on this.

[richardsocher]

I understand it better now that the worry is also about the future of the extension. The requirement is gone. Thanks for your feedback :)

[ipaddr]

Forcing users to install some random extension to use a privacy search engine is probably the worst value prop you can offer. What is the subset of privacy seeking users are part of the group of users willing to install random extensions exist?

[didntknowya]

I get how useful it is for growth but a defensive answer like this does more PR harm than good. also misses the question.

i have tried your search engine and it is great. i can tell a lot of work has gone into it, but i had to think twice about giving it a second go after being put off by your first impression.

[richardsocher]

Thanks for trying. You are right. It will take some time to earn that trust. We dropped the requirement.

[Dextro]

It takes less than 5 seconds to upload personal data to a server from a compromised extension.

Not saying you're doing this but it was the first threat scenario that came to mind and it's not even something particularly uncommon in the browser extension world.

[pavas]

I'm going to go ahead and say it then, this is suspicious as fuck.

It would have been slightly less suspicious if the response to "this is a security concern" would have been "oops yeah we see that now, let's disable that requirement until we gain some trust first".

I do not trust a company that brands itself as privacy-oriented when they insist on peddling a security vulnerability to their users "because Google is evil so trust us". Google may be selling my data but at least they have a lot to lose so they are likely to abide by legal guardrails.

Especially since there is no value-add to the extension. It's whole purpose is to make it harder for less tech-savvy users to stop using the service.

[ALittleLight]

Maybe a compromise would be keeping the button to install the extension but add a link along the lines of "Don't want an extension?" that explains how you can use it without installing the extension and your reasons for the extension.

[richardsocher]

Thanks. THat's helpful feedback. We just added that below the extension button:

Don't like extensions? Click here to make it your default manually instead.

[fourseventy]

You ever hear the saying "The customer is always right?". Seems like you are insisting on learning that lesson the hard way.

[corobo]

> We also found that many people will just do a quick search for "asd" or "weather" and then leave

How do you know this? Privacy and that

[richardsocher]

They told us when we interview them or wrote it publicly.

You can see our privacy vs convenience thoughts here: https://youdotcom.notion.site/Privacy-and-Data-Protection-at...

[corobo]

I can see that private mode isn't enabled by default. What's the point haha, you've already set a tracking cookie by the time I've found the option to enable it

"Private" mode enabled:

Cookie: uuid_guest=b570ee9c-5189-40f2-94a9-50cfffa0e2f8; safesearch_guest=Moderate; userTestGroup_guest=; incognito_guest=true; nonce=NoaNI8rVUBONrnOXUNEB-fizw-_0-iEbi2krm2eeocY.xxsxwZDAgkFegAN5zPWzG86dpEaF3B6CIpFlKwoYmog; state=eyJyZXR1cm5UbyI6Ii8ifQ.tV7VWNOnfMqRQXzutXfPGxwPZkBGXIv8WQniWL1j3-Q; code_verifier=m0HCh37r3VK0aalbTEYPNLarPwf7kbgzToo8syi4-c4.51EzKX2zs9S6OOuzpAeb74rcnCxMUXJs5KS0IPprtnA

[ivanalejandro0]

> We also found that many people will just do a quick search for "asd" or "weather" and then leave because those searches aren't really differentiated (and just can't really be).

This is an interesting point, I've seen other apps tackling this issue providing different pre-defined use cases that you can just click to use them. For example, online apps where you can upload a photo and get a somehow tweaked version of it (like cartooning your face or something like that), so users that want to give it a quick try can click on pre-uploaded pictures from a list and see results.

For this case maybe providing a good handful of search use cases where users wanting to give it a quick try could just click and see results could work to keep them away of dumb queries.

Good luck!

[richardsocher]

Thanks. Great idea.

We tried sth similar a while back and it confused some people who thought that the entire site could only be used for the 3 examples we provided. Other users just clicked out of it. Maybe we can find a way to bring that back without interrupting any flow :)

[primitivesuave]

I appreciate the reply and opportunity to open dialog. I think the flaw in that reasoning is that you're not talking specifically about people for whom search is a problem. Someone searching for the weather forecast, or something that strongly references a Wikipedia article, is already getting a good search experience. People like me, on the other hand, are power users of Google but consistently struggle to quickly find information.

I downloaded the extension so I could reciprocate with useful feedback. First let me say I appreciate the minimal design, although it would be nice if my re-ordering and configuration of the interface remained the same between searches (if I hit the arrows to push Stack Overflow results to the top, every subsequent search pushes it down to a random position). I ran some of my Google searches from earlier today - one was "typescript define class as type", since I didn't really know exactly how to describe the TS syntax I wanted. The second Google result was to a Stack Overflow answer that effectively resolved my query - this answer isn't in the SO results when I searched on You, and the overall search experience for that one isn't great. Obviously that is an edge case with imprecise wording, but it's the best example I could come up with for why it's hard to ditch Google (even though many of us want to).

I ran some other queries where You was actually a much better experience - I was searching for a specific JS library (Nunjucks) and entering queries like "nunjucks define a filter" - the Google results start with a link to the documentation, followed by endless low-quality blog posts. On You, I could easily scroll through and see that people are talking on Reddit about the library - right now I effectively do the same thing on Google by adding "site:news.ycombinator.com" before a query.

Again, appreciate the reply and look forward to following your progress. I am sure that even the naysayers here can agree that it would be nice to see an end to search monopolization :)

Edit: FYI, to add to the argument against the Chrome extension, the moment I navigated to google.com I got a prompt with "yes" as the default answer for switching back to Google as the default search. So I really don't think fighting the search monopoly in this way is going to be easy - to echo another commenter, DuckDuckGo has managed to build a successful business off great search results alone.

[amelius]

Best growth hack: add a link to Google below your first results page. That way, more people will use your engine as their first choice, because they can easily fall back on their previously preferred search engine.

[richardsocher]

Great idea! We have it below the 2nd app on every page right now :)

[hn_throwaway_99]

I can't emphasize the parent's comment enough. Being able to look through a set of results and then quickly get Google results if I don't find what I'm looking for are key to getting me to try any other search engine (For historical reference, this is how Excel killed Lotus 123 a few decades ago - by making it super easy to do Lotus exports from Excel so that people who tried Excel didn't feel like they were "trapped" into being outside of the Lotus 123 ecosystem at the time).

I saw the Google link you mentioned, but (at least on mobile) it didn't stand out. I would at least try doing a test where you put something super prominent up at the top of results: "Didn't find what you're looking for? Try your search on Google instead."

[pedalpete]

I agree with your sentiment about being the default engine to break people free of google, but do you have evidence that the browser extension is the way to get people to do that?

On the other side, you have a search bar on the page, so I'm not exactly sure what people are complaining about.

[dwohnitmok]

If you open it up in Chrome, then first off the main search bar in the middle of the screen turns into a button to install the extension.

There remains a search bar in the upper left hand corner of the screen, but if you actually search, no search results are given. Instead the result page is replaced by a link to install the Chrome extension. So effectively, as far as I can tell, on a normal Chrome browsing session there is no way to actually use the search functionality without installing the extension.

This does not seem to happen on other browsers or in incognito mode.

[richardsocher]

And now it also doesn't happen in Chrome anymore. We dropped the requirement there too.

[dwohnitmok]

I'm glad to hear it! Time to take it for another spin.

[richardsocher]

It is a 5 second install or uninstall. Tbh, the browser extension is the best method for now but it's clearly not where we want to stay. Even after you install it and make a search from the navbar, Google will encourage you to change it back to Google and make the default button change the setting back.

We hope to eventually be an option in the default search engines list.

Eventually, maybe antitrust will encourage browsers to provide a randomly ordered list of search engines to choose from.

[pedalpete]

I think the mob has spoken Richard. You can't force people to install the extension, and I think devs are both more likely to work with browser extensions, and less likely to install them.

You've clearly put a lot of great work into the tech. I suggest you sit down with a marketing person to help you figure out how to get people using it. NOT HOW TO GET IT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE. Those are two different things. If the best thing your marketing person can come up with is to have a browser extension, get a better marketing person.

Start small and expand. Perhaps your browser extension is your start small. If so, then it just isn't for me, and that's ok. Maybe you've got a plan of how you grow.

As an example, look at DDG. They started small, and grew, and grew, and grew. They didn't need an extension to do it.

Of course you want everyone to use it, and you want everyone to use it today. But that's not the choice.

I sincerely hope you find your 1,000 true fans, and that those fans can lead you to 1,000,000,000x more.

[ohyeshedid]

> It is a 5 second install or uninstall.

I could smoke your os in less time. Time isn't the issue here.

> Tbh, the browser extension is the best method for now

Most of the people here, so far, are directly telling you it's not.

[bloopernova]

Time of install is not the issue. Provide a simple, fast web interface, then people will use it.

[Matthias1]

In my opinion, the fact that all your extension does is change the setting is worse, not better. It's purely a user-hostile choice.

[epinephrinios]

Why? Explain.

[richardsocher]

yea.. why?

the truth is that most users have no other easily accessible way for them to switch away from a monopoly that sells them, their data and privacy to the highest bidder and requires all companies to pay a tax to exist in the online economy...

if you are an expert, you can change your settings manually and hence not require the extension.

[Matthias1]

Sorry, I went to make a search without the extension installed (because I did try) and I got hit with a full screen error message saying I needed to install the extension.

My mistake was obviously typing in the search bar at the top of the screen. I should have edited the address in the address bar manually. If you don’t have the extension installed, the search bar serves only to take you to an ad to install it.

A UI element that appear to be a search box but is actually an ad for your extension, I would characterize as user hostile design.

Google’s practices, if you don’t agree with them, doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want because you’re the little guy. Offering an extension is fine. But disabling searching if the extension isn’t installed is not helpful.

[DennisP]

Yeah when I tried a search and got that "download our extension" message, my immediate gut reaction was that it was trying to hack me. If I hadn't started from HN, I'd have been convinced of it, closed the browser immediately, and never gone back.

[ohyeshedid]

Respectfully: because nobody knows who the fuck you are, and your reasoning doesn't make sense.

You want to offer a privacy focused search service, but the users need to install an extension because otherwise <some gibberish about google evil here> instead of just having a regular web frontend for the masses to try. Then it's too hard for lusers to switch; you created this problem for yourself.

The more you respond, the more it looks like this is some poorly thought out lead capture, or you're so focused on the service you don't understand the broader security concerns.

[dang]

You broke the site guidelines with this comment. Putting "respectfully" in front of something disrespectful does not make it ok.

It's particularly important not to pile on someone when they're presenting their own work—the Show HN guidelines have additional rules about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html.

Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit.

[richardsocher]

I get it. There are tons of sketchy extensions. We'll open source our extension so you can see the entire 33kB that's needed to make one settings change. Also, you can try it out in incognito mode or change those settings manually and hence give it a try :)

But most people need the simplicity and convenience of a few clicks in order to give it a proper try.

[zhte415]

I'm late to the comments, did something change?

There does seem to be a regular web front end, you.com. The link in the HN post was to a search for you.com on you.com. There's also a search bar at the top of that 'results' page.

[foerbert]

Edit: I now believe the website was, in fact, changed.

Original comment below, most individual bits still relevant aside from the overall conclusion that the pieces added up to accidental confusion. Apparently concluding HN folk were bad at understanding even poorly displayed tech was not wise. Who knew? I probably should have realized that was not a good bet.

At this point I consider the apparent lack of understanding from the OP willful ignorance at best. All this seems like kind of a waste now. Oh well.

---

Unless the website was recently changed (final edit: yeah... unless...), I think the problem here is a combination of the link that was submitted and uh... excessively effective design, if I want to put it nicely. You're doing too good a job of directing attention to the extension, and people are missing the actual means of using your website.

Right now the link is https://you.com/search?q=you.com&fromSearchBar=true. That page currently has a little search bar in the top UI bar which is prefilled with a search term, and the contrast that identifies it as a text input is pretty minimal. Dark Reader further hides that fact with some elements like the 'x' in the input not getting adjusted to be more visible. These aspects make it extremely easy to overlook as a text input. My first instinct is to ignore it as part of the wasted space in the top bar, and it does a poor job of standing out as anything else.

Furthermore the banner for the extension is pretty freaking huge and draws all the attention. The copy on it also pretty strongly implies you need it to use the website.

The multiple comments from other HN folk that have clearly been mislead about the importance of the extension further feeds that perception. I'm sure some people haven't even actually checked for themselves - I know I almost didn't. It also wasn't immediately obvious to me what was going on once I did visit the submitted page, and I nearly fell into the same trap.

Meanwhile https://you.com/ offers a much more familiar design that does not contain so many opportunities for confusion. I think you may have been better off submitting that.

While I'm at it, I have few other thoughts. I continually find myself expecting many of the non-ads to be ads. I keep ignoring them or even getting annoyed with them, until I remind myself I should look again. This happens on both the submitted page with the various blurbs/links down at the bottom and the search results page. My very first response to attempting a search was essentially a dismissive and annoyed eyeroll as I thought you'd tried to load up an entire screen full of ads.

I'm not entirely sure what the whole problem is. I'd guess it's partly being conditioned by other search providers about the very top 'results' and partly the overall style. Maybe grids of little boxes with so-perfectly-rounded corners and strong titles just seem like ads to me. On the submitted page, I'm sure having a bunch of company names there in the Media section doesn't help.

Again, this is just my immediate impression of the UI elements. I don't believe them to actually be ads, but I'm constantly having to fight my instincts to treat them otherwise.

[DangitBobby]

Regarding your feedback on the ads, I actually really like that feeling of expecting ads and finding something useful to be there instead.

[detaro]

Which browser are you using? Firefox appears to be not getting the agressive prompt to install the Chrome extension, they were clever enough to check for that.

[browningstreet]

That other VC backed search engine also wanted an extension for beta.

Nope.

[CamperBob2]

Hey. Yea. We struggle with the extension -> navbar search requirement also.

Struggle some more.

[cybernautique]

I have a bookmarks folder for small search engines I like. I don't think there's a need for it to be a default.

[3np]

searx (self-hosted open source) can be set as defult in Chrome just fine without any extensions.

If you need some hints from them: https://github.com/searx/searx/issues/1666

[jamestanderson]

I might install an extension. I have the DuckDuckGo Privacy extension for instance, and use DDG as my primary search engine. But I use Firefox, and it doesn't seem like this company provides a Firefox addon.

It's an interesting choice to launch a search engine, give reasons for using it instead of Google, but also play into the Google quasi-monopoly by not providing a Firefox addon. Hopefully it's coming soon.

[richardsocher]

Yea, we'll definitely support more platforms, including mobile soon. It's on the roadmap :)

[richardsocher]

PS: You can easily change your settings in Firefox manually also: https://youdotcom.notion.site/Make-You-com-your-default-sear...

[richardsocher]

Yea... Requiring the extension for navbar searches was a tough choice.

You actually can try it out in incognito mode and any other browser. But we found that without the convenience of a navbar search, most people won't give it a proper try either way.

I hope we can drop this requirement even in Chrome when we become one of the default options. We will implement an a/b test and see if we can get rid of the requirement even earlier.

If you set your search engine default to https://you.com manually in Chrome with "https://you.com/search?q=%s" you will not need the extension... but for most people convenience wins and well...

It's tough to go up against a monopoly that controls the browser too?

You can find more details for every browser setup here: https://youdotcom.notion.site/Make-You-com-your-default-sear...

[smoldesu]

Is there a way for me to use it without omnibar integration? I'd really prefer to leave my search engine as-is...

[nqzero]

https://you.com/search?q=stuff

[Arnavion]

Type the URL manually? Your browser might even auto-URL-encode the search terms for you so you don't have to bother doing it yourself.

[DrammBA]

I tried, all roads lead me to the message prompting me to install the extension.

[djfdat]

add &fromSearchBar=false to the end of the search, so the search string looks like this:

https://you.com/search?q=%s&fromSearchBar=false

[richardsocher]

that's it. very easy if you're technical. of course, we don't want to block our users. we are just trying to make it convenient and easy to have navbar searches - we found that if you're not in the navbar yngmi..

[richardsocher]

yes, you can just go into incognito mode. we care a lot about privacy so we didn't want to mess with that. it should just work when you're in incognito mode. if you then also go into private mode - you'll have the MOST privacy preserving search experience that we know of, certainly even better than DDG:

Here's our blog post about how we think about the privacy-convenience tradeoff:

https://youdotcom.notion.site/Privacy-and-Data-Protection-at...

[smoldesu]

That's indeed unfortunate, I hope you reconsider.

[richardsocher]

yea. we'll revisit it from time to time. most people who REALLY dont want to install our extension probably won't do it after 2 searches either?

and sadly, the 2tr$ monopoly that is Google made this the only way for us to provide the convenience of a navbar search right now?

hopefully we can be a default option at some point or we'll have to build our own browser :)

[drusepth]

I'd wager most people wouldn't want to install your extension before 2 searches, to see if it's even worth using.

A handful of searches seems entirely reasonable to test out a service before downloading an extension that only exists to change your default settings to use it.

I'd definitely be more likely to download an extension for something I'm already using than I am to download an extension for something I've never even seen in use.

[bugfix]

Honestly, I won't install your extension because I don't know who you are. Having it as an option would be great. People here have seen _many_ stories about extensions being silently updated with malware.

I really hope you reconsider. So far I've got great results for the queries I ran in Incognito mode, but I will not install an extension just so I can change my search engine.

[smoldesu]

I don't know if I want to use your search engine, it is literally impossible for me to set it as my homepage and use it casually. I really wish I could give it a proper chance, but your tacit denial of what is obviously bad design has come back to bite you in the butt. You're making the exact same mistakes the Brave browser did, if you don't back down on a feature that the majority of users are telling you to change, you'll have a hard time proselytizing in the future.

[richardsocher]

> I'd really prefer to leave my search engine as-is

That's a tough start for trying out a new search engine :)

But yes, you can go into incognito mode or manually set your navbar, or try a different browser.

[smoldesu]

Who exactly are you replying to?

[mdoms]

lol come on man

[muhammadusman]

I closed the tab when I clicked the search bar and it took me to the chrome web store ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[codegeek]

Yea it is weird. It claims privacy and then wants you to install an extension just to do a search ? No thanks.

[richardsocher]

An extension that only has write access to one field won't hurt privacy, but we dropped the extension requirement entirely :)

[somenewaccount1]

yeah, i installed the extension and it immediately mucked with my chrome profiles. thanks, but no thanks. glad i'm not the only one that felt this way.

[richardsocher]

that's a chrome setting. our extension has zero influence on your chrome profiles. we'll open source it soon so you can verify :)

[somenewaccount1]

Hrm, I think it's your team being ignorant of a bug.

Other extensions do not move around my profiles at all upon install and usage, only this app.

Wasn't just a security thing, but a huge inconvenience I don't want to happen again, so I just uninstalled. As you can read, I'm not the only user that feels this way/has this experience.

EDIT: I see now that ya'll changed it so the extension is no longer needed. Nice work. The app is pretty cool! It might already be a feature I haven't found yet - but I wish I could filter (or sort) by date. I look up a lot of stocks and articles that are > 3 months old (and sometimes even >1 mos old) are not of value.

[eikenberry]

I'm confused. If you go to you.com there is a search field right there just like every other search site. No extension is needed to try it. Why do you say you aren't allowed to search without the extension?

[icelancer]

Try it in Chrome. It blocks you after you try to search.

[eikenberry]

Thanks, that explains it as I use Firefox. That is surely a very odd decision to have it fail to with Chrome/Chromium without a plugin. I can see why it'd make people a bit suspicious as there is no reason for it other than to force the use of a plugin when it isn't necessary.

[dhosek]

I avoid Chrome whenever possible. It's a battery and privacy killer. Search field worked fine in Safari.

[icelancer]

Well, that's fine, but all the issues being reported here are due to Chrome users seeing the same thing - inability to use You.com unless you install an even larger potential privacy killer in the form of an extension. Otherwise it refuses to let you search using the on page bar.

[richardsocher]

Not all extensions are the same. I understand healthy skepticism since there are a ton of sketchy extensions out there. We will open source it in the next few hours since 80% of comments here are just about this extension :D It's 33kB and a dead simple change in one setting.

[bloopernova]

People don't want to install an extension!!

Once installed, an extension can be updated to do bad things.

Open source or otherwise, people don't want extensions. Stand on the merit of your website rather than trying to force people to install an extension.

[version_five]

Yeah, I've been playing with it all day, and this thread was is only place i heard about an extension- it sounds like its if you want to make it the default on chrome when you type search terms into the navigation bar

It's also pretty telling that all of these complaints are coming based on what appears to be a workaround for Google's attempt to lock you into their search when you use their browser.

[richardsocher]

That's right. It's tough competing with a 2tr$ monopoly :) Glad you like it. Join our slack group if you want to give more feedback :)

https://you-privatebeta.slack.com/join/shared_invite/zt-vtrf...

[Bilal_io]

I tried it on Chrome and it blocked me. But worked fine on Firefox.

[vonnik]

I've had access to You.com and I can attest that the initial experience is good. The search results are on point, the layout of those results is flexible and fresh.

In contrast, when I use an engine like Google, the ads often cover the first five slots, or the totality of my phone's screen...

[didntknowya]

yea i'm not going to install an extension. but actually you CAN try it with the little text box at the top.

took me a second look to find it. the spammy design doesn't actually make it obvious. kinda like yahoo's clutter vs google's minimalist homepage all over again.

[llaolleh]

Damn I thought me getting redirected to an extension was a bug. This is super lame.

[richardsocher]

Sorry it came off as hostile. Lots of bad extensions out there. Ours only has write access to one setting field. No read access. Chrome tells you. But we dropped it entirely so you can try it out any way you like :) Thanks for your feedback.