[andywhite37]

Am I the only one that struggles with the name "DuckDuckGo?" The unprofessional name makes it really hard for me to want to use the service, even if it has nice targeted results that may be more relevant or higher quality than Google's. Maybe "unprofessional" is not the right adjective, but I can't find the right one. I have the same problem with "Bing" - the logo is just such an eyesore, and the marketing is so obnoxious ("Decision Engine?").

[nsmartt]

You aren't. I've seen the debate a few times on HN, and I've had it with friends who also opt to use DuckDuckGo.

It's "a bad name." It isn't evocative, it can't be (easily) made into a verb, and it lacks brevity.

I don't really like the name, but I'm oddly comforted that I can shorten it to ddg (and use http://ddg.gg). I can deal for now, but I do think it should change.

[blantonl]

Am I the only one that struggles with the name "DuckDuckGo?"

You know, there is a company called "Yahoo!" which did OK for a while.

[EternalFury]

Relevant search results is all I care about when I use a search engine. (Oh, and I don't see how "Google" sounds professional.)

[andywhite37]

I agree that the content is what matters, but I just feel like it's a crying shame that a service like DuckDuckGo will never be taken seriously because of its name.

[adventureful]

Same problem Mamma.com and Dogpile have (not comparing search quality).

[GlennS]

It would certainly prevent me from recommending it to friends. Just too embarrassing.

[cdmoyer]

I think the name is the only reason I remembered it long enough after hearing about it to try it and eventually switch. I have had no issues recommending it.

[andywhite37]

That's a good point, the name is definitely memorable.