Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Mike Hommey writes ("Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo"):
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:46:25AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Of course establishing whether that's the case is not likely to be
> > possible, but I suppose the iceweasel maintainer could canvas opinions,
> > or just make a decision as they see fit (in the usual manner).
> 
> With my iceweasel maintainer hat on, I won't start to consider ddg as a
> default until it at least matches the user experience the current
> default engine provides, including search suggestions and localized
> results (the latter requires some manual work ; the former lacks
> server-side support).

This is the right approach to making the decision.

I would like to put in a word though for the idea that privacy
considerations, and quality of search results (in all senses including
general relevance, spamminess, and "bubbliness") should be part of the
evaluation you make.

But I would like to decouple the two discussions.  I think it's wrong
to have the conversation "what should the default search engine be"
mixed up with "should we take money from search engines".

Ian.