Among other things, we added support for five more services. You can now add Intense Debate, brightkite.com, Diigo, Mister Wong, and tipjoy to your feed. - Bret Taylor

Diigo added - nice. - Hutch Carpenter

Thanks for all the hard work FF team!! neat improvements, fixes and tweaks! =) - Susan Beebe

thanks, Paul. Mister Wing is now working :-) - Baard Overgaard Hansen

Thanks. The Diigo add is mucho appreciated. - Bill Bittner

""Our first experiment was to move CJKT to Yahoo (because, yes, we believed Yahoo was more popular in CJKT than Google.) We also moved to add other domestic search services into the menu of choices where it made sense. Yandex in Russia, Baidu in China, Naver in Korea, etc. For some of those changes, we entered into new financial arrangements. For others we didn't." First, if you work for Mozilla, you should have said that from the start. Second, if Mozilla is making these types of decision, then Mozilla should be public about it. Everything you've said, nada from Mozilla about it before. "It's not about the money, Danny. You just don't seem to want to accept that. It's about what's best for users. After that, sure we look for revenue relationships and many companies are amenable to entering into those relationships." Oh, I do accept it's not only about the money. But money's part of it. Microsoft should at the very least be one of the options in the box. If Mozilla knew search, they'd..." - dannysullivan

"I'm quoting what Mozilla itself says -- that it sells search in Firefox. I gave links to back this up, both in the article itself and in other replies to you here. At this point, you're either choosing to ignore the facts. I think what you're trying to say is that if Google was a bad search engine, even if they wanted to pay lots, Mozilla wouldn't sign a deal. Sure, I can buy into that. But then again, why is Yahoo the top choice in some countries? Did Mozilla undertake relevancy studies to know it should out Google? I highly doubt it. And why isn't Microsoft included at all, when it is a good search engine too? It is about the money. If it were about the best user experience, that search box could be a heck of a lot better. Not much thought has been put into it other than ensuring it keeps making money for Mozilla, as far as I can see. Go check out the Groowe.com toolbar for Firefox. You install that, spend a week with it and tell me that's not good default functionality that should..." - dannysullivan

"I've replied several times now in other comments here with direct links to the facts on how search is sold in Firefox. The article had direct links explaining this as well. Not bullshit." - dannysullivan

"The article itself has references that backed up my statements, and I've already provided even more in other comments here on this thread. It's not bullshit. It's fact, and well-referenced fact at that." - dannysullivan

"Recommenting more of what I put below: Google is the default search choice in Firefox because it has a paid deal to be this way. For the same reason, Yahoo is the default in some Asian markets. The story had references to both these facts. But to make it easier for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11... ... "The foundation has used a for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation, to collect tens of millions of dollars in royalties from search engine companies that want prominent placement on the browser. And by collecting that money as a war chest to compete against giants like Microsoft and Apple, the foundation has, at least temporarily, moved away from the typical activities of a nonprofit organization." http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/p... ... "With Firefox 1.5, Mozilla continues its search partnership with Google in the Americas and in Europe and begins a new search relationship with Yahoo! in China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan." You should also see..." - dannysullivan

"Google is the default search choice in Firefox because it has a paid deal to be this way. For the same reason, Yahoo is the default in some Asian markets. The story had references to both these facts. But to make it easier for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11... ... "The foundation has used a for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation, to collect tens of millions of dollars in royalties from search engine companies that want prominent placement on the browser. And by collecting that money as a war chest to compete against giants like Microsoft and Apple, the foundation has, at least temporarily, moved away from the typical activities of a nonprofit organization." http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/p... ... "With Firefox 1.5, Mozilla continues its search partnership with Google in the Americas and in Europe and begins a new search relationship with Yahoo! in China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan."" - dannysullivan

"To my knowledge, Yahoo was added as part of Firefox 1.5 according to the link that was in my original story, and this was due to Yahoo's deal to power Asian search engines. But hey, let's say that before revenue deals were cut, both Google and Yahoo were included and that Google was the default. OK, but these deals DID happen back in 1.5, and at that time, we know decisions were made on the basis of making money, not user interest. We're now coming up on 3.0. That box has simply evolved from 2.0 to carry one more search engine, Wikipedia. It hasn't gained a variety of search engines, categorized, as you could tap into similar to the Groowe.com add-on. It ignores both Live and Ask, which are major search engines that many search experts (including myself) would include. I agree -- what matters is that Mozilla provide the best possible experience. And in that search box, it's not by excluding Microsoft nor by making a default choice based on what Google wants because of a paid deal..." - dannysullivan

"5th most popular of a list that Firefox users have to actively hunt is pretty good. But no, my argument is that Live Search is a good alternative to Google and Yahoo which should be included at the very least in the drop-down box. And that it is excluded -- plus Google is made the default choice -- because Firefox finds this an excellent way to make money." - dannysullivan

"No, it doesn't. It gives one other major search engine choice, Yahoo -- though both Live Search and Ask.com are comparable to Google & Yahoo. It also provides a few specialty search choices. In contrast, a tool like Groowe provides very easy access to tens of search engines. Firefox could do better by its users." - dannysullivan

"That's fine -- screw Grandpa, I guess. But that's not Google's argument. Google went to court to get backing that in IE, a user should make the choice. But in Firefox, Google went to its pocketbook to take that choice away. It should be played the same way regardless of the browser." - dannysullivan

"Regular users are indeed apparently clamoring for it since the Live Search add-on is the fifth most popular download for the search box in Firefox, as the article points out. The bigger point is this. Firefox is exercising no real care with that search box aside from making money. The two major search engines listed are the two that are paying it money. Doesn't mean they aren't good, but Live Search is most definitely a rival to them that should be counted as well. And why can't they do a better job listing alternative search engines in the way that Groowe.com does? Why does it feel like that box is primarily full of revenue generators for Mozilla rather than choices with solid editorial decisions behind them? And if it's too much to maintain strong editorial control, then let the user make the default choices." - dannysullivan

"Google argued that USERS should pick a default search engine in IE. Launch a clean version of IE, and that's exactly what happens -- you get to chose from a list of five major search engines rather than have someone chose for you because of a paid deal. In Firefox, while Mozilla isn't forcing you to use Google, it is deciding on your behalf to make it the default because Google pays it to do this. All fine and good, I suppose, if Google hadn't argued so strongly that choice was necessary. So yes, I'd suggest Firefox do what IE does, let the user decie." - dannysullivan

"If they want, sure. If they feel nofollow would reduce the number of spam submissions, go for it. I'd say that if a story goes popular, the community has voted it so, and it seems like link credit is deserved. But it makes no difference to me, honestly. Most search folks that look at Digg from a link value perspective like it because if you hit Digg, OTHER people start linking to you -- not that a single Digg link is that powerful." - dannysullivan

"Yes, I know how kneejerk some can be on Digg. Occasionally, I like to still make the odd attempt to push back the ocean of insanity that sometimes happens and try and enlighten people." - dannysullivan

"Hahahaha. Yes, I was really hoping to move from PR7 to PR8 by writing an article for my own audience that I didn't submit to Digg. Please. It's nice when things hit Digg, but I have my own audience and have had that audience since, hmm, 1996. That was a few years before Digg came along :)" - dannysullivan

"Perhaps because as the story explains, two weeks ago, it was Google's 10th birthday if you go by domain registration. Or how Google has celebrated both Sept. 7 and Sept. 27 over the years as official birthdays, while Sept. 4 is the actual incorporation date? Right now, Google has four birthdays -- two more than the Queen Of England." - dannysullivan