Kagi: $5/month for a search engine in 2024?

[dragontamer5788]

Well hang on. We still have wikipedia and all of that. And ye olde better internet was also really a place where you had the best information publicly 'hidden' on the more elusive websites, forums, etc.

Thát very status quo was taken up by sites like Reddit that sought to bundle that good stuff.
Is there less good public info, or is there really just more utter bullshit floating around? (I edited my post after your response, above, that is also mentioning this)

Well, this all comes down to SEO really.

The SEO bullshitters pay top bucks to get to #1 on Google, because its the cheapest way to advertise. Associating your brand with major search terms leads to more traffic, better marketing, and... is a total abuse of the bloggosphere. Its not much different than clickbait or influencers on other social media, its all attention seeking behavior.

But it hampers my ability to search when I have to dig through that crap.

So I wouldn't say "more" bullshit necessarily. But its "better" bullshit, in that today's bullshitters are better able to hit #1 consistently on Google. Maybe Google is just too big a target and Kagi, by being a smaller search engine, slips under the RADAR for now. (Ex: If Kagi removes 500 websites for being SEO bullshit, the SEO Bullshitters don't care, because they still are getting hits from Google. When Google removes the same 500 websites, the SEO Bullshitters will change their websites and tactics and still reach #1 anyway).

Its not "dead text" we're fighting against here. Its an active marketplace of bullshitters that's the opponent.

--------

Then again: DuckDuckGo is smaller and doesn't seem to be quite as good as Kagi either. So I do think that the people behind Kagi know what they're doing.

 

[Bill_Bright]

In the event that you do have a shared computer there's been simple ways to segment different people with different user accounts etc. for decades.

Sure, if you control the computer. My point was, what if you don't? Then you have someone else making those decisions for you.

And yes, setting up multiple accounts on the same computer is easy - for someone with considerably more experience.

The more I learn about Kagi, I just see it as a great solution - for a $60 problem that does not really exist.

I've used my default search engine once today - to look up Kagi Search. DuckDuckGo listed it first. I just tried both Bing and Google and each listed it first. I don't see a problem.

But, to each his own, I guess.

 

[the54thvoid]

I think this is becoming a circle dance. The advantage of a browser that isn't hindered by paid for rankings is self-evident.

Nobody can deny that.

The rest of it becomes a technical exercise that every browser is subject to.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The rest of it becomes a technical exercise that every browser is subject to.

"Search" engine too!

 

[dragontamer5788]

I think this is becoming a circle dance. The advantage of a browser that isn't hindered by paid for rankings is self-evident.

Nobody can deny that.

The rest of it becomes a technical exercise that every browser is subject to.

To clarify, when I talk SEO, I'm talking about people who reverse engineer Google's algorithm and abuses it to reach #1 on the unsponsored list of results.

I think most people like Google's advertisements. They're out of the way and clearly labeled. It's the SEO stuff that looks like normal links that causes problems for me.

It's weird to think that pagerank hacking has become such a big business today. It was just shits and giggles as I grew up on the 'net but... It's serious business now.

 

[dgianstefani]

Google may consider a paid premium search function

Google is planning an answer to the AI boom: a premium search function supported by AI could soon become a reality - but not for free.

www.notebookcheck.net

Hahahaha literally just saw this.

Maybe Kagi is on to something

 

[dragontamer5788]

Google may consider a paid premium search function

Google is planning an answer to the AI boom: a premium search function supported by AI could soon become a reality - but not for free.

www.notebookcheck.net

Hahahaha literally just saw this.

Maybe Kagi is on to something

Whenever I try an "AI Search" tool, be it ChatGPT or Bing AI or whatever, its always way too slow for me.

Kagi is instantaneous, like Google. I do consider the high speed to be important when searching, thinking, searching again, and refining my ideas. I never really got a hang of how the slower AI Searches could possibly help.

But if AI searchers can cut back on SEO-crap or other crap-websites automatically, maybe it'd be worthwhile.

 

[c2DDragon]

Duckduckgo is fine in my book.
Paying for something which is already paid by my ISP ? Why ? Search engines were free back in the old days. Google too, just remember.


Cookies spy on us, we got good white knights doing the good stuff developping browser extensions. Browsers can delete them too (cookies). If you want to search for ugly feets and are afraid your wife/husband can look at it, you can set your browser to delete your history. If you fear the FBI or the NSA (well, it's too late it seems xD), Europol or anything else, the russians ? Well, I don't think paying for something which was supposed to stay free will get you more privacy.

If you fear your government can do something, educate your people and vote for a better one ?
(Funny thing I got the worse President in Europe as President right now but at least, my country has laws to prevent any stupid trespass)

If you want to pay for this kind of service, I join those who mentioned ChatGPT. If you are willing to pay for something you can find for free (I mean...AI models are free and not hard to find AND you can train them too), better go for ChatGPT...Or else go find a youtube (another google thing) video which will teach you how to make a specific search.

What a time to be alive. When is supposed to be a meteor striking our planet ? I'm waiting.

 

[dragontamer5788]

If you want to pay for this kind of service, I join those who mentioned ChatGPT. If you are willing to pay for something you can find for free (I mean...AI models are free and not hard to find AND you can train them too), better go for ChatGPT...Or else go find a youtube (another google thing) video which will teach you how to make a specific search.

I tried AI search (and ChatGPT) before. They really, really suck for research.

Speed is the biggest problem. The lack of citations is another. If it turns out that TI's Technical Article library is a good source of information, I want to know that articles came from TI. Or if Microchip's documentation was the source, I'd like to know that. Etc. etc.

Bing tried to do citations + GPT chat, which kinda-sorta worked, except the AI just was merging one sentence from one article with 2nd or 3rd sentences from another. So paragraphs were nonsensical and possibly misleading.

 

[dgianstefani]

The fact the paid Google search will still have ads is funny too.

 

[c2DDragon]

I tried AI search (and ChatGPT) before. They really, really suck for research.

Speed is the biggest problem. The lack of citations is another. If it turns out that TI's Technical Article library is a good source of information, I want to know that articles came from TI. Or if Microchip's documentation was the source, I'd like to know that. Etc. etc.

Bing tried to do citations + GPT chat, which kinda-sorta worked, except the AI just was merging one sentence from one article with 2nd or 3rd sentences from another. So paragraphs were nonsensical and possibly misleading.

What about contacting people making those websites or articles ? You are still human, don't fear sending an email or interacting with people, get the sources, interact with the scientists etc. It's not hard, give it a try. You will be surprised how people writing stuff are willing to share there knowledge if you ask for it. I mean, if you find an article, contact the writer, no response ? Next. Does paying for the search engine change something ? You get to know the source easily but have to spend $75 a year for it ? If so, did you try to contact people ?

The fact the paid Google search will still have ads is funny too.

So this is nonsense to pay for it. It's like Youtube right now, it recodes videos. You have to pay the premium scam to have an higher quality xD It's silly. We got dailymotion in France but nobody like it, it's sad (because it's part of the Vivendi Group maybe). At least people like VLC xD

 

[dragontamer5788]

You are still human, don't fear sending an email or interacting with people, get the sources, interact with the scientists etc

AI Search doesn't do that.

In any case, I'm not against paying $20+ for a good IEEE or ACM Article from a top end journal. And I do in fact, read bibliographies and the abstracts to find more good articles off of those. Trust me, I know how to research these subjects. And I have emailed professors and other people for more information before.

Honestly, $5/month is barely the cost of good information from my perspective. I've picked up $100 or $200 books on niche subjects, if I really need the material for work or whatever I can get compensated for it. But sometimes I'm also just curious (and thus can't write it off as a work expense from a moral perspective).

Good information costs money.

 

[c2DDragon]

Weird, even Bing just drop the sources after any search.

Well if you are ok to pay for free content, it's your wallet after all. Just know you can do it for free if you want to keep it.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Oh my god.

I'm shocked at how shit Google is.

Looks like Kagi gets the right number at the top, but #1 link is still LiveEatLearn's incorrect 38.4 ounces/quart figure.

 

[c2DDragon]

View attachment 342406

Oh my god.

I'm shocked at how shit Google is.

View attachment 342407


Looks like Kagi gets the right number at the top, but #1 link is still LiveEatLearn's incorrect 38.4 ounces/quart figure.

Duckduckgo gives me this https://www.asknumbers.com/quarts-to-ounces.aspx as the first one.


And it's free.

 

[ShiBDiB]

95% of my google searches are "whatever I'm searching for + the word 'reddit'"

Best headphones reddit

rtx 3070 reddit

etc...

I don't need to pay to get those features.

View attachment 342406

Oh my god.

I'm shocked at how shit Google is.

View attachment 342407


Looks like Kagi gets the right number at the top, but #1 link is still LiveEatLearn's incorrect 38.4 ounces/quart figure.

I mean..

https://imgur.com/rvvmFuW

I'm more shocked at how shit you are at googling. We get it, you need to try to justify to yourself that spending money on a search engine is not the dumbest thing you've done in awhile.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I'm more shocked at how shit you are at googling. We get it, you need to try to justify to yourself that spending money on a search engine is not the dumbest thing you've done in awhile.

Well I'm sorry sir that my iced coffee was brewing and I did this in haste. Next time, I'll try a billion permutations until I find the correct answer. /s

I'm still surprised at how shit the internet has become. How the hell does the #1 website on google state that there are 38.4 ounces per quart, and why does Google believe them? (EDIT: Looks like Google came up with a different calculation of 29.95 ounces/liter or something, which is really not what I asked for either, or kg/m^3 for some reason. Either way, not what I wanted)

I knew it was 32, but it was just an reflexive check on Google to make sure before counting out the tablespoons I needed to make coffee. But apparently, even the most simple and basic knowledge is poisoned on the internet today.

Kagi wasn't immune to this either (LiveEatLearn is still #1 on Kagi). So I'm not giving Kagi too many points on this one, even if the top-line 32-ounces result was the correct answer.

-------

EDIT: Is this a British thing? I know that British units vs US units can sometimes get mixed up. (British Gallons being bigger than US Gallons).

 

[c2DDragon]

Kagi wasn't immune to this either (LiveEatLearn is still #1 on Kagi). So I'm not giving Kagi too many points on this one, even if the top-line 32-ounces result was the correct answer.

-------

EDIT: Is this a British thing? I know that British units vs US units can sometimes get mixed up. (British Gallons being bigger than US Gallons).

I am french, I ticked United States for the search and had the correct answer for first website. I don't know if your paid service can let you search by language and if it cannot, you should ask yourself why you let yourself being scammed.

You just posted on this forum how it's good to be scammed for searching on the internet. I mean. Up to you but you cannot say it's better than the others when you agree it sucks too.

When people say "if it's free, you are the product". Right but you can still act to lessen the damages. Here with your scam search engine, you pay to get bad results. I mean. Well. Up to you.

On the top of that I hope you won't tell us you are using the Google DNS to connect through the internet.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I am french, I ticked United States for the search and had the correct answer for first website. I don't know if your paid service can let you search by language and if it cannot, you should ask yourself why you let yourself being scammed.

You just posted on this forum how it's good to be scammed for searching on the internet. I mean. Up to you but you cannot say it's better than the others when you agree it sucks too.

When people say "if it's free, you are the product". Right but you can still act to lessen the damages. Here with your scam search engine, you pay to get bad results. I mean. Well. Up to you.

On the top of that I hope you won't tell us you are using the Google DNS to connect through the internet.

You know that 40 is the wrong number too, right? So DDG also failed.

The answer is 32. Its taught in most chef's books and I've got a solid reference on this. But yours (DDG) says 40, Google said 38.4, Kagi said 32 at the top (but still has the incorrect link to 38.4).

This is a shining example of how shit search is on today's internet. This is a grade school level lookup here in the USA, and the internet is getting it wrong in general. I wouldn't say this is a "scam", its just disappointment to see such incorrect data proliferate the internet.

Like, Kagi is probably the "most correct" here, but its bad across the board. That's why I'm wondering if there's a British vs USA thing going on, or some other tidbit of information that I'm not aware of that's mucking up the results.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Like, Kagi is probably the "most correct" here

It's not.. google gives the right answer if you word it how 99% of people would word it.

Sorry friend, you wasted money.

 

[dragontamer5788]

It's not.. google gives the right answer if you word it how 99% of people would word it.

Bullshit.

Ounces is smaller than quart. No one says "miles per foot", its "smaller per bigger", or "ounces per quart", or "feet per mile".

-----------

Okay, British Ounces, US Ounces, British Quarts, US Quarts, are all different sizes, values and ratios. I'm guessing that the various search engines have picked some combination of UK vs US / Ounce vs Quart, and the 38.4 might be a valid number in just the right circumstances.

But its not the circumstance I particularly care about (ie: USA ounces to USA Quarts).

 

[Vayra86]

Bullshit.

Ounces is smaller than quart. No one says "miles per foot", its "smaller per bigger", or "ounces per quart", or "feet per mile".

-----------

Okay, British Ounces, US Ounces, British Quarts, US Quarts, are all different sizes, values and ratios. I'm guessing that the various search engines have picked some combination of UK vs US / Ounce vs Quart, and the 38.4 might be a valid number in just the right circumstances.

But its not the circumstance I particularly care about (ie: USA ounces to USA Quarts).

Isnt the take away that a search engine will not make you any smarter? Information IS NOT knowledge.

Thats also why AI generated search wont ever go places. Its a self defeating exercise. If nobody applies knowledge you can refine search all you want, but on what basis? Most common denominator? Oldest person writing it down? Whatever we feed it?

Garbage in, garbage out. Look at mishaps in business and government lately. Like Boeing. A lot of people dont even know how to help themselves. Knowledge is outsourced, new talent has Googled its information to a degree.

A lot of people stopped learning skills - they learned how to play the system, the algorithm of how things work and then 'disrupt' something to make money. Nobody is any wiser for it. I rank Kagi in that same category I think.

 

[c2DDragon]

You know that 40 is the wrong number too, right? So DDG also failed.

The answer is 32. Its taught in most chef's books and I've got a solid reference on this. But yours (DDG) says 40, Google said 38.4, Kagi said 32 at the top (but still has the incorrect link to 38.4).

This is a shining example of how shit search is on today's internet. This is a grade school level lookup here in the USA, and the internet is getting it wrong in general. I wouldn't say this is a "scam", its just disappointment to see such incorrect data proliferate the internet.

Like, Kagi is probably the "most correct" here, but its bad across the board. That's why I'm wondering if there's a British vs USA thing going on, or some other tidbit of information that I'm not aware of that's mucking up the results.

I did screenshots and a link. The first website which comes. Like, the very first one when you type "ounce per quart" or "ounces per quart" does give the correct answer. I don't mind if the duckduckgo instant response is not valid it's just a feature you can disable. As a search engine, it gives the accurate websites when asked. And it's free.

Here I disabled the instant response feature :

:

 

[dragontamer5788]

I did screenshots and a link. The first website which comes. Like, the very first one when you type "ounce per quart" or "ounces per quart" does give the correct answer. I don't mind if the duckduckgo instant response is not valid it's just a feature you can disable. As a search engine, it gives the accurate websites when asked. And it's free.

Yes, its correct... except for the part that wasn't correct.

Just ignore the incorrect parts and any search is good. /s If you seriously don't see the problem with your logic or how you conducted your test, that's on you man.

 

[c2DDragon]

Yes, its correct... except for the part that wasn't correct.

Just ignore the incorrect parts and any search is good. /s If you seriously don't see the problem with your logic or how you conducted your test, that's on you man.

Ok you quoted and I did edit just after. Look, the instant response is just a feature. You can disable it and you should cause it's dumb, even the instant translation is not good. It's a feature. As a free search engine, it's giving accurate websites when you ask for it. It's free.

Sorry, Instant Answers it's called.