71–80 of 561 posts
This is a red flag to me. I would like if this were true for a next gen anything, but in my experience truly next gen experiences - the kind that spread like wildfire and displace incumbents - have no reason to make promises about privacy or ads. Why would they, if they have a product that consumers want to use?
These solutions don't answer any of the fundamental problems with Google: - who pays for the service (ads? users pay? Average user will never use a paid service if a free one is available) - how to resist attacks against the algorithm (Google has been fighting spam for decades) - how to personalize without invading privacy, e.g. Google had an option to search through your email in Google search...it's gone now, I won…
Also important for anyone actually thinking of taking Google on, very few of the features listed are things Google can't easily do, too. Attacking their strengths is crazy. You better have something both crazy good and hard to replicate by someone with more money than god. Whatever replaces Google will be doing something that Google can't without causing them other problems. The first thing that comes to mind is make…
I think 'more customization' which is a theme with a lot of these alternatives is a fundamental dead end. I don't know where this persistent myth comes from that people love choice and tinkering, because they clearly don't. There's a huge cost associated with having to make choices, and one feature of successful modern apps is that they're frictionless. That's why TikTok is so successful. There's no login, no user ch…
Google is very good at this, but this is exactly what I _don't_ want in the "Next Google". I want a _search engine_ for the web, not an answers engine that tries to know what I want better than I do.
Search the web. Give me links to websites. This seems obvious to me, but everyone is trying to be like Google.
I'm convinced the death of the web and independent forum communities is largely the fault of Google's lousy search results no longer actually returning real web results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of profiles for "people". This is the thing. I'm the power user in my circle. People comes to me for suggestions about pretty much anything involving tech. Sometimes just because they see me with different stuff. So if I'm not the average user I may look for other options, as other people like me may do. If I find such options reasonable for the average user, that will be my recommendation to them.
Tiktok didn't dominate by appealing to niche tech power users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Give me relevant links to my term, with no SEO spam. Don't correct my term, especially when I'm searching verbatim (which I almost always want). It'd also be nice to be able to downvote certain results.
> Give me relevant links to my term, with no SEO spam I think achieving this would be worth billions, at least? We really tend to underestimate the amount of spam on the internet. Google does badly here: it overcorrects and you get only super safe results. Yandex? Unless you get lucky, lots of spam.
These solutions don't answer any of the fundamental problems with Google: - who pays for the service (ads? users pay? Average user will never use a paid service if a free one is available) - how to resist attacks against the algorithm (Google has been fighting spam for decades) - how to personalize without invading privacy, e.g. Google had an option to search through your email in Google search...it's gone now, I won…
Seems the first of these can be solved by reducing the scope. Do you really need a data center to run a search engine? Overall it seems very rare anyone ever considers this an engineering problem. Really, what's stopping you from running a search engine?
But if you must know:
First you need to collect a lot of content from the internet. From many different sites. With very different types of code structure. Broken html. More often than not behind some SPA JS code. Behind robots.txt files and bot protection efforts.
So the first problem to solve would be building a crawler at scale. That is able to crawl anything your users might want to visit but don't know of yet.
Then storage and retrieval. You need to store and update all this content your crawler collected. You need to enrich it with meta data and organize it for efficient retrieval. So that you can surface it to your users when they use your search engine. Indexing, structure, build g connections between content pieces. A lot of interesting things to think about.
Then there is the front end. Make it easy to search, to refine. Surface relevant content for search queries.
OH maybe I forgot, but you probably need to do a bit of engineering to make your system understand the users' search intent.
This is relatively straightforward for a limited search and document space up to a few million entries in your DB. A few million documents should be doable with off the shelf parts.
Bigger than that. I would applaud you if done with orders of magnitude lower than Google. Anyone would.
No search engine has tried to address the issue of the user's context for the search. - does my current location matter for the search? - am I trying to spend money (shopping), or trying to get information (facts)?
> Everybody has different preferences of how they want a search engine to look and feel. This sounds like it was written by the infamous Dropbox commenter. No, most people have never given a single thought to this.
Quoted post unavailable.
Doesn't seem so bad as a market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kagi is "users pay". Yes, average users won't pay, but I don't see how that matters to me as a Kagi user.
A paid search engine? Bold. I'd pay if it could do anything close to what the old google code search could do. I miss it every day.
I've been using it for a couple weeks now on my work laptop and for programming-related searches its been great so far. And the usual annoyances that show up at the top of google and DDG don't show up on Kagi (geeks4geeks, etc).