Live data from Hacker News

Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

yep.com

221–229 of 229 posts

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#221

yep.com is remarkably similar to fairsearch.com, another search engine built by ahrefs which advertises a revenue share. In fact, “Read the story behind Fairsearch” and “Story behind Yep" on their respective home pages both link to the same blog post. Also, both websites have identical 'bot' pages ( https://fairsearch.com/fairbot and https://yep.com/yepbot ).

Yep is the official engine; FairSearch was the "pre-release" version.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#222
post #164

The business model isn’t really the problem with Google. It’s the quality of search results. Which after one simple search on Yep, seems to still be 100X better. Don’t focus on a better business model. Build a better product first.

Agreed! That's what we're doing at you.com but got a lot of crap for not having fixed the business model. Guess you can't make everybody happy.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#224
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When conversation between two humans derails, I always remember The Egg: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

Quoted post unavailable.

Can you please breaking the site guidelines like this? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Therefore we end up having to ban accounts that keep doing this. I don't want to ban you, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#225
post #224
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Can you please breaking the site guidelines like this? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Therefore we end up having to ban accounts that keep doing this. I don't want to ban you, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit…

This is exactly the situation I emailed you about, dang. Given that freediver actually broke twice as many guidelines -- his most recent comment alone broke five -- and used HN as a platform to repeatedly slander a competitor, it doesn't seem appropriate to be singling me out. You are giving the instigator(s) a free pass on everything, while treating those who respond to those instigations as "destroyers" of the site. Help me understand why this is the case?

Edit: Just got your email. I will continue the conversation there.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#226
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This needs to be higher up. If you go to the about section of Yep.com, you can see this is powered by the "Ahrefs" bot (not just for sourcing crawler data but also run by the same people). Ahrefs is a sleazy "SEO tool" ( https://ahrefs.com/pricing ) that basically exists to exploit weaknesses in search engine algorithms and other shady things (and make lots of money doing it -- $99/mo to $999/mo).

Folks here have a really strange view of SEO. These days it's really following guidelines, creating content that people want to see and is useful to searchers, linking to sources, etc.

Content that people want to see ... plastered with affiliate links and/or biased to sell those people what you want them to buy. This is about extracting value and that value has to come from somewhere. Searchers are not benefiting here, they are the ones ultimately paying for it.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#227

I love how there are now many little search engines trying to differentiate themselves from Google. A few others worth checking out are: 1. https://search.brave.com (they use their own index / my personal favourite) 2. https://kagi.com 3. https://neeva.com

I'd like to throw mine into the mix (we're a non-profit that plans to donate 80% of our profits to other non-profit organizations and charities, but we need more traffic before Google will enable ads, so at the moment then we're ad-free and not generating any income to donate): https://ask.moe

Better would be to show no/less ads and encourage users to donate to charities directly. Helping commercial interests exploit users so that you can donate some of the profit from that is really inefficient.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#228
post #164

The business model isn’t really the problem with Google. It’s the quality of search results. Which after one simple search on Yep, seems to still be 100X better. Don’t focus on a better business model. Build a better product first.

The business model is not entirely unrelated to the quality of the search results. Anything ad-funded will always have incentives not to get you to the best non-paid result as fast as possible. And once the ad-funded search gets big enough they are likely also going to be doing the middle man part of the ads operation and selling that service to others - which then provides further incentives to not negatively rank ad-heavy sites.

Re: Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I have a small SEO consultancy. We work with tech companies (mostly B2B saas), many you’ve heard of. You’re right that some approaches to SEO are sleazy. They are a bit old fashioned at this point, and usually result in short term results which crash and burn. Google does actually care if users don’t find a good result; they are working on improving the results every day. But you’re wrong in the sense that SEO do…

There's another side to the coin that I think you're, understandably, overlooking. I don't think either side alone is the full story. It's a big grey ball of tradeoffs, no matter how it all falls. Even with just your own description of your activities you can find perverse incentives and negative externalities. You aren't exactly incentivized to just create content that satisfies common queries. More fully, you're in…

I think you can find exceptions in any discussion, but that's not exactly helpful.

Here's the thing: If I don't answer the user's query accurately, another website will. Then they will get all the traffic. So my long term incentive is to satisfy the query.

Within that there is a certain tolerance and understanding among search users that websites can't publish information for free. See Wikipedia constantly begging for money.

So companies (my clients) can justifiably get away with a small amount of self promotion. But if you take that too far you'll just get punished in the SERPs too.

Post reply on HN