31–40 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just use Startpage?
Personally I _want_ to pay for this service. I do not trust free search products anymore. Well... they can't really be free, someone somehow has to pay for the consumed resources.
Oh wow, these are legitimately all good improvements. Some are things I'd use, some are, I'm sure, going to appreciated by others, but what's pointedly not anywhere on this list (except cheekily in a few screenshots) is any sort of AI-powered nonsense. I know they mentioned a while back that they were working on some tooling of that sort, but boy am I happy that (in this release at least), they focused on features th…
What's the problem with AI, and why is it nonsense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Kagi exclusively. The results are just as bad as googles, but isn’t covered in spam. Given the sorry state of search quality in the SEO garbage world we live in, that’s high praise. I’m happy to spend the money every month.
Why not just use Startpage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just use Startpage?
For me, i prefer to (attempt to) have clear incentive structures. Kagi seems inline with my goals. Search costs, and i want to do what i can to not be the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the problem with AI, and why is it nonsense?
AI is hot right now. It’s literally a buzzword. When projects add AI to something that doesn’t need it that’s nonsense. So the claim is not that all AI is nonsense. The claim is that Kagi is refreshing for not using AI nonsensically.
It's also a buzzword with no commonly-accepted definition. (If something is commonly accepted, it's that the term escapes common definition.)
This motivates a race-to-the-bottom mixed with a sort of Gresham's law. The worst actors go the furthest. And then they drive the good actors away from the term. "AI-powered X" is quickly approaching red flag territory for me, though I doubt that will be the case for the general population for some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally provide sources for those claims. I have no idea how you can say with a straight face that they're dishonest. They're very clear and transparent about how their plans are limited. It's also extremely easy to check what your usage is for the current month and get a monthly overview. If you happen to use more than the 200 searches for the standard plan, they charge 1.5 cents per search. If you blow past…
The GP didn't say they're lying about the number, the claim was that the number isn't representative of the amount of Google searches Kagi users are likely to perform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Kagi exclusively. The results are just as bad as googles, but isn’t covered in spam. Given the sorry state of search quality in the SEO garbage world we live in, that’s high praise. I’m happy to spend the money every month.
Thanks, I felt similar last time I used it. Wasn’t magic like I remember Google being. I wonder what happened to Google? My theory is maybe their own systems have become too complex for them to understand and tune now. But they’ve invested so heavily into “AI” they don’t known where else to go in order to fix it ? I’ve here seen or experienced a search product quite like Google used to be. It truly felt like magic in…
Unfortunately I stopped using Kagi just due to it not being worth the money for me personally. But look at the company using bearblog.dev, that's awesome. bearblog.dev remains one of my favorite services I've found through HackerNews.
Same here. Too expensive after the pricing change and their browser is irredeemably buggy. I gave them a chance. On to neeva.
Seconded. I gave it a few months, but it just wouldn't improve by itself. To be fair: With a detailed bug report (via Discord, making it excruciatingly hard to find duplicates/follow up), the problem would often be fixed in the next release.
But it wasn't 1 or 2, it was more like 20 easily spotted issues. Come on, I can't do all of your testing.
I think I've never said it this clearly because I don't want to offend (I still very much like the browser's concept), but it was just too painful for regular use for me.
This about a year ago. Your comment seems to indicate that it hasn't changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally provide sources for those claims. I have no idea how you can say with a straight face that they're dishonest. They're very clear and transparent about how their plans are limited. It's also extremely easy to check what your usage is for the current month and get a monthly overview. If you happen to use more than the 200 searches for the standard plan, they charge 1.5 cents per search. If you blow past…
The GP didn't say they're lying about the number, the claim was that the number isn't representative of the amount of Google searches Kagi users are likely to perform.
Almost all of current Kagi users are in the other 1% category, but that doesn’t change the fact that vast majority of internet users search 2-3 times a day and that Kagi would like to attract them with this plan.
https://kagi.com/pricing?plan=individual I knew Kagi is paid but I didn't know they had a limit on how many searches you can perform, which is also rather low. But what I really didn't like is how dishonest they are. The lowest tier costs $5 and includes 200 searches per month. That is 6.66 per day! But they say "Includes enough searches for 99% of internet users" because "The average person searches Google three or…
It's completely honest. You don't have a sense of typical use. I'd argue search power users make fewer searches a day, too, but like you, and unlike Kagi, I can't back that up with sources.