141–150 of 502 posts
Similar alternative for Google Search: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/search-filter/eidh... Even the defaults match this Kagi top list.
I've been shouting for years how google should know by now, if there is a relevant wikipedia page, it should be at the top of the results -- not number 2 or 3, number 1. Every time. Likewise IMDB (not that I'm fond of the site, if there were an alternative I'd switch in a heartbeat) -- if I search for "bogart bacall" then the top six results should be IMDB and Wikipedia for The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not, and Ke…
It has. Google knows exactly what it's doing.
It's just that Google makes money from keeping you searching, not from giving you the right answer.
Looks like the summary here is “f** Pinterest”. Soooo many stack overflow scraper sites too god I hate those.
It's incredibly annoying to be searching for a thing, and get a result from Pinterest that's just a bookmark of that thing. As far as I know, this is more a failure of Google's inexplicable algorithm than Pinterest doing anything specifically bad.
I actually did a smaller thing for HN. I have client side JS that blocks results from a few domains that seemed to promote low quality discussions and/or irrelevant submissions. const boringDomains = [ "newyorker.com", "nytimes.com", "economist.com", "wired.co.uk", "bbc.com", "aella.substack.com", "hecolumn.substack.com", "wsj.com", "kqed", "voanews.com", "wusa9.com", "noemamag.com", "arstechnica.com", "independent.c…
...BBC? Ars Technica? ...KQED and VOA? You're blocking discussion of some of the most reliably factual reporting on the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they had it for a few years a decade ago. If you think through the feature, it's not at all obvious that it's a good idea for an established search engine targeting the general public [0]. But even then it might be a great idea for a search engine that's trying to establish an initial niche. It doesn't even matter whether the idea actually works well in practice: if 100k people think that manual curation of sear…
I think you miss he point. The usefulness of a per-user block list is not fighting outright spam. The statistical filters, etc, as applied by the search engine, work best here, as you correctly state. The point is to remove certain well-known sites with information about well-known topics, which is unhelpful for the particular user , me. That information is technically not spam, but it's on a wrong level, badly prese…
Every time Kagi comes up, a lot of folks say it is too expensive. That it should be unlimited. That if it was just $x per month, then it would be worth it. That they feel uncomfortable about the limits. I will simply say that I cannot imagine going back to being a “user” of a “search provider” over being a paying Kagi customer. It is the single most critical service I worry about losing. If they octupled the price to…
But the ability to change it for real (ie without redirect) would be huge.
(I believe this feature request is targeted at Apple!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they had it for a few years a decade ago. If you think through the feature, it's not at all obvious that it's a good idea for an established search engine targeting the general public [0]. But even then it might be a great idea for a search engine that's trying to establish an initial niche. It doesn't even matter whether the idea actually works well in practice: if 100k people think that manual curation of sear…
> that's trying to establish an initial niche Which suggests to me that while kagi might be good now, if it gets popular it may undergo enshittification in an effort to monetise its popularity.
Kagi has already put itself on a path where it doesn't have to make itself worse to cover its expenses, because it is already covering them.
Ok wow, seeing these lists might have just made a customer out of me. I’ve been vaguely aware of Kagi and know the general premise but this made it real.
Similarly, I had no idea about this feature, but I now know I want it... I think I just need it to be cheaper, maybe $5 unlimited (or enough for me, which I think is certainly higher than 300, probably higher than 1000, at least without behaviour change) and I'd be in I assume it's a bit chicken and egg - marginal costs of new customers/extra searches is relatively low, it's the crawling & development/SRE that's expe…