481–490 of 502 posts
Half these sites are my guilty pleasures, pinterest.com, dailymail.co.uk, tiktok.com...
pinterest has it's place. It's bad rep is because you have to be logged in to see anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have a theory that I would actually need to do twice as many searches with Google or DuckDuckGo or whatever This is a great point that should really be highlighted more in their marketing. It was obvious once I read it and shows two obvious benefits: 1. There is probably zero issue with fitting in to the 1000 searches per month. 2. It saves time for many of the searches we’re already doing.
> 1. There is probably zero issue with fitting in to the 1000 searches per month. You are never limited to 1000 monthly searches, this is a great misunderstanding about Kagi. After passing your threshold, you are charged 1.5c per query.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In general, assume that we pass down the savings to the user whenever we can. This is great to hear but it doesn’t really address the point you’re replying to: > Wish that was more clear As someone who is just seriously noticing Kagi because of this HN post, I have no brand impression that tells me you’re trying to pass on the savings (most companies don’t) and the marketing material even makes me think you’re targ…
Interesting observation. What specific changes would you suggest us to make?
I would suggest (and caveat: I’m not a marketer, just someone who has seen a lot of brands come and go) either of these directions:
1. Be clear about the cost savings when talking about the specific features. Example: Add a new heading to kagi/features/bangs.html that says “Bangs are Free” and talks about how bangs do not count towards your searches
2. Remove it from being part of your public values altogether. Lean in to the value prop of having a cost and let users self-discover what’s free. If it’s the right choice, highlight it privately: make it a line item on the monthly invoice with something that describes why they are free or put it in onboarding material.
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…
How google hasn't figured that out in the past fifteen years is a mystery. 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.
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…
I'm curious, if you're mostly looking for a wikipedia page, why aren't you using wikipedia's search feature?
1. I don't necessarily know I'm looking for a wikipedia page. For example it turns out there's a Bogart-Bacall syndrome -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogart%E2%80%93Bacall_syndrome -- that would actually be a false positive, but it's definitely not the first time I've found there are interesting wikipedia pages related to the thing I'm searching for.
2. In general, wikipedia's search is worse than google's -- meaning that if I don't know the exact name of the relevant topic, a google search for "wikipedia" is more likely to hit the right page than a search in wikipedia itself.
3. Opening wikipedia first is more work than typing bogart bacall wikipedia in by browser's search bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and historically those code demos were often wrong in many important ways (like not working in all browsers, or insecure). They are much better now but reputation is hard to recover.
Wouldn't that have been the case everywhere before JS browser support standardized to ES 2015 and above?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest that you change your browser’s default search engine to be Wikipedia.
Ooh, I like this idea. Do you do this? How's your experience so far?
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…
I don't see any people say Kagi is too expensive, where do you find them? I don't use Kagi as I found it useless. It is only UI for Google search. Yandex and Bing works better than Kagi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has the "wrong" bias for most of the HN crowd: https://i.imgur.com/taGzsZP.jpg To be fair, it is biased, but then so are most outlets one way or the other: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/ratings
The problem with Breitbart isn't just bias, it's the amount of outright blatantly false claims. (This isn't to say that other major media outlets don't have problems with accuracy. But the magnitude is very different.)