[HN Gopher] Brave Search launches own image and video search
___________________________________________________________________
Brave Search launches own image and video search
Author : gripfx
Score : 194 points
Date : 2023-08-03 17:15 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (brave.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (brave.com)
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| That's awesome! I've been using Brave Search for years and it's
| my favorite search engine ever!
| user3939382 wrote:
| My priority for search is that it's free of political censorship
| and weighting. Google is abysmal on this issue, then we had the
| DDG CEO on here making excuses for his very clear statements
| about Russian news sources. I don't need or want anyone else to
| decide for me what qualifies as "misinformation" I will decide
| that for myself.
|
| It surprisingly comes up for image searching. Google for example
| has been known to censor images of Tiananmen Square.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| On the topic of "weighting", Brave Goggles allow you to decide
| the weighting/ranking yourself, and is a great and under-used
| feature. The UI is a bit lacking (you have to create a goggle
| as a github gist/repo, publish it by submitting it to them,
| then bookmark an unweildy URL that's the link to your custom
| search engine), but the goggle syntax is pretty expressive and
| easy to use.
| wusher wrote:
| this is exactly why i switched from ddg to brave
| mg wrote:
| As far as I can tell, that makes for 5 independent image search
| engines on the web: Baidu Bing
| Brave Google Yandex
|
| You can compare their results on this search comparison page I
| maintain:
|
| https://www.gnod.com/search/?engines=p,o,br,n,q&nw=1
|
| (If you want to also search image libraries like Flickr and
| Pexels, click on "more engines" to select all places you want to
| search)
| fsflover wrote:
| One more, which is self-hosted, peer-to-peer and FLOSS:
| https://yacy.net
| [deleted]
| silisili wrote:
| Nice!
|
| I actually like Brave here for my test better than Google. I
| typed in a few cities, just wanting to see the skylines and
| such.
|
| Brave gives me good photos, some stock photos, etc. Google
| gives me pictures from recent news articles, which isn't overly
| helpful IMO.
| SomeoneOnTheWeb wrote:
| Shouldn't Kagi (https://kagi.com) also be on that list?
| MildRant wrote:
| Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but Kagi uses Google
| search results. I'm sure it's more complicated than that and
| they have their own secret sauce but it is not an independent
| search engine.
|
| See: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/why-kagi/kagi-vs-google.html
| Terretta wrote:
| > _Someone will correct me if I 'm wrong but Kagi uses
| Google search results._
|
| Click two links down in the same menu:
|
| https://help.kagi.com/kagi/why-kagi/kagi-vs-brave.html
|
| _Kagi Search includes anonymized requests to traditional
| search indexes like Google and Bing as well as sources like
| Wikipedia, DeepL, and other APIs. We also have our own non-
| commercial index (Teclis), news index (TinyGem), and an AI
| for instant answers. Teclis and TinyGem are a result of our
| crawl through millions of domains, focusing primarily on
| non-commercial, high-quality content._
|
| _Our unique results combined from all of these sources
| help you discover the best content you can possibly find
| online, sometimes from the quieter places on the web._
| anderber wrote:
| I believe you're correct. Kagi just uses Google's API and
| makes some changes on top of it.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Brave is the one that censors less, from all those. Specially
| doesn't censor for political motives that I'm aware of.
|
| That already makes it worth of support.
|
| But Google having become so bad of late has made switching
| quite easy, even if brave is not getting better super fast,
| Google unfortunately is getting worse and making up for it.
| jorvi wrote:
| I have a deeeeeeep dislike for Google's "must include: duck |
| missing: duck".
| yreg wrote:
| Interesting, I regularly use both and I find Google to
| perform better for me than Brave (in text search).
| magicalist wrote:
| > _Specially doesn 't censor for political motives that I'm
| aware of_
|
| What are the censored image searches you found?
| reitanqild wrote:
| Try to search for the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and
| massacre.
|
| That tends to upset some engines including Bing I think.
| yreg wrote:
| Baidu doesn't show anything relevant as expected, but
| Bing, Brave, Google and Yandex show similar results. Not
| overly graphic, but the photos are there.
| [deleted]
| ShrigmaMale wrote:
| ahrefs
|
| c.f. yep.com
| qwertox wrote:
| I'm always staying away from Brave because I've been confronted
| so many times with bait-and-switch tactics that I have the
| feeling that one day they will move away from being good and
| monetize all the collected data, even though they don't collect
| data.
|
| I'm so skeptical that I'm just now starting to develop a feeling
| of trust towards DuckDuckGo.
|
| In the browser domain, Mozilla is the only company of which I
| feel that it is genuinely pro-customer.
|
| So I give all my stuff to Google and hope that they at least just
| protect it from hackers, while I am aware that they analyze my
| data in order to see how they can monetize me better, but at
| least with anonymity in regards to 3rd parties. I just hope I'm
| not wrong.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > I'm always staying away from Brave because I've been
| confronted so many times with bait-and-switch tactics that I
| have the feeling that one day they will move away from being
| good and monetize all the collected data, even though they
| don't collect data.
|
| The thing is that it will always get worse. Every company needs
| to grow in order to stay alive and eventually quality and your
| user experience will suffer because of this, but here's the
| thing: Always choose the upstart competition but just be
| prepared to jump to the next up-and-comer after that. For me, I
| found DuckDuckGo getting worse over time (probably not on
| purpose, just spam) and somehow Brave is better so I'm sticking
| with that, but as soon as Brave decides to fuck me (and they
| will!) then I'll be jumping to whoever the new underdog is at
| that time.
| metadat wrote:
| You should check these assumptions, Mozilla has been hard at
| work enshittifying their entire portfolio. Instead of giving
| the public features they actually want (the most secure,
| performant, and predictable web browser), the current CEO has
| directed the focus towards revenue-generating features.
|
| My god, there is so much telemetry in FF now, and it's tricky
| to hunt down all the about:configs to disable it. Not friendly
| or privacy conscious at all. Do you really want Mozilla to get
| pinged with your IP address every time your browser process
| starts and exits? Yuck!
|
| Quick FF enshittification example from 2 months ago:
|
| _Alert HN: Mozilla puts advertising into Firefox AGAIN_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351322 (48 comments)
|
| _Mozilla stops Firefox fullscreen VPN ads after user outrage_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36085642 (220 comments)
| hipsterstal1n wrote:
| > the current CEO has directed the focus towards revenue-
| generating features.
|
| They literally can't win. One group of vocal users is
| outraged by how much money Mozilla takes from Google while
| the other half screams about how Mozilla is trying to _gasp_
| gain additional revenue streams that isn 't taking money from
| their biggest competitor.
|
| > Do you really want Mozilla to get pinged with your IP
| address every time your browser process starts and exits?
| Yuck!
|
| No, but I really don't give a shit either. At a certain
| point, I looked in the mirror and said life is too short to
| care about stupid shit like that. If I was a spy or a
| journalist in some state like China or Iran, maybe I would
| care. But this feels odd to hone in on when any website you
| go to is collecting all sorts of info of this sort.
| cayley_graph wrote:
| https://github.com/brave/web-discovery-
| project/blob/main/mod...
|
| I'm curious to see what you think about this. If you're not
| okay with Firefox telling Mozilla your IP address every time
| you connect, does the same go for Brave sending entire pages
| of your search results to them? This also includes which
| results you've clicked on.
| soundnote wrote:
| I mind Mozilla trying to find alternate revenue sources 0%.
| It's a good thing: Organizations like Mozilla and Brave
| SHOULD be making their own money and not be stuck to the
| Google teat.
|
| Mozilla doesn't go about it in as upfront way as Brave does,
| IME, but stuff like VPN, Pocket and other browser-related
| services I mind not at all.
|
| I have no sympathy to the current political shitfest that
| Mozilla is as an organization, but as makers of Firefox I
| feel like Mozilla is in an impossible bind: Their users
| expect a fairytale of an independent, donation-funded browser
| that people spontaneously adopt, and go nuts about stuff like
| the inclusion of Pocket. I know, I used to be one of those
| people back when Pocket was introduced. But reeing about
| Mozilla trying to have independent funding by giving people
| useful services is just strange. It's exactly what they
| should be doing, and Brave setting up revenue streams like
| Talk and Search is great. Especially because they operate in
| the normal money universe for those of us who aren't terribly
| enthusiastic about crypto.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Brave sees Mozilla's political shitfest and raises a
| political shitbacchanalia.
| reitanqild wrote:
| I also think it is great that browsers seek out alternative
| sources of funding.
|
| My problems with Mozilla are:
|
| - Misuse of money: the browser team have brought in lots of
| money over the years (we talk billions) and the foundation
| is milking it dry. If the income created by the browser had
| stayed with the browser team they would have had funding
| for years to come.
|
| - Being dishonest: Mozilla has sought donations for Firefox
| and I think many of us have donated thinking we supported
| Firefox, while in reality the Firefox team funds itself and
| the rest of Mozilla and Mozilla isn't even allowed to send
| money the other way.
|
| - Not being up front about what they do: they more or less
| lied about their relationship with Pocket. I like Pocket,
| both the product and as a way to bring in income, but
| whenever it comes up, everyone who was there starts
| thinking about their lies.
|
| - Nerfing the extension API.
|
| - Writing "dear community members" in emails begging for
| money while simultaneously being rude to us in responses to
| real issues in Bugzilla.
|
| Now, if anyone think I use Chrome, think again.
|
| I am still optimistically waiting for authorities to wake
| up and punish Google the same way they punished Microsoft -
| huge fines and browser ballots - but that does not mean I
| give Mozilla a free pass ;-)
| nxrabl wrote:
| That makes two companies who both maintain their own Chromium
| forks and run direct competitors to core Google search products.
| I wonder if we'll see Google start to close off open development
| on Chrome - Microsoft will likely be fine, but that could put
| Brave in a precarious position.
| vanviegen wrote:
| I'm not sure if they can without rewriting the whole thing, the
| original (WebKit/KHTML) code base being GPL.
|
| On the other hand, the Google lawyers seem to have found an
| excuse to link some proprietary code into Chome (that's not
| part of Chromium). Does anybody know what that excuse is, and
| if it provides a loophole large enough to close off Chrome
| development?
| post-factum wrote:
| I'd appreciate if it'd possible to select Czech Republic and
| Ukraine as regions for search.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| Very nice! I just switched to Brave Search from DDG on Brave and
| I kind of like it.
|
| Now... I would just like to see the full https url on searches.
|
| I already love the look, Brave summarizer AI and general results!
| cheald wrote:
| I'm very glad for this! I've been using Brave search almost since
| it launched, and the standard results have gotten great, but it's
| always been a bummer to have to go out to Bing/Google for
| images/video. It's really nice having an alternative that isn't
| just wrapper around someone else's search index.
| em-bee wrote:
| i have been using brave search for a while now and i was
| surprised and am very satisfied with the search results.
| missing image and video search was a bit annoying mostly in
| that it linked to google and bing but not any other search
| engines. but i just remembered to switch to where i wanted to
| do image search instead. it sometimes meant that i had to go
| back to retype my search query, but i'd rather have a good text
| search than be bothered by that. in most cases i'd know ahead
| of time if i wanted images so it was easy to pick the right
| search engine.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I wonder what's different about our searches and
| expectations. I've been using Brave as a default for 1y+ and
| I still get consistently bad results compared to Google. The
| only reason it's remotely competitive is how much Google
| itself has declined in quality.
|
| A recent example from my search history, "doors of stone
| release date". The author has announced a new novella
| releasing Nov. 2023, but not the actual book _Doors of
| Stone_. The google infobox gets this wrong, but the first
| result is correct. Brave accidentally gets it right that
| there 's no release date for the book, but misses the novella
| announcement and all but one of the results are blogspam.
| mox1 wrote:
| Overall Brave search has been good for me. I have been
| using it as the default on every PC / Browser I utilize.
|
| I will say there are times when it just falls flat. Like I
| will search for a brand or specific thing , expecting to
| get to the home / login page for that brand, and it just
| flat out gives me weird results.
|
| But when I put the !g in front of the query, the first
| result is always what I wanted.
|
| On the other than, when doing more general searches, Brave
| is on par or better than google.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > I will say there are times when it just falls flat.
| Like I will search for a brand or specific thing ,
| expecting to get to the home / login page for that brand,
| and it just flat out gives me weird results.
|
| Conjecture: that might have to do with filtering SEO'd
| results. It is probably difficult to get rid of the pages
| that are meant to look a whole like the legit brand pages
| but not get rid the brand page itself.
| ignitionmonkey wrote:
| >I wonder what's different about our searches and
| expectations.
|
| The difference might be that they (including myself) don't
| ask search engines for facts like "doors of stone release
| date". They'll search for "doors of stone", find personally
| reliable sources like Wikipedia, Fandom, Goodreads, browse
| them and decide on an answer. When sources fail to appear,
| they'll either refine the search (like "doors of stone
| rothfuss") or call it a failure and maybe try a different
| search engine.
|
| This is one the reasons why Brave has been good for me so
| far. When a relevant Wikipedia article exists, it shows it,
| even if the title doesn't match. Whereas lately DDG and
| others don't. In fact, you can see this with "doors of
| stone". Brave shows "The Kingkiller Chronicle", DDG doesn't
| at all, Google has it low down in the results.
|
| It also shows Reddit discussions without needing to
| explicitly filter for it. And I use ad block to remove the
| AI summariser that takes up half the screen, it's not what
| I want from a search engine.
| Given_47 wrote:
| Yea I do enjoy that new(ish) discussions section feature.
| Anecdotally have found those to return more relevant
| results than the old site:reddit.com in google
| Ycdr4thfdd wrote:
| The brave results are usually relevant for me, but I find
| it struggles when I'm looking for something very
| specific. Their indexing of reddit seems to have a lot of
| gaps when compared with Google.
| mrweasel wrote:
| The search results are pretty good, but I can't work with the
| layout. I really don't like that video results a so
| prominently displayed, I don't understand why results a split
| into multiple "boxes". It's way to messy.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| I'm a little surprised to hear other people having such good
| results.
|
| Brave search was my default for quite a while, until a few
| weeks after they got rid of bing results. As soon as that
| happened, stuff just wasn't showing up that I'd expect to be
| there, and 90% of the time I'd follow up searches with !g or
| !ddg just to get something decent to show up. The index just
| felt severely lacking, or the relevancy was pretty far off
| base.
|
| Would you say search has greatly improved over the past month
| or two?
| cheald wrote:
| I feel like it's improved steadily over time. I used to
| find it severely lacking for anything code-related, but
| that's improved, too.
|
| It's not as good as Google was at its peak (and Google
| itself has degraded severely in quality, IMO), but it's
| good enough that I can generally find what I'm looking for
| with a minimum of effort.
|
| I run maybe 1 in 40-50 searches with "!g" because Brave is
| insufficient, for context.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| > stuff just wasn't showing up that I'd expect to be there
|
| Exactly my experience. I hadn't connected it to them
| getting rid of Bing results, but it makes sense. I've had
| to use the bang redirects to other search engines a lot
| more too, to a level I haven't had to in more than a year.
| computronus wrote:
| Possibly, at least for my own experience. It's much less
| often that I rerun a search with !g. Brave Search's results
| are becoming more relevant to my own queries, and Google's
| becoming less so. Not to mention how ads like to masquerade
| as ordinary Google results; using Google is starting to
| feel less comfortable.
| mrweasel wrote:
| That seems to be the general case, other search engines.
| Especially Bing and those based on Bing are yield
| increasingly good results, while Google is just ads and
| spam.
| ignitionmonkey wrote:
| Same here. Much like Firefox, I think it's important to use a
| search index that isn't tied to the larger players (Bing and
| Google in this case). I tried Brave a couple of months ago[1],
| I found the results better than Bing, but without image search
| it wasn't usable. Now I can give it another go.
|
| [1]: https://jahed.dev/2023/07/01/trying-brave-search/
| eviks wrote:
| Very nice!
|
| (though I've recently switched away from Brave Search since the
| goggles subscriptions (the reason I've switched to Brave) have a
| big bar right at the top and the whole top settings+goggles
| shifts search results on load!)
| whalesalad wrote:
| I wish brave (and everyone else on the internet) would abandon
| the poppins font it's nauseating.
| pierrefar wrote:
| The major problem with Brave search is their position about
| indexing and licensing content against the wishes of the website
| publisher. Their robot does not identify itself, meaning the
| publisher cannot use the standard robots.txt to block its
| crawling if the publisher so wishes. Incidentally, the robots.txt
| file has been used in court cases litigating if a search engine
| is legal or not.
|
| Even worse, they state that Brave search won't index a page only
| if other search engines are not allowed to index it. It is
| morally not their right to make that call. A publisher should
| have full control to discriminate which search engine indexes the
| website's content. That's the very heart of why the Robots
| Exclusion Protocol exists, and Brave is brazenly ignoring it.
|
| Even worse than that, the Brave search API allows you (for an
| extra fee) to get the content with a "license" to use the content
| for AI training? Who allowed them the right to distribute the
| content that way?
|
| I wrote about all this here:
|
| https://searchengineland.com/crawlers-search-engines-generat...
|
| and more references elsewhere in this thread:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989129
|
| Amusingly, while I was writing my article, this got posted to
| their forums, asking about how to block their crawler:
|
| https://community.brave.com/t/stop-website-being-shown-in-br...
|
| No reply so far.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Curious why cannot selectively block using IP address instead
| of user-agent string. According to HTTP specification, UA is
| not a required header. There is certainly no technical
| requirement for it in order to process HTTP requests. Of
| course, any website could block requests that lack a UA header.
| I never send one and it's relatively rare IME to see a site
| require it, but it's certainly possible.
| pierrefar wrote:
| This is explained more in the article I referred to, but
| briefly: Brave delegates crawling to normal Brave browsers,
| so it's a huge IP addresses pool, not a single IP address or
| range.
|
| Also, these search crawls by the browser do not identify
| themselves beyond the Brave standard UA header, namely a
| plain Chrome user-agent string.
| yreg wrote:
| Hmm, I don't know, it doesn't seem obvious to me that it is
| unethical to disobey the publisher wishes.
|
| If you post something to the open web, what's it to you who
| reads it and how? You can block some IPs but that's about it.
|
| I don't know if Brave has a knowledge graph - if they do, I
| would understand objecting if they filled it in with "stolen"
| content. But I don't see what's the problem with search.
|
| By the way, isn't everyone's favourite archive.is doing the
| same thing?
|
| I have no strong opinion on this, curious to hear counter
| arguments.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| I'm just thinking that if website publishers are able to
| legally allow Googlebot but block other bots, it might
| contribute to the Google monopoly.
| pierrefar wrote:
| That would be bad, and it is already bad that Google and
| Microsoft control so much of search queries, but the
| decision about which search engine indexes a website is
| purely the publisher's.
| cvalka wrote:
| No, it's not.
| yreg wrote:
| But why do you believe so?
| cvalka wrote:
| They are right and you are wrong. If some web page is publicly
| available, it should be indexed. Scraping neutrality, please.
| jaharios wrote:
| This make me want to use Brave search now. When I use a tool I
| expect it that it serves me, not the material it provides.
|
| > A publisher should have full control to discriminate which
| search engine indexes the website's content
|
| If you want someone to not see what you publish block him
| yourself. Also why would you want to do that? Do you want
| google to own the web or something?
| pierrefar wrote:
| There is a a difference between a human being able to access
| content vs a search engine indexing it (and in the case of
| Brave, "licensing" it on).
|
| I share your concern about Google having this much power, and
| I'd add that Microsoft Bing is equally bad but gets away with
| it because they're smaller. Still, the final decision about
| which search engine indexes a website is purely the
| publisher's.
| JEDI-HACKER wrote:
| [dead]
| butz wrote:
| Good, but we need more alternative search engines, even very
| niche ones.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| [flagged]
| colordrops wrote:
| What does being "woke" or "based" mean when it comes to
| concrete issues you have using their products?
| veave wrote:
| In this context... well, bing hiding the tiananmen square
| protests (mentioned in the article) or google returning a
| list of exclusively black people when you searched for
| "american inventors" are two incidents that come to mind.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Bing hiding "tank man" is not "woke" by any common
| definition of the term.
|
| Got a reference on the Google incident? Sounds like
| misinformation.
| veave wrote:
| There are a few references online if you search for
| '"american inventors" "google"' or something. For obvious
| reasons it was never covered in any tech blog.
|
| https://twitter.com/Micki_Harbour/status/8948713351046307
| 84
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/88a5hv/is_some
| thi...
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| This is irrelevant.
|
| How many references to e.g. Edison will you find online,
| remarking that he was "white"? In a context of ethnic
| debate in the US, mentioning "white" anything, will most
| likely revolve around "black" anything.
| creata wrote:
| > google returning a list of exclusively black people when
| you searched for "american inventors"
|
| There's no way that's intentional. For starters,
| DuckDuckGo, Google and Brave image search all do the same
| thing here.
|
| Maybe it's some weirdness involving "american inventors"
| appearing in the phrase "african american inventors" or
| something.
| pixxel wrote:
| Couple of google tests:
|
| "Black man" "Black family" Results as expected.
|
| "White man" "White family" A mixture of black and white.
|
| "happy black woman" Results as expected.
|
| "happy white woman" Lots of white women with black men.
|
| Edit: DDG's results seems to fair better.
| spookie wrote:
| Can't reproduce these results.
| veave wrote:
| You don't see this? https://i.imgur.com/e5GaIgn.jpeg
| spookie wrote:
| No, I don't know what to say. I don't use Google tbh, but
| as someone else commented on here, that's not a viable
| reason either. I really don't know.
| pixxel wrote:
| I don't use google and actively block on my home network.
| I've just tested with a clean VM using VPN in Sweden, Uk
| and USA. All results are reproducible for me and are not
| tainted with my browsing history.
| spookie wrote:
| Agreed, I do believe it's an artifact of a anglophone
| dominated web (if you're talking about someone from your
| country with your native language, you're less likely to
| specify their nationality). I didn't mean to be toxic
| with the dominated part or anything, I just think it
| summarises the phenomena pretty well.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| When will Brave Search launch a crawler update that lets me
| specifically block its crawler in robots.txt like every other
| search engine supports?
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I see they say "if a domain or page is not crawlable by any
| search engine (it has a noindex tag), or if it is not crawlable
| by googlebot, then Brave Search's bot will not crawl it
| either."
|
| 1: https://brave.com/search/api/
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| What if I want googlebot to crawl it but not bravebot? Every
| other search engine lets me block its crawler specifically.
| Only Brave has this shady policy.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| I'm conflicted - I see your point and agree; though I
| appreciate that by using methods of others... we don't end
| up with _more_
|
| Loosely related XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/
| hightrix wrote:
| > What if I want googlebot to crawl it but not bravebot?
|
| Then you need to gate your content such that it is not
| available openly to the public.
|
| This falls inline with many objections to Google's WEI. If
| you host content openly and allow access freely, then don't
| be surprised when people access it at will and use it for
| free.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Hmm, I agree it's odd, but 'shady' seems to attribute
| malice to what could just be stupidity?
| d_theorist wrote:
| Or probably just an innocent oversight? I imagine they
| might have taken this decision early on when they were
| far too small for anybody to even think of not wanting to
| be crawled by them, and just never revisited the
| decision.
| skilled wrote:
| It's not so innocent,
|
| https://stackdiary.com/brave-selling-copyrighted-data-
| for-ai...
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Brave has a track record of malice _driven by_ stupidity.
| cpeterso wrote:
| Does the Brave crawler send the Googlebot or regular Chrome
| User-Agent string? If it sends something different than the
| standard Googlebot User-Agent string, you could dynamically
| serve a robots.txt that blocks Googlebot to every client
| _besides_ Googlebot. OTOH, I 've read that the Google crawler
| sometimes users the regular Chrome User-Agent string and
| penalizes sites that return different content to Googlebot
| and Chrome.
| msp26 wrote:
| No mention of reverse image search sadly. I've been looking for
| anything better than Google/yandex forever.
| guestbest wrote:
| I've been using tineye.com
| porridgeraisin wrote:
| Bing visual search is great. I use it in cryptic hunts a bunch.
| Would of course prefer a non-MS offering though, I hope one
| comes along that's equally good.
| veave wrote:
| Bing has its own and it's not bad.
|
| Usually google+tineye+bing+yandex will yield some useful
| results
| CoBE10 wrote:
| In the last few months Bing has been much more reliable for
| me at reverse finding original sources of cover album images
| that have been posted on Discogs. Google seems to not give me
| images that have been posted a long time ago (10+ years
| maybe), but Bing still does.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| If you're looking for people I was add pimeyes to that list.
| davidm1729 wrote:
| Hi, I'm David and I've worked along other engineers at Brave on
| this! Thanks for your feedback, it would certainly be a nice
| addition, although we may want to focus a bit more on quality
| first. Thanks!
| teruakohatu wrote:
| Hi David, reverse image search is an easier problem than good
| search quality. I am happy to chat with you about it, email
| in HN profile.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Thank you for you and your team's hard work on this. To break
| the small monopoly on image search is no easy thing and I
| appreciate it.
|
| It also explains why Brave Search is slow today I suspect...
| :)
| CoBE10 wrote:
| Also reported here:
| https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/03/brave_cuts_ties_with_...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-03 23:01 UTC)