[HN Gopher] Cory Doctorow on Kagi Search
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Cory Doctorow on Kagi Search
        
       Author : simonebrunozzi
       Score  : 72 points
       Date   : 2024-04-04 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (pluralistic.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (pluralistic.net)
        
       | smcleod wrote:
       | "I tried it. It was magic.              No, seriously. All those
       | things Google couldn't find anymore? Top of the search pile.
       | Queries that generated pages of spam in Google results? Fucking
       | pristine on Kagi - the right answers, over and over again.
       | ...(contd)"
        
       | curmudgeon22 wrote:
       | Interesting tidbit:
       | 
       | > In other words: Kagi is a heavily customized, anonymized front-
       | end to Google.
       | 
       | >The implications of this are stunning. It means that Google's
       | enshittified search-results are a choice. Those ad-strewn, sub-
       | Altavista, spam-drowned search pages are a feature, not a bug.
       | Google prefers those results to Kagi, because Google makes more
       | money out of shit than they would out of delivering a good
       | product:
        
       | ctrw wrote:
       | I've tried kagi and really wanted to like it.
       | 
       | But it returns the same results google does. I even asked people
       | on here to give me the queries that kagi is best at. Even then
       | google still returned the same results.
       | 
       | Like the OP said, Google's shittiness is a choice and one they
       | can turn off whenever too many people look like they are about to
       | leave.
        
         | mordae wrote:
         | Yeah. It's the same results. Sans 90% of the spam. And it gets
         | better as you blacklist the frequent offenders yourself.
        
         | 1970-01-01 wrote:
         | It is slightly better search results compared to Google, but
         | only just. The game changer in search is seeing the results
         | without stupid ads. If they offered just that feature for
         | $0.99/month, I would switch. Their current price is simply too
         | high for daily use.
        
         | awithrow wrote:
         | What I like about it is the ability to bubble up domains that
         | are more useful to me and also downrank or filter out the ever
         | growing domains of seo filler.
        
       | MyFirstSass wrote:
       | Think i'll finally give Kagi a try - also thinking about moving
       | to Fastmail or similar.
       | 
       | The results are so ridiculous now i've actively begun hating
       | them, that coupled with a short stint using Google Ads a few
       | years ago and i'm convinced Google is a very, very shady company
       | that i can't wait to ditch fully.
       | 
       | Docs wise i've begun to look up on GPT-4 a lot though instead of
       | stack, official sites etc. so i'm already using search less in
       | general.
        
         | dhc02 wrote:
         | I switched to fastmail from gmail a few months ago and I'm
         | incredibly happy with it. I even got to keep my *@mydomain
         | wildcard addresses, and the fastmail calendar implementation is
         | not half bad.
        
         | omoikane wrote:
         | I was on Fastmail until Opera bought them. Looks like they have
         | since bought back their company, but there wasn't a compelling
         | reason for me to go back.
        
           | laurentlbm wrote:
           | I don't get the point of your comment. They were only owned
           | by Opera from 2010 to 2013, that's more than 10 years ago.
        
       | jhbadger wrote:
       | I get paying for a search engine rather than having it be ad-
       | supported. And I get that running all those servers costs a fair
       | chunk of change. But the cost just seems insane -- $10/month?
       | That's on par with a streaming service that needs millions of
       | dollars to make content. I just can't see even the best search
       | engine either costing that much to run or providing that much
       | value.
        
         | actionfromafar wrote:
         | Isn't it a matter of scale still though? Presumably search
         | engine cost could be much less per account once you have as
         | many users as Netflix has. Assuming a large chunk of the cost
         | of Kagi is the quality and curating, not just sheer server
         | OPEX.
         | 
         | (Maybe a bold assumption, I don't have insight.)
        
         | mordae wrote:
         | Most of it goes to Google.
         | 
         | I am based in central Europe and Kagi is less than 1/2 of my
         | hourly rate per month. And it definitely saves at least that
         | much.
        
           | MyFirstSass wrote:
           | Really? I was ready to ditch Google not pay them through
           | third parties. Oh well..
        
             | mordae wrote:
             | I totally get you, but we both have work to do and through
             | Kagi it's easier and more respectful to our attention
             | spans.
             | 
             | Google is getting the money either way. At least for now.
        
         | piva00 wrote:
         | I use Kagi an order or two of magnitude more than what I use
         | the streaming services I pay for.
         | 
         | It's a small operation with no VC money to dump prices and
         | subsidise it for you, it's very in line to what I imagine
         | paying for under these conditions.
        
         | olieidel wrote:
         | I disagree - I don't think $10 / month is insane. Our low price
         | expectations are driven by SaaS companies optimizing for
         | growth, not profitability. Look at some of those "affordable"
         | products out there: Slack, Asana, Shopify, all not profitable.
         | The biggest surprise here, I think, is that VC-driven "growth
         | first" companies have shifted customer expectations to think
         | that everything should either be free or sub-$10 / month. The
         | economic reality, however, looks quite different, if companies
         | would aim for profitability (not many in the HN bubble do).
        
         | bananapub wrote:
         | > I just can't see even the best search engine either costing
         | that much to run or
         | 
         | why is that hard to imagine? the fixed costs of a search engine
         | are enormous, and Google has 1) coming on three decades of
         | investment in sunk costs and 2) billions of users now.
         | 
         | > providing that much value.
         | 
         | that's obviously a personal judgement you have to make for
         | yourself.
         | 
         | having a quite good search engine that is happy to just take my
         | money in exchange for a useful service is definitely worth
         | three coffees/month to me.
        
         | dfxm12 wrote:
         | Theoretically, you're not just paying for the lost revenue on
         | serving ads and/or server costs, but also the lost revenue on
         | harvesting your personal data.
        
         | summerlight wrote:
         | If you really want to have a good option for ad-free search
         | engines, you will need to pay more than what search engines
         | could get from ad revenue. And this is a non-trivial amount;
         | Google's ARPU is reportedly more than hundreds bucks. Given its
         | scale, Kagi might be running at loss even with $10/month...
        
         | JohnFen wrote:
         | I pay for Kagi and I honestly feel that I get more than my
         | money's worth out of it. YMMV, of course. Maybe it isn't worth
         | it to you.
         | 
         | But for me, Kagi opened up the web again. I can finally find
         | what I'm looking for. I can make sure that my results never
         | include BS websites. I even got serendipity back in my
         | searches.
         | 
         | In a sense, the $10/mo I pay is really for access to the web
         | itself. Without Kagi, most of parts of the web I was interested
         | in were almost entirely unfindable.
         | 
         | But... you don't have to pay for it. You do need an account,
         | but Kagi has a free tier.
        
         | gmuslera wrote:
         | Essentially $10 to take out the garbage, because the one that
         | did it for "free" is doing a bad job at it.
        
         | troyvit wrote:
         | * It's a gallon of grass-fed milk every month.
         | 
         | * It's a car wash every month.
         | 
         | * It's two mid-range store-bought frozen pizzas every month
         | 
         | * It's one Febreeze plug-in air freshener complete with 2 oil
         | refills every month
         | 
         | * You would be out just over 300 matches per month if you
         | instead put that money towards Kagi.
         | 
         | * And in homage to A Tiny Armageddon it is about 500 plastic
         | spoons per month.
        
         | D13Fd wrote:
         | It would be worth it at 10x the price.
         | 
         | $10 is a couple of cups of coffee or a cheap lunch in my area.
         | I use Kagi a dozen times a day for work. The value proposition
         | is very good. Every once in a while I'll use a computer that
         | doesn't have Kagi and remember how much Google stinks these
         | days.
         | 
         | Eventually Google is going to wise up and cut off Kagi's API
         | access. But until then I'm very happy to pay $10/month for
         | greatly improved search.
        
           | ipaddr wrote:
           | Lol at 10 times? What about 100 times? Does it start losing
           | value?
        
       | bananapub wrote:
       | to add another anecdote: I've been using it for a year and it is
       | really good. less garbage in the results of the sort of searches
       | I make, no ads, no tracking, no logging, a nice UI to affect my
       | own personal search results in ways I prefer (banning sites I
       | consider crap from results, up and downranking others based on my
       | opinion).
       | 
       | most importantly, it's just a simple, clear business transaction:
       | I give them money, they provide a search engine in return. no
       | trying to make me click on ads, no trying to encourage me to use
       | it or let it track me to make money some other way, no worries
       | about how they manage to provide a service to me, no worries
       | about what future management might do with the huge morass of
       | personal data they have acquired.
       | 
       | every now and then I can't find what I'm looking for and try
       | Google, and the vast majority of the time Google can't find it
       | either. it's pretty sad that a tiny new upstart can actually
       | replace the once formidable Google Search for me, but c'est la
       | vie.
        
       | api wrote:
       | Kagi works for you. Google works for advertisers.
        
       | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
       | I wish we could go back to the good Google with ads in the
       | sidebar. It paid to keep the lights on and felt like a fair trade
       | for a free service.
        
       | xnx wrote:
       | > All those things Google couldn't find anymore? Top of the
       | search pile. Queries that generated pages of spam in Google
       | results? Fucking pristine on Kagi - the right answers, over and
       | over again.
       | 
       | No examples?
       | 
       | > When you search on Kagi, the service makes a series of
       | "anonymized API calls to traditional search indexes like Google,
       | Yandex, Mojeek, and Brave,
       | 
       | Is this allowed by Google's terms?
        
         | EMIRELADERO wrote:
         | > Is this allowed by Google's terms?
         | 
         | Why does it have to be?
        
       | infomiho wrote:
       | Every time I write a search query like "best tool for X" or
       | "alternative to X", I use Kagi instead of Google. Because Google
       | results for those kind of queries tend to be SEO optimized
       | articles where the first recommended thing is the advert. Or even
       | worse, I get some sort of spam/scam sites that get paid to shill
       | stuff. I think got conditioned with bad Google results to not do
       | it for those kind of queries.
       | 
       | For all other searches, Google seems good enough.
        
       | gmuslera wrote:
       | Depending on what your main competitor gives you is a bad
       | pattern. If it gets adopted enough, or somewhat Google see it as
       | a threat, conditions will change, maybe for everyone.
       | 
       | Think in what Reddit did when seemed that ChatGPT was trained on
       | Reddit content, they put a price to such 3rd party requests,
       | ended a market of good frontend alternatives for it, some tools
       | and bots stopped working, etc.
       | 
       | Google could do something similar, or poison/watermark the
       | results sent to them or even put Gemini to be creative enough
       | with the way it send back results to make very hard to parse to
       | send an unified answer.
       | 
       | It is what is available now, and it may work, but it may stop
       | doing so because things happening outside their control.
        
       | ladzoppelin wrote:
       | I also am getting value from Kagi and think their AI/Summarize is
       | really good. The search lenses are also very cool, actually its
       | like Google was before they silently deprecated all useful
       | operators. Honestly I hope they make it as it really is a better
       | way to do the web.
       | 
       | edit: So I pay 20 bucks a month and get the "early adopter"
       | package which is all the AI stuff in beta and its amazing. I
       | think it completely makes Kagi much more desirable. Its a lot of
       | money but I don't use any streaming services anymore and honestly
       | just learn stuff and mess with LLM's to kill time when before I
       | was watching something. I guess its not for everyone but I am
       | surprised its not an instant buy for [more people in the
       | industry.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-04 23:01 UTC)