Google swears everything is fine. A new study—and many people's lived experience—says different.

You’re Not Imagining It: Google Search Results Are Getting Worse, Study Finds::Google swears everything is fine. A new study—and many people’s lived experience—says different.

    • RedditRefugee69@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      11 months ago

      I’m so technologically illiterate I couldn’t figure out how to access the sears.space website. All I can find is versions and instances and a GitHub page

    • alansuspect@aussie.zoneEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      I picked up from their response that they’re just using the public API, not in any kind of partnership?

    • loudwhisper@infosec.pubEnglish
      32·
      11 months ago

      That’s not an engine, it’s a metaengine. The results are still tied to the engines used, which means if they are trash, you get trash. Kagi uses a mix of google/yandex/brave etc. and then elaborates them as well, in addition to have their own scraper for things like the small web (which is great to surface personal blogs).

      They are not comparable. Also, kagi’s privacy policy is exemplar and the account can be paid in crypto now (if you don’t want to use CC).

      Besides, there is no such thing as free hosting, similarly to Lemmy, it’s just someone paying.

        • loudwhisper@infosec.pubEnglish
          21·
          10 months ago

          Kagi is an engine, searx is a meta-engine. That’s what I meant. Which means kagi does not simply collate results from multiple source (like searx does), but implements its own logic. This means that - for example - it deranks website with many trackers, or can implement various features on top of the results. So it’s not a nitpick, it’s a substantial difference between an engine (kagi) and a metaengine (searx), which is essentially a proxy + aggregation of other engines.

          It’s a known fact that brave optimizes result based on google data, and the kagi guys themselves in fact added that - with it being cheaper than google API - it could be a vector to eventually reduce cost for google API without impacting results.

          That said, AFAIK kagi does not pose as a nonprofit, I think they make extremely clear that running searches (scraping, paying API, etc.) cost money and that they need to be profitable. Their stance is that by using a subscription model, their business interests align with user’s interests of providing good searches, rather than results that benefit advertisers, which is completely reasonable. This is literally written in their “why pay for searches” article that is presented when they show the pricing.

          Of course it is a big difference, and you can argue for pros and cons of both options. I personally think the internet should not be based either on megacorp nor on free labor. Would I prefer kagi being a co-op? Sure. But it’s not like relying solely on free labor is free from any moral implication either (sure, you can donate, and I do to Lemmy for example, but only a minority does).

            • loudwhisper@infosec.pubEnglish
              2·
              10 months ago

              This is more of a distraction than a distinction. Kagi’s results mostly come from others.

              No, this is a big distinction. If you don’t care about it or you don’t appreciate the differences, there are plenty of resources online where these are explained. For once, an engine can parse the query and search based on its own logic. A metasearch will always just use your query and get results from the sources.

              Its community is criticizing it for the results coming from others. A criticism that, I note, you don’t seem to touch. If you must respond to anything, I would love to hear your response to their corporate decision to fund a shady company run by a shady man.

              First of all, the criticism is from a tiny fraction of the community, and it is about which others the results are coming from, looking at it from a very narrow angle. It is not about the fact that the results are coming from others, but only from the fact that they are coming also from Brave.

              My opinion is fairly simple: I believe the damages of funding bad companies is less than the benefits of having a good one, with a good product which can have a substantially good impact on the infosphere, thrive. I believe that Google is a way worse company compared to what Brave will ever be, for example. However, I understand that if Kagi stopped taking results from anything which is not minor scrapers and its own scraper, Kagi wouldn’t exist (or at least, it would be a completely unusable product). If Brave integration can mean less money to Google in the medium term, it is a net-positive change from where I stand. And I am saying this as a de-googled taliban who stopped using any of their services for years. Considering that they integrate Google, Yandex, Mojeek and Brave, I would say that Brave is actually the less-worse of the major ones.

              … Known by who? It’s definitely not common knowledge.

              Known by whoever read the very conversation on kagifeedback. The company even answered to this particular point:

              Brave API is cheaper than Google API. If we can figure out a way to do use it transparently without negatively impacting search results, we can use this to lower our costs (currently we serve both, but this is not the plan long term).

              Which is a pretty good demonstration that Kagi as a corporation is seeking profit first and foremost.

              That’s extremely surprising for a company which is not profitable and did not even get VC funding. Also, the company has a good track of caring about its users. When they brought costs down, not long ago, they modified the plans and expanded the amount of searches (bringing the middle tear to unlimited searches), passing down the savings to the users. This was effectively reverting a change they implemented half a year earlier -> https://blog.kagi.com/unlimited-searches-for-10.

              With new search sources proving more cost-efficient, the improved efficiency of our infrastructure, and the broader market embracing Kagi, we can again offer an unlimited experience to a broader group of users. We’re excited that this change will let many more people enjoy a fun, ad-free, and user-centric web search.

              Marketing move? I don’t know, but what I know is that they did something many other companies would never do.

              hen you only nitpick the label I gave my examples, not the “we’re all in it together” emotional appeals aping the language of a non-profit. For example, “We exist to make the internet a healthier, happier place for everyone” Which I found on the business’ page you mentioned, is written more like they are a cutesy nonprofit than anything.

              So, I am quoting the fact that the company is extremely transparent about its business strategy, it doesn’t hide the fact that needs to earn money, it is transparent about its costs (incl. per search). You are applying your own bias and interpretation on sentences which in no way lead to intend that they are a non-profit (“utilizing the language of” is not “pretending to be”).

              I mean, if you want to believe that they are trying to act like a non-profit, I can’t change your mind. There are direct quote of the CEO talking about profitability, e.g.,

              This is part of the reason we included these search results - now we have 4 search indexes to work with and are much more resilient to any one killing the relationship on a whim. This also allows us to optimize cost as we can use different indexes for different queries, which is another important consideration for us as Kagi is not profitable yet.

              There are entire forum threads where they discuss subscription models and profitability. It’s overwhelmingly clear that they are a for-profit company, which just decided to use a different business model with the idea of serving internet users (their customers), and therefore “humanize” the web. Now, you can filter out the corporate marketing BS, if you wish, but I see absolutely no ground to support that they are acting in bad faith trying to present themselves as a non-profit.

              The main point is that profit is not bad by default. A co-op generating profit is absolutely great, for example. The point is how that profit is generated, and how it is distributed. If the model is based on a fair and transparent relationship with customers, which does not involve squeezing them so that the execs can buy their 3rd yacht, I don’t have a problem with that. If it’s not based on destroying users’ privacy to serve businesses (advertisers), I don’t have a problem with that. I will say more, in a capitalist world, this is the most we can hope for and if all companies would act like this, we would be way better than we are today.

                • wikibot@lemmy.worldBEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

                  In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect).

                  to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

                • loudwhisper@infosec.pubEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  The decision to fund Brave Corp, run by Brendan Eich, is my chief criticism of Kagi Corp.

                  I understood that.

                  Let me put a pin in this.

                  You mix this, to then say this:

                  The conversation that you said very few people participated in?

                  But you maybe misunderstood me (I will pretend it was not intentional). Not all the people who participated in that conversation are supporting the criticism you quote. And that is what I said:

                  First of all, the criticism is from a tiny fraction of the community

                  I did not say that very few people participated, which is anyway also true with respect to 19k users. However, this is without considering that it’s very likely many more people read that conversation, even without commenting, let alone the fact that that’s the result you find when you look for “kagi and brave”, which means if you are learning about this topic, you will go read that thread and get familiar with these facts.

                  Which was never the argument presented.

                  This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It’s just applying the same principle which is a very common process to decide on moral/ethical stances. I think that Google is way worse than brave. The economical, social and environmental impact of Google is orders of magnitude bigger than the impact that Eich’s donation to support homophobic position had on the world, or the one that Brave has with its crypto-bs. Mass-violation of privacy, layoffs, complete distortion of the internet based on the dominance, anti-competitive behavior, cooperation with US DoD and the military apparatus, the list is long. Given this, if your argument is that Kagi shouldn’t use (i.e., fund) Brave, mine is that Google is worse than Brave, hence if we want to apply the principle “it should not fund companies with harmful practices”, it should not fund it. And let’s also add that it shouldn’t fund Yandex, considering it’s a Russian company which pay taxes in Russia (funding the invasion of Ukraine?) and who knows how manipulates the information for the benefit of government propaganda. So, there are good arguments to not fund any of these companies on the basis of the same moral claim. There are subsets of users which probably have different hierarchies of “who is worse”, but for sure none of those companies will pass the bar to be considered “not harmful”, so then you need to decide whether the benefits of not doing business with them improve the world or doesn’t. From my PoV, as I explained, the benefits of having a company without harmful practices is bigger, even if in the short term means funding a little shitty companies. In fact, I also stated specifically that given Brave can be a replacement for Google, it is a net positive even without other considerations, and that’s because I’d rather have money sent to Brave than to Google.

                  People even said Kagi should just keep it turned off by default so nobody funds Brave Corp except by choice.

                  I understand they are working on a feature to do that.

                  Very interesting, but most people just look at the homepage, maybe the About page.

                  That’s for the most part written by the same guy anyway, it’s a small company. Also, as I said before, if you are learning about the kagi/brave controversy, you will end up in the forum (which is public and linked everywhere), I would expect is the same if you want to know more about the company.

                  I used a quote from an actual nonprofit and attributed it to Kagi. Apparently, you didn’t notice, probably thanks to how similar Kagi’s language is.

                  What does it mean, lol. Language similarity doesn’t mean they are pretending to be a noprofit. They have a mission to “humanize the web”, and they tend to stress that they want to improve “internet” as a whole. How does this relate to hiding being a for-profit company/pretending to be nonprofit? The message if anything is that they want to reconcile the need to run a business with doing it in a way that empowers, and does not harm, the customers. Why would you read in bad faith an attempt to show that for-profit companies do not necessary have to violate user’s rights to pursue profit?

                  As I said, I think you are simply attributing the meaning you want to sentences to make them mean what you want.

                  By charging a nominal fee for searches, Kagi ensures that its search results are faster, more accurate, and completely respectful of user’s privacy. And by aligning our incentives with those of our users, Kagi is committed to building a better, more ethical future on the web.

                  All search engines have search costs, development costs, and administrative costs. Most search engines cover this by advertising, tracking, and selling your data. And for 25 years we did not have any choice. Kagi brings a new model to the market - pay for your search with your wallet instead.

                  Who on Earth would read this and think that it’s a noprofit? It’s a company that is trying to do (or says that it’s trying to do) something in a more ethical way than what happens in the market.

                  By the way, they talk about humanizing the web and I think their effort in the context of the “small web” goes in this direction. Surfacing more content written by individuals I think is a good idea and makes the internet a tiny bit more human.

                  I appreciate how you completely ignored all other arguments that did not play well with your thesis, like the concrete example of how they passed the saving back to the users when they could, instead of sucking them dry like a regular for profit corporation would have done. I understand this conflicts with the picture you want to paint of a forprofit corporation being necessarily evil (statement with which I agree in a good 85% of the cases), but as I said, I think that so far they have a solid track record.

                  I also answered to your specific query about the Brave controversy, explaining my thought process and my reason. So if you disagree, I would like to know why you would be OK to fund Google but not Brave. Or Yandex. I am curious about which moral principles lead you to that conclusion. Since I have been kind enough to explain my position very clearly, and you ignored the whole thing, I’d like you to do the same, if possible.