Technology

I don't know. I find the underlying principle of kagi a bit problematic. For example, look at what they say in this piece here. I get that any search engine that is "free" but sponsored by ads is gonna be skewed towards the advertisers. But like kagi phrases their response, it sounds somewhat classist. If you can afford a good search engine, you deserve better search results. If you don't, well, your bad. I mean, it's OK if they finance themselves by being a paid service. But this should be only a necessary first step before finding other ways to finance themselves.

Remember the first time you used Google search? It was like magic. After years of progressively worsening search quality from Altavista and Yahoo, Google was literally stunning, a gateway to the very best things on the internet.

No, I'm not having that! That's rewriting of history. I remember when Google came out, it was pretty much as good as Altavista and no more. It had the additional appeal that it looked (for the time) unique and fresh and had a weird name, I remember getting my friends to try this "weird new search engine that might someday beat Altavista" but it never revolutionised anything in terms of search results at the time.

Also Altavista was not getting progressively worse, I still remember the days when you could type a simple dictionary word into a search engine and have it return 0 results. Altavista is what changed that, not Google.

No matter how many times people claim "X search engine" is universally better than Google, it has just never been true in my experience. And this is coming from someone who puts up with the frustrations of other search engines to avoid Google's data harvesting. Like Google's search engine can have rapidly deteriorated and still be miles better than the competition. Both can be true, but people always seem to act like the SEO spam has made it unusable and that is just not reality at all.