Just started getting this now. Hopefully it’s some A/B testing that they’ll stop doing, but I’m not holding my breath

    • underscores@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      I think they switched to usually using bing results last year. Their support site mentions they use both backends. I’d guess which one you get depends on which API is cheaper for each country.

      • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        It turns out it went multi-engine, probably to prevent getting cut off of Google’s Results. It probably mixes results from multiple engines like the old multi engine search engines in the old days of the internet.

  • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    I’ve been happy with Qwant lately, they have their own index so using them doesn’t support the Google + Bing hegemony. They’re also EU based and regulated by the gdpr.

    • m_f@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Sometimes, yeah. My default is DDG, and I also use Kagi, but Google is still good at some stuff. Guess I’ll take the hit and just stop using it completely though. Kagi has been good enough, and also lets me search the fediverse for finding that dank meme I saw last week. Google used to be able to do that, but can’t shove as many ads in those queries I assume, so they dropped that ability.

      • moseschrute@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        It’s been a year or so since I’ve gone down this rabbit hole, but what I remember, the more you block ads and tracker, the more unique your browser becomes, and the more fingerprintable it is.

        Tor’s approach is to make every instance if the tor browser look as identical as possible to websites. But Tor is pretty niche. If Apple did the same with Safari, you would be an identical device in a match larger pool of devices.

        I think Apple has taken some measures, but not as well as Tot has.

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    lol. nope. not happening. that’s not how to get me to even think about using your search again (having quit over a decade ago).

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      I get a notification every month telling me that they will charge me for my monthly Kagi subscription and every single month i feel the same:

      ‘Totally worth it!’

      • datavoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        I feel like their pricing would make more sense if you could just pay for your usage, rather than forcing a subscription

        • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          They do have different tiers depending on your search volume and features, so in a way they already have this. I’d hate to have to go through checkout every time i did a search.

          • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            Why do you think you have to go through a checkout?

            They could just pool your owed money and then charge you that at the end of the month, or let you maintain a pool that you throw money into that they take from as you use it.

            • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              They have 100, 300, and unlimited for $0, $5, and $10

              How much would you be willing to pay per search? And do you know how many searches you make every month?

              For me, i pay not for the searches as such, but to not be tracked and be shown more ads than search results

              • datavoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                19 days ago

                I haven’t been using kagi long enough to really understand how it works yet, but it’s my understanding that they want you to pay every month, even if you had remaining searches from the previous month.

                If I pay $5 for 300 searches, why does it matter if I do them within a time frame? When someone isn’t’ searching, they aren’t really costing Kagi anything.

                Alternatively, let people pay 1.6 cents per search (or 1.8 cents or something).

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  Basically because the product they’re selling isn’t “You get to do a search whenever” but “You get to do a search this month”.

                  The reason for that, based on my experience with various web startups, is they want to maximize the predictability of their resource usage in terms of staff and servers.

                  If millions of people pay their $5 and then don’t use their searches, then in the extreme case Kagi could be maintaining servers twenty years later in anticipation that their customers might use those searches.

                  It’s an edge case, but it illustrates the point.

                  Also, on the customer side, there’s a psychological benefit to free things. Free as in “already paid for; no cost to using it”.

                  If you have something that can be used this month but not any other month, then using it is free. If using it now means you can’t use it next year, then there’s still a cost to it despite it already being paid for.

    • m_f@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      A lot of the web is powered by JS, but much less of it needs to be. Here’s a couple of sites that are part of a trend to not unnecessarily introduce it:

      http://youmightnotneedjs.com/

      https://htmx.org/

      The negative implications for Google requiring JS is that they will use it to track everything possible about you that they can, even down to how you move your cursor, or how much battery you have left on your phone in order to jack up prices, or any other number of shitty things.

      • Chingzilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Htmx does use javascript under the hood, but just makes it so the developer can use html markdown for more a more interactive environment that’s driven sever side. So the initial page load should render, but UI elements might not work as intended.

        htmx is more a move back to REST as it was originally defined (aka not json backend).

        • m_f@midwest.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          They’re also working with browser developers to push htmx into web standards, so that hopefully soon you won’t even need htmx/JS/etc, it’ll just be what your browser does by default

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        JS is like a disease where it does not need to be. I would honestly welcome an Internet alternative that was all web 1.0 (with up-to-date security updates and methods). There’s good uses for it in interactive websites that provide cloud services, but most of it is fud and breaks the whole notion of HTTP GET URLs you can just share and cache.

    • ShadowCatEXE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      A large majority of modern web applications are built with Javascript… Both frontend and backend. You do still have a large majority of websites using plain HTML or PHP, with some features requiring JS to function (modals, realtime stats, data input, etc).

      You also have alternative languages like Java or C# (and more), but also may use bits of JS on the frontend to drive functionality.

      You can bet that the majority of websites you visit nowadays will use some form of JS, unless it’s a static webpage to display basic information.