←back to thread

162 points lr0 | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
vachina ◴[] No.41834294[source]
Kagi is great because SEO cargo cult haven’t caught up yet. Once Kagi gains traction I guarantee result quality will nosedive.
replies(6): >>41834313 #>>41834350 #>>41834388 #>>41834396 #>>41835993 #>>41836193 #
p3rls ◴[] No.41836193[source]
What? My niche is already dominated by the same SEO spammers as Google on Kagi and always has been. Kagi just takes google results... I swear some of you guys it's like we're not even using the same software.
replies(1): >>41836217 #
freediver ◴[] No.41836217[source]
Care enough to give an example or report to kagifeedback.org so we can check what is going on?
replies(1): >>41836383 #
1. p3rls ◴[] No.41836383[source]
Sure, my niche is entertainment, so let's search anything in the international music scene and check out the rank orderings...

Lo and behold it is exactly the same as Google pagerank.

replies(1): >>41836657 #
2. freediver ◴[] No.41836657[source]
How about an exact example so that we are on the same page? Thanks.
replies(1): >>41836845 #
3. p3rls ◴[] No.41836845[source]
Sure, I'll give you a recent example that I'm #1 in on both Google and Kagi:

2NE1 ages

I can go through this list and see you are exactly the same, except you leave up more spam.

Just one example of thousands I've looked at.

replies(1): >>41836956 #
4. freediver ◴[] No.41836956{3}[source]
Did I misunderstand you when you said Kagi results are same as Google results and you really meant that just result #1 happens to match? For your query I can see there is a difference already at result #2, #3 etc..

Also if you believe this is wrong you should submit search quality feedback to kagifeedback.org

We get a lot of feedback but it is mostly for technical queries that we usually address:

https://kagifeedback.org/t/search-quality

If you provide details what went wrong in kagi results for this query (and what sites should rank #1, #2... in your opinion) we can take a look. With search quality because it is such a broad space, what does not get reported, does not get looked at and addressed.

replies(1): >>41837492 #
5. p3rls ◴[] No.41837492{4}[source]
I get that the scale of this problem is dazzling but think that fundamentally you do not have a solution if you are copying pagerank (even adding upvotes etc.) for queries that haven't been screened by your staff.

I think you need to take a good hard look at what makes for shitty content and build some parameters off that. And if you had to go off pagerank (to begin with) I would be trying stuff like adding hidden penalties to popular CMSes, boosting reddit/HN content, and following SEO trends just to thwart them. I would categorize websites by expertise so queries related to korea do not rank pages from the hindustantimes. When you search for air filters, you should probably get that housefresh team and not forbes etc. The upvote system you have is moving in the right direction but even that will need to be fortified with anti-seoer measures.

I would try to create real EEAT standards that cannot be gamed without massive investments.

It's too late to undo the damage that the Danny Sullivans of the world have done but maybe can save something here.

replies(1): >>41839323 #
6. freediver ◴[] No.41839323{5}[source]
All we need is a search quality report as I indicated before and our team will look into it. The fact that there is no or little spam for other things Kagi users care about, is a testiment to our determination to deal with it.