3 ms·

Is there a way to prove that i had paid yet remain anonymous (ideally without a session attached to me)? You offer pay-per-use or pay-per-month or both? Also f

by Tepix 5y ago

Is there a way to prove that i had paid yet remain anonymous (ideally without a session attached to me)? You offer pay-per-use or pay-per-month or both? Also feedback regarding your current website: So there is merely one sentence: It says "Premium search engine where everything on the page matters." Yet, to the left and the right of this sentence are wiggling clouds that don't matter at all and distract the reader. Not ideal.

skinkestek 5y ago
After you log in however it is closer to true. Personally I'd almost say I can live fine with not pleasing extreme nitpickers but I think they'll fix it. The important point for me is unlike Google and DDG almost every result on Kagi does contain the thing you search for and if not you can report a bug and get a reply from a real human who will update the behavior. I've seen it multiple times after I joined their chat.
ovao 5y ago
The landing page is technically not a search engine, but maybe “every result matters” is better phrasing here.
rytill 5y ago
There is a lot more on the current website than that sentence and the clouds.
- xigoi 5y ago
  OP is contesting the claim that everything on the page matters. If anything on the page doesn't matter, the claim is wrong.
  - dave_sid 5y ago
    It all matters to me. And if it matters to anyone it matters. So the OP must be right.
  - ejb999 5y ago
    >>If anything on the page doesn't matter, the claim is wrong. Define 'matters' and 'matters to who'. May not matter to you, but if research shows that people interested in the reading about the product stay's around longer if the page is visually appealing - then it matters to someone.
    - buzzy_hacker 5y ago
      Knock knock. Who's there? To. To who? To whom!
  - kazinator 5y ago
    Your application of logic is not valid here, because "everything on the page matters" has not been given in a formal way, and you're cherry-picking one interpretation. What if it is intended to mean something like: ∀x ∃u: onpage(x) → matters(x, u) "For each element x, there is some user u, such that if x is on the page, it matters to u." This is not contradicted by this version of "anything doesn't matter": ∃z ∃v: onpage(z) ∧ ¬ matters(z, v) "There exist elements z for which there are users v, such that z is on the page, yet doesn't matter to v." But is contradicted by a different version of "anything doesn't matter" like: ∃z ∀v : onpage(x) ∧ ¬ matters(z, v) But you can easily find a person in the world who doesn't care about any aspect of something, let alone just one aspect of it. So what? If we restrict x to just the universe of users who are interested in at least one thing on the page (i.e. who are actual users), and we have somehow ascertained that everything on the page is covered by at least one user in that set, then the claim holds. You need to supply actual evidence that there is an item which no user ("person interested in at least one thing") is interested in; just you not being interested in something isn't it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by Tepix 5y ago

skinkestek 5y ago

After you log in however it is closer to true. Personally I'd almost say I can live fine with not pleasing extreme nitpickers but I think they'll fix it. The important point for me is unlike Google and DDG almost every result on Kagi does contain the thing you search for and if not you can report a bug and get a reply from a real human who will update the behavior. I've seen it multiple times after I joined their chat.

ovao 5y ago

The landing page is technically not a search engine, but maybe “every result matters” is better phrasing here.

rytill 5y ago

There is a lot more on the current website than that sentence and the clouds.

xigoi 5y ago
OP is contesting the claim that everything on the page matters. If anything on the page doesn't matter, the claim is wrong.
- dave_sid 5y ago
  It all matters to me. And if it matters to anyone it matters. So the OP must be right.
- ejb999 5y ago
  >>If anything on the page doesn't matter, the claim is wrong. Define 'matters' and 'matters to who'. May not matter to you, but if research shows that people interested in the reading about the product stay's around longer if the page is visually appealing - then it matters to someone.
  - buzzy_hacker 5y ago
    Knock knock. Who's there? To. To who? To whom!
- kazinator 5y ago
  Your application of logic is not valid here, because "everything on the page matters" has not been given in a formal way, and you're cherry-picking one interpretation. What if it is intended to mean something like: ∀x ∃u: onpage(x) → matters(x, u) "For each element x, there is some user u, such that if x is on the page, it matters to u." This is not contradicted by this version of "anything doesn't matter": ∃z ∃v: onpage(z) ∧ ¬ matters(z, v) "There exist elements z for which there are users v, such that z is on the page, yet doesn't matter to v." But is contradicted by a different version of "anything doesn't matter" like: ∃z ∀v : onpage(x) ∧ ¬ matters(z, v) But you can easily find a person in the world who doesn't care about any aspect of something, let alone just one aspect of it. So what? If we restrict x to just the universe of users who are interested in at least one thing on the page (i.e. who are actual users), and we have somehow ascertained that everything on the page is covered by at least one user in that set, then the claim holds. You need to supply actual evidence that there is an item which no user ("person interested in at least one thing") is interested in; just you not being interested in something isn't it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]