>Google's solution that "outside links" are considered as "votes" that this site is good is what made it good but also what made it vulnerable to SEO. Do you ha

>Google's solution that "outside links" are considered as "votes" that this site is good is what made it good but also what made it vulnerable to SEO. Do you have any other idea on how do you decide if a result is good or not beyond the literal text search? Maybe you could have a "report spam" button next to every search result, and sites that got reported more often would get weighted way down in the results. But whatever google was doing around 2010-2012 is my benchmark for "actually good search engine". Maybe hire some people who worked at google back then and have them write something similar >90% of people do potentially hundreds of searches everyday. Especially non expert users that practically use the search engine to search for the domain of the sites they need to go too. The people ready to pay a fixed fee /per search wouldn't be able to cover even a fraction of the infrastructure costs of : "search engine that is actually good" I'm pretty skeptical of this. Ok, so you spend a few dollars per day on search. So what? People spend that much on coffee, and you get way more utility out of an actually good search engine. The market would definitely exist