4 ms·
I don't disagree with your assessment in full, but I don't exactly consider wikipedia and Amazon good results. Like they are big enough that if that's the resul
by hattmall 3y ago
I don't disagree with your assessment in full, but I don't exactly consider wikipedia and Amazon good results. Like they are big enough that if that's the result I want I can go to them directly. So like they aren't bad or wrong, but I can see the case for excluding them. Should something like Webster's dictionary be a top result?
- fantasybroker 3y agoI think for single word queries like that Wikipedia covers more ground than a dictionary. Personal preference, perhaps. If I need a definition I search for "define dildo" (Kagi shows Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc dictionary entries).
- marginalia_nu 3y agoMarginalia supports the old Google syntax, e.g. "define:dildo"
- fantasybroker 3y agoThanks! If you are that "single person" who built Marginalia... hope you are not taking my criticism personally. I am more annoyed by this blog post that uses a few handpicked queries to present generalized long winded conclusions that are completely disproven when using a different set of queries.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoYeah, its me, and to be fair I made a comment to a similar effect myself. Assessing search result quality is very hard, and this is definitely a pretty flattering selection of queries.
- fantasybroker 3y agoOn the plus side - in addition to Marginalia's own success, you can take partial credit for how good Kagi search results are (IIRC Marginalia's index is one of the sources for Kagi search results). So... thank you for that!
- marginalia_nu 3y agoMarginalia Search isn't trying to be a universal knowledge engine, it's just a website finder. That's bad if you're looking for a simple answer or basic fact, and good if you're looking for a few hours of reading.