Hi maurs ,
You have some good points, let me add some context:
the sites most relevant to the Kagi user population
What is the typical Kagi user? Is it you? Is it me? Have you also recently been researching the history of Chinese dynastic expansionism?
In any case, I think it's a moot point because even the largest databases is just a tiny collection of only the most mainstream websites. We don't have the luxury of choosing a provider that has lots of reviews which also intersect our niche corner of the internet.
I'd consider cutting the final business model requirement.
Consider business models that fail the requirement of aligning with Kagi's values, for example:
- A business model that is ad supported, and only websites with ads receive positive content quality ratings.
- A business model that is placement supported, where websites pay to receive positive content quality ratings.
- A business model that is excessively VC-backed, with no ability or intent to be sustainable, which will enshittify to eventually corrupt its product quality and sell out its users.
- A business model where the data is low quality AI slop.
- A business model where the data is generated by modern slavery.
If filtering is possible, I want it available.
It might be ok, and as you mention would have to be optional. The reason I didn't suggest it is because the ratings provider databases are so small, that if you turned on a filter for only websites with a good rating the number of search results would be minuscule, and for many searches completely empty. Like, 80% of the things I search for wouldn't be listed in any ratings database that is available today. So, just adding a visual label, if a rating is available, is the only viable integration.
