More "profiles"/sources in the lateral widget

Browsing6853

I'm talking about this region, which is usually populated by a few icons from famous sources, and they don't even have labels:

You.com shows that people want from information from these smaller domain-specific indexes and IMO Brave's way is the best model right now (balance of performance, amount of content on screen and number of sources):

https://search.brave.com/search?q=singin+in+the+rain&source=web

https://search.brave.com/search?q=origin+of+species

https://search.brave.com/search?q=di+caprio

https://search.brave.com/search?q=yellow+submarine

To be completely honest, the "people also searched for" Kagi puts on the same place is much less relevant than a good amount of good sources on the specific search query because it's basically making the user find what they are looking for through multiple searches in adjacent topics (ad-based search engine tactics) instead of giving what was asked.

Vlad

I agree these profiles could be useful. Not sure how to get them though and it seems Brave includes a random collection of links (no structure). Sometimes it is a news site, sometime a random niche site. Almost like you took organic results and condensed them into a name of the site and favicon in the section?

People also ask has the role of enabling 'lateral' exploration.

Browsing6853

Vlad a random collection of links (no structure). Sometimes it is a news site, sometime a random niche site. Almost like you took organic results and condensed them into a name of the site and favicon in the section?

I don't think this is a big problem because the lateral widget is basically only shown in queries consisting of simple terms, which are probably searched by people without a deep previous knowledge about the subject and there are a lot of well known established sources that the user will likely click anyway. I'd rather have too much trash icons than not having enough high-quality ones.

Vlad

Browsing6853 Right, I guess it looks like a duplicate of links shown on the left, just condensed in a smaller space. Does that really add value?

Browsing6853

Vlad I think so, you could introduce it gradually by just using search results to add a few more icons in the same space and them ask for community feedback. It's gonna be great IMO.

NoGoogle

Vlad Yes please, I've been eyeing this as well. I don't trust Wikipedia, they have too many controversies when one looks into it. What Brave does with Britannica and other options is one of my favorite features of Brave that make me switch back to it every now and then. A users first impression about a new subject is powerful and having more than just Wikipedia on the side is wonderful. I've personally disabled Wikipedia on the side of search results because of this so having alternatives like Brave is great for those who turn off Wikipedia in their Kagi settings especially.

Vlad

NoGoogle Can you share a couple of examples where having Britannica is more valuable than Wikipedia for example? As far as I understand Brave still shows Wikipedia box, just there is also Britannica link underneath?

NoGoogle

Vlad Yeah, Brave also does not have a Britannica box, only a button next to the Wikipedia box/one. Mentioned it in case one existed/could be created as an alternative to the Wikipedia box. As for specific examples I'm struggling to remember ones but overall I love Wikipedia for anything non-controversial like some info on a niche video game and other low profile things that Britannica doesn't have any articles on. However when it comes to anything remotely controversial in any way, especially being a high profile topic, I stay far away from Wikipedia. This article and it's references does a great job explaining why Wikipedia can not be trusted for anything remotely controversial: https://swprs.org/wikipedia-disinformation-operation/

It's this line from the article in particular that scares me the most and why search engines like Kagi should try to combat it, "Moreover, US social media and video platforms are increasingly referring to Wikipedia to frame or combat “controversial” topics. The revelations discussed above may perhaps help explain why."

Vlad

NoGoogle We are still looking for a few examples where Britannica had superior result to Wikipedia to warrant investing in this feature. Also Britannica is owned by a private corporation - what guarantees the user their content is true?