Talk:Kagi

Relationship to Anthropic

Kagi now says its using Claude (language model) which is released by Anthropic who are not the most ethical AI company. Do we know anything about a relationship between kagi and Anthropic?--2003:CD:EF42:11FA:3CE5:8580:B9EB:E869 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Presumably there isn't much of a relationship between the companies beyond Kagi being a costumer of Anthropic. Neither have released statements indicating any relationship (again, beyond "we are now paying anthropic to provide us claude access", which any company with money can do), and no hidden relationship has been established by a news outlet. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 11:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge information from draft

@StreetcarEnjoyer Please integrate information from Draft:Kagi (search) into this article. Greatder (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of the information from the draft is here. I've added a bit of information about Orion Browser. Should more secondary sources arrive it has the potential to be spun off into its own article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@StreetcarEnjoyer I'll remove the draft then. Greatder (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Poor citation for claims of not collecting user actions

Reference 8 (at the time of writing) supporting "The site does not collect user actions such as searches" is simply a link to a news website which quotes an employee of Kagi. It's effectively just PR-speak. As far as I'm aware Kagi has not proved or demonstrated that they do not collect such data, so why is Wikipedia stating it authoritatively on the page? It should either be removed or amended to say that the site claims not to collect user actions. 82.69.74.205 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Created Userbox

I've created a Kagi userbox for myself, (and anyone else who'd like to use it).

Code	Result
{{User:Neuroxic/Userboxes/kagi}}	This user searches the internet with Kagi.	Usage

I added it to the list of website userboxes too.

Neuroxic (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for reviews?

The article has a section "Search results quality" that cites one comparison of Kagi to other search engines that is generally unfavorable. From a casual investigation, this seems unrepresentative of reviews of the search engine. Most assessments are more favorable to much more favorable towards Kagi than the one citation. But what I've found have been opinions of users rather than rigorous apples-to-apples comparisons.

The comparison cited is not dated as far as I can see which seems like a major drawback as I presume that as a new service Kagi is undergoing significant development. So, I am somewhat inclined to remove it. At a minimum I would be inclined to qualify the comment and add other assessments. But, as I said, I have not found rigorous reviews. I have not investigated Wikipedia's standards or norms for this sort of information so I am leaving it as is for now but wanted to flag it in the hope someone else has time/experience to edit this section.

Jreiss17 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the source and the methodology is all over the place. the user seems to be expecting either too much or not enough of the search engines tested, including expecting answers out of literal textbooks, and expecting results that answer a different question than the one asked. This isn't to say that the conclusion is wrong, but really I expect every search engine tested in that source to perform quite poorly.

The Marginalia results in particular appear to be significantly biased by the author's selection of search terms (ie it does great if what you're into is specifically open source software).

seems to hold an actual head-to-head but only between kagi and google, and it doesn't appear to have been written by a kagi superfan either. the results seems to be that it's on par with google results, failing in some areas and suceeding in others (which makes sense for an engine populated by google results in the first place).

is much less in depth. it tries more queries but only offers a final summary and doesn't explain what works and what doesn't for each query, just overall. the summary is, however, much easier to cite:

In general, Kagi seems to perform better whenever Google has too much of an incentive to perform worse. Popular searches and searches where Google stands to make the most money from advertising also tend to yield the lowest quality results. In contrast, Kagi seems to do exceptionally well on these searches. On less lucrative searches, both engines have similar results.

The author also notes a weaker image search.

It may be a good idea to note that while the default results are as they come, customisability may significantly improve quality, which is a point noted by several of the sources already cited in the article.

seeing as

This user searches the internet with Kagi.

, i'm not gonna go ahead and add these sources myself as that would probably fall under COI. If someone else can review the sources provided and edit the article appropriately that'd be great.
themoon@talk:~$ 14:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 13:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Kagi (search engine) → Kagi – Kagi (search engine) is the most popular article by a wide margin. Kagi itself should move to Kagi (disambiguation). Greatder (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Websites and WikiProject Computing have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Privacy section

It's not accurate to say they don't collect searches, instead of CEO's words on a news page we should look at Privacy Policy https://kagi.com/privacy

...

While we do keep a record of usage volume for billing purposes, search queries themselves are only logged temporarily for debugging purposes and are automatically purged after a short period, as detailed above. This temporary logging helps us maintain and improve service quality while preserving user privacy.

...

from that what I understand is they collect searches Helper-707 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, it could be more nuanced - but ideally we should use secondary reliable sources instead of relying on either of these primary sources. StereoFolic (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but as I see, DuckDuckGo page points to it's own Privacy Policy and Help Pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo#cite_note-65

Helper-707 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Marking Primary sources

The latest revision by @W00zles removed the daggers next to primary sources, which were added by @Chew. Personally, I could see it both ways, though I veer on the side of having them.

Regardless, I'd ike us to discuss and ideally come to a consensus on whether or not we shoud have them, and then stick to that, instead of having them 6 months per year.

Related: W00zles, your latest edit removing the dagger broke some citations. Regardless of the result of this discussion, it'd be great if you could clean up after yourself. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Out of 32 citations, 14 are from Kagi... that is way too many. I put a tag on calling for third party sources. I will try to improve this so we can de-tag it... Basalmnine (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, over selected one. I am infrequent when I can.

In regards to the daggers: they shouldn't be there for all citations. A dagger is usually for footnotes or some other aside. Wikipedia has its own citation system, I don't see a good reason to clutter them with a symbol typically used for other things.

Referring to a See Also section may be worth having daggers for. W00zles (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully there's no need anymore - any primary sources that I've missed can hopefully be flagged with 'secondary source needed' Superb Owl (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)