Kagi Bloopers – Search Results Gone Wrong
32 comments
·November 15, 2025dceddia
Not quite a blooper but I thought it was neat:
I searched Kagi for “veterans day 2025” the other day (on Veterans Day, when I was unsure) and it answered
“= today”
metayrnc
“Pure numbers and French are not compatible”
Yep that checks out
Waterluvian
Sixty-ten-eight! Sixty-ten-nine! Four-twenties!
1999 == One thousand, nine hundreds, four twenties, ten, nine.
I studied French in grade school over ten years and I love it. But the way numbers convert into language is wild. I tease it with love.
Cosi1125
> Sixty-ten-eight! Sixty-ten-nine! Four-twenties!
fajitaforce5
US time: a quarter till 8.
Pooge
Switzerland and Belgium got them right!
cperciva
"Four twenties and ten" is better than the Danish "five minus a half, times twenty".
Waterluvian
That is so cursed.
I love it!
null
maccam912
Heres one I found: search for "spaceweather" and you get weather for East Derry, New Hampshire. Definitely not space. The results I need are one and two for links below, but a friend pointed out that there is an astronaut (Alan Shepherd maybe?) who lived there which is the only connection to space I can think of for that city.
amelius
The first blooper seems to forget that time == money.
phyzome
Just going to drop a quick complaint here that none of these are search results.
(though yes, they are funny)
bayesnet
People searched for something; these were the results. What else would you call it?
slacktivism123
If we use the strict definition of organic results in SERP, these aren't the result of webpage indexation, they're the output of widgets and other natural language parsing in Kagi.
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/settings/widgets.html
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/features/search-operators.html#qu...
input_sh
Those used to be called "instant answers" before every search engine renamed them to "AI overviews".
phyzome
By that definition a 500 page would also be a search result. :-)
card_zero
I guess for "Pop os" it gave a 2004 estimate for the population of the Cocos Islands. https://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/pacifique/cocos-ile.htm
de46le
More likely the town of Os in Innlandet, Norway, which was around that population a year or two ago.
NedF
[dead]
BinaryPie
Is Kagi worth paying for? It's been on my radar for a while.
fajitaforce5
My wife and I got the duo package because we do a lot of writing and need citations and sources. Compared to google and DDG it is less noisy and returns fewer spammy pages. We’re giving it a year to see if it is worth it.
anfragment
Just be aware that a small percentage of your money would be going to the Russian government: https://ounapuu.ee/posts/2025/07/17/kagi/
dublinben
The EU is still buying billions of dollars of fossil fuels and other resources from Russia.[0]
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/3/how-much-of-europes...
kome
also duckduckgo use(d) yandex. not many alternatives in this space
phyzome
I think generally yes. I tried it out for free for a while, found it was substantially better than Google and DuckDuckGo, and paid for a subscription.
Recently it has not had such a strong quality margin, which I suspect is due to the AI slop that all of the search engines are fighting against (due to errors both ways in their detection). I'm hoping this is temporary.
To be clear, I don't use any of their features except search (and domain filtering).
shortrounddev2
Im happy with it. I have filters which will try to find search results from before 2022, which has greatly improved the quality of results for me
guysinacoat
[dead]
TriangleEdge
Does Kagi have any value in the era of LLMs? My understanding is that it aggregates result from different providers.
VHRanger
Kagi assistant is effectively a superset of other LLM chat apps.
Has access to kagi search which is a also a superset of search backends for the assistant
acdha
Yes: you get reliable source information and don’t get inaccurate summaries. E.g. last week I used Gemini to answer a plant biology question and got two contradictory answers based on minor variations in the wording because it incorrectly relied on blog spam over peer-reviewed articles for the first query.
The initial false answer was baldly asserted by the LLM without sources in the first two paragraphs but some of the phrasing it used was enough to locate the non-authoritative blog content it was apparently laundering. Had it accurately cited sources, it would’ve been easy to see that this random WordPress site saying X wasn’t as authoritative as the PubMed hits saying !X.
phyzome
If you don't understand the value of a search engine over an LLM, then you're not going to understand the relative value of different search engines.
Given the title "Search Results Gone Wrong", I'd like to take this opportunity to try to shame Kagi into fixing the search results for the "More results" feature. This simple feature is broken in that it often gives you repeats of the same initial results it gave. That is, instead of giving you "More results", it gives you a lot of "Same results".
I reported this as a bug about 6 months ago, and was quickly told it was planned to be fixed. But it hasn't been fixed. I checked in again a few weeks ago to see if there was any progress, and apparently they've given up because it is too hard: "Apologies, seems I forgot to update the thread. Unfortunately it is in fact trickier than it looks to dedupe these results. Mainly this is a result of how we work with results from upstream sources, and deduping is heavily complicated by caching issues."
Kagi, you're generally great. I'm usually happy to be a paying customer. But I refuse to believe that deduping a list of URL's is actually too hard for you. Maybe I'm one of the few users who actually cares about searching for web pages, but for my use cases my search results would be much better if you actually gave me more results when I click on "More results". How is this not considered core functionality for a search engine? Please fix this!
Here's the bug report: https://kagifeedback.org/d/7022-clicking-more-results-yields...