Yep that checks out
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.
I searched Kagi for “veterans day 2025” the other day (on Veterans Day, when I was unsure) and it answered
“= today”
(though yes, they are funny)
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/settings/widgets.html
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/features/search-operators.html#qu...
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...
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).
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.
amelius•1h ago