@brn Very well. Here’s a brief analysis:
What I liked:
- Basic interface, straight to the point. No overwhelming UI resembling sci-fi movies or AAA games, neither professional nor flashy colors.
- Well-organized menus in settings.
- Useful FAQ section for those looking for relevant info, but the phrase “Can I pay with cash for 100% anonymity?” is extremely exaggerated—I’d recommend updating it to be more honest. 100% anonymity doesn’t exist.
- Terms of service and privacy policy are standard, but they hurt the quality and coherence of the service with the following words: “You are solely responsible for your use of the service.”
For example: If the CEO gets bribed and does shady work behind the scenes, the service is responsible—not the legitimate users (they wouldn’t know what’s hidden unless they detect suspicious activity). A correction is recommended.
- No AI. That’s a step forward in not being infected by what every other company is doing—it’s something I like and I hope they never integrate it.
- Available in my language, Spanish. Easy to understand.
What I didn’t like:
- On the main page there are two things:
The phrase that reads along with its context: “What do people say about Uruky?” → it breaks the quality of the interface. I recommend integrating it into the rest of the menus between “Why Uruky” and “Threat models.”
Where it says “Company, Information,” etc. → merge what’s currently floating around into collapsible submenus. This reduces the amount of scrolling on mobile devices.
- Making comparisons with other engines significantly lowers the quality of the service, and I’ll explain why: being based in the EU or similar doesn’t automatically make a service high quality. I’m not accusing you of being malicious, but you should let the company’s actions speak for themselves. If you claim: “Search privately and without ads.” → let people find that out based on actions, not words. This is fundamental. If you make comparisons, it feels like I’m watching a “services” war and competition just for being based in the EU at minimum.
What’s missing:
- In search results, it would be great to integrate the date and time of a link if available. This is fundamental because it helps you know when something happened, what it is (by reading the title), what it’s about (topic info), issues (spotting inconsistencies, duplication, or other basic problems), and quality? (whether it’s worth clicking based on visible info without opening the link).
End. For now.
Observation: I did this with a default test account provided by the website.
There you go, free of charge.