Update search docs to recommend Pagefind over Algolia

[Copilot]

The site search page still centered Algolia DocSearch and did not mention Pagefind. This updates the comparison to include Pagefind as the primary self-hosted static-site option and moves Algolia lower in the page.

• Search options

  • Add a new Pagefind section with a short description and focused pros/cons
  • Keep DocSearch by Algolia, but move it behind Pagefind and Lunr in the page flow and TOC

• Recommendation guidance

  • Update the "When Is It Best To Use One Over Another?" section to recommend Pagefind first for projects that want site search without a third-party service
  • Preserve Lunr as an alternative for teams that want a more custom in-browser implementation

• Content refresh

  • Reframe Algolia tradeoffs around hosted indexing, plan limits, and reduced control relative to self-hosted approaches

- [Google search](#programmable-search-engine-by-google)
- [Pagefind](#pagefind)
- [Lunr](#lunr)
- [DocSearch by Algolia](#docsearch-by-algolia)

• Fixes Update site search page contribute-site#391

[nate-double-u]

@copilot, let's add Pagefind to the .cspell.yml file, and review this comment from Claude:

Accuracy — the DocSearch "cost" con is misleading for a CNCF (all–open-source) audience.** The new con says "Free plans are limited, and larger indexes may require a paid plan." But DocSearch is free for technical-docs sites, which is exactly this audience — Algolia: "DocSearch is now free for all docs sites", DocSearch program docs. The real trade-offs for DocSearch specifically are: you must apply and be approved, and you must display the "Search by Algolia" logo (or pay to drop it). The PR's third con ("less control… than self-hosted") is accurate and worth keeping. Note this isn't a regression — the old text ("Not entirely free / 10k records") was arguably more wrong — but since you're touching it anyway, worth getting right.

[nate-double-u]

@copilot, another comment worth looking at from Claude:

Minor accuracy — "indexes your built site during your build process."** Pagefind runs as a post-build step against the already-built static output, not during the build. Small wording nit; the Cons ("requires a build step") are consistent. The rest of the Pagefind claims check out, including the on-demand/scales-better-than-in-browser pro, which is Pagefind's actual headline feature.

[Copilot]

@copilot, let's add Pagefind to the .cspell.yml file, and review this comment from Claude:

Accuracy — the DocSearch "cost" con is misleading for a CNCF (all–open-source) audience.** The new co...

Fixed in 0d156a3. Added Pagefind to .cspell.yml and updated the DocSearch cons to cover approval for the free program, the required "Search by Algolia" logo, and the hosted/self-managed tradeoff.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the TechDocs “Site Search” documentation to position Pagefind as the primary recommended self-hosted/static-site search option, while keeping Algolia DocSearch as a secondary (hosted) alternative.

Changes:

• Adds a new Pagefind section with pros/cons and updates the page flow/TOC ordering.
• Moves DocSearch by Algolia below Pagefind and Lunr, and refreshes its pros/cons to emphasize hosted tradeoffs.
• Updates recommendation guidance to suggest Pagefind first for projects avoiding third-party services.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
docs/search.md	Reorders and refreshes search provider guidance; introduces Pagefind and updates recommendations.
.cspell.yml	Adds “Pagefind” to the spelling allowlist for the updated docs.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

@copilot, another comment worth looking at from Claude:

Minor accuracy — "indexes your built site during your build process."** Pagefind runs as a post-build step against the already-built st...

Fixed in 25d3068. The Pagefind description now says it indexes the built site as a post-build step.

[nate-double-u]

looks good to me, but @copilot, looks like you need to fix the file formatting as we have a prettier fail.

[Copilot]

looks good to me, but @copilot, looks like you need to fix the file formatting as we have a prettier fail.

Fixed — Prettier reformatted a line wrap in the recommendation section. See the latest commit.

[nate-double-u]

/lgtm

good bot.