Again and again we are asked by clients if it is possible to integrate a search bar into the website.
I think that this is not possible with Sitejet at the moment?
I would be very happy if Sitejet would offer a possibility to integrate a search option in the future!
Hey @Patrick_Luescher,
thanks for sharing your input 
You can add a search bar via Elfsight as described here:
EN: On-site search feature - Sitejet Help
DE: Suchfunktion - Sitejet Hilfe
Looking forward to the feedback of the community about a native integration 
Hi Franzi,
A native solution is always the best. Everything in one platform is always the best 
Hi @Franzi
Thanks for the tip.
I think the possibility with Elfsight is not bad but also not optimal.
As @isabelle_calmont has already written, a native solution would of course be much better!
I hope that many people from the community will support my request.
+1 for native search.
Google search is usually behind when it comes to sites that are updated regularly, it’s been harder to test search in new builds that are not indexed also.
Native search would be lovely and fast and being able to design the output search results would be awesome!
I agree with a native solution as well but would even be happy for a native elastic search integration as well where we still use our own API keys. Elfsight isn’t ideal IMO.
+1 for native integration
+1 native integration
+1 for native integration… please
This seems like a basic thing to add. Would love to have it.
+1 for native.
However, I’ve been using SearchIQ and they were amazingly easy to integrate. Elfsight was extremely complex and cumbersome, but I had SearchIQ up and running with just one injection, one HTML element on a otherwise blank search results page, and one HTML element in my site’s header.
The only problem with non-native solutions–whether easy like SearchIQ or hard like Elfsight–is that they can’t be tested and fine-tuned in the Sitejet preview sites… you have to go live in order for the Javascript injections to work (because of cross-site protections), and without Sitejet separating between a “save” and a “publish”, that’s pretty dangerous.
Hey Chase,
Thank you so much for your great feedback! Would you like to give me the website ID / domain, so I could have a look for myself? You could also send a DM for this if you do not like to share this publicly. 
Hey Chase!
I am also very interested in your solution for the search function. Can you maybe share for all to see your domain on which you used SearchIQ?
Best regards
Patrick
+1 would be great
+1 for native
+1 for native. I’ve tried the other methods and they would not work.
+for native
Elfsight is really not cheap, and as it is the only external plugin maker for Sitejet they have full monopoly on the features that Sitejet did not develop and they did. Also they limit the number of uses of all their plugins, the free version is 200 views/reloads. That’s crazy. With Claude i can create a way better website and i get all the features i want in it without the montly subscriptions. 100 euro per year for one plugin is allot. There are some that are even more expensive.
I loved Sitejet, the concept and the help, but letting others take advantage over the missing features like this i really dont like.
If Sitejet will start listen to the needs of the users and implement common features like a “Search” field that would be great.
Please start to listen the users needs.
Thak you 
I do understand your frustration regarding third-party costs. From a personal perspective, this can influence my consumer behavior as well, but it’s important to look at the broader picture of how we evolve Sitejet.
You may have missed some of the many native releases and updates we’ve rolled out over the past few years. That is okay. Those releases are nowadays driven by community feedback and support tickets. So I find some of the remarks a bit odd.
Elfsight is not taking advantage of missing features. Giving you a gateway to their portfolio was a deliberate decision on our end to provide immediate access to a wide range of tools. You are still able to add your own code and scripts via iFrame and such.
Let me take the opportunity and give you an example about one feature that I was personally very keen on adding for users that like to give their websites a personal touch
The native instagram feed.
I wanted to have that myself and was really pushing for some native way to implement this. When I was still using Instagram personally and for a project I was involved in, this was something I thought was really necessary.
But the discussions in our product meeting showed a different picture. It turns out that the way Meta is handling their platforms we will never fully ensure that these widgets won’t suddenly break. To be completely transparent, Meta’s developer ecosystem is incredibly difficult to work with to say the least. They constantly change their rules, remove access to data, and make authentication a nightmare for standard users.
Keeping a native social feed working requires an entire small team just to monitor and fix the connection every time Meta updates their platform. And this is just the Instagram feed… think about it on a larger scale.
If we took that on, it would severely slow down our development of the core Sitejet features you actually rely on. That is the reason we offer Elfsight. Companies like theirs exist solely to fight those constant API battles so platform builders don’t have to. While I entirely understand your frustration with their pricing limits, having them as an integration means the option is there for those who need it, while our team gets to stay 100% focused on making Sitejet a better platform for you.
Our approach to feature requests is quite simple; we always ask ourselves: **Is this feature essential for the core website building experience.. and will it benefit the majority of our users?
**
Our ultimate goal with Sitejet is to build and maintain an efficient, high-performing platform for web professionals. To achieve this, our development team has to focus on core functionalities, platform stability, and workflow optimization. Building and maintaining dozens of niche widgets internally would significantly slow down our progress on those core features. Elfsight acts as an optional solution for specific needs while we keep our focus exactly where it belongs: on Sitejet’s foundation.
Hope this clears up the thoughts that went behind the reason why we chose Elfsight.
That said, we truly do listen to your needs. Implementing common features like a native Search field is a great point, and feedback like yours helps us prioritize what goes into our native development roadmap next. We appreciate your passion for the platform and your honesty.
Since this has now a significant number for such a big feature, this will be discussed again the next product meeting.
I agree with the fact that some features like social media requires an army just to keep up with the changes are happening daily. And i get it.
But simple features like search should be developed in the platform. These are local features that does not need constant updates.
Thank you for the support. I’m really happy you took the time to clear things up.
Looking forward for the new update
Actually, a website search is not a “simple feature” and not local as you might think. I was surprised myself as a bystander to what the devs do in the background
I can assure you if it was “easy to implement” this would already have happened after a few users requested it 