[size=12pt]Ex-Googlers launch rival search engine[/size]
cnn.com
Last Updated: July 28, 2008: 11:18 AM EDT
Printable View
[size=12pt]Ex-Googlers launch rival search engine[/size]
cnn.com
Last Updated: July 28, 2008: 11:18 AM EDT
I saw that this morning and checked it out. My observations:
1) It is sloooooooow.
This could perhaps be because it is getting higher hits due to the release though.
2) I don't like how it tries to categorize.
I cuil'ed 'Minnesota Vikings' and only about half of the results are Vikings related.
Six were ticket sellers like Stub Hub, and two were to blogs to some out of town papers like the Seattle Times that mention Vikings in passing.
3) It tries to intelligently assign images.. poorly.
PP.O's image is the Fan2Fan alliance logo.
Overall, it is clunky, and not as intuitive as Google.
The only things they seems to have going is the amount of indexed pages, but Google actually prunes its index tree purposely in an effort to eliminate redundant or non relevant data.
I doubt Google is worried...
"Prophet" wrote:
We didn’t find any results for “purple prideâ€ÂQuote:
[size=12pt]Ex-Googlers launch rival search engine[/size]
cnn.com
Last Updated: July 28, 2008: 11:18 AM EDT
Some reasons might be...
a typo. Please check your spelling.
your search includes a term that is very rare. Try to find a more common substitute.
too many search terms. Please try fewer terms.
Finally, try to think of different words to describe your search.
About Cuil | Your Privacy | Add Cuil to Firefox
Slow as hell as well.
WTF!?Quote:
We didn’t find any results for “Minnesota Vikingsâ€Â
I'm guessing since the article is dated today that they mean it will begin next Monday.Quote:
The end result is Cuil, pronounced "cool." Backed by $33 million in venture capital, the search engine plans to begin processing requests for the first time Monday.
I wonder what the stock is selling for?
I'm no business man, but I see the tremendous upside in investing even a small amount in this. Like Ari Gold from Entourage said "First year at Google, they paid their staff with paperclips, now the guy that scrubbed the toilets, has got a billion 5."
"Mr" wrote:
Online companies are risky investments. Google is litterally a 1-1,000,000,000 chance... and with the way this engine looks, it's not going to be much competition.Quote:
I wonder what the stock is selling for?
I'm no business man, but I see the tremendous upside in investing even a small amount in this. Like Ari Gold from Entourage said "First year at Google, they paid their staff with paperclips, now the guy that scrubbed the toilets, has got a billion 5."
"C" wrote:
It doesn't look too great right now, but from the sounds of it, when it's up and running 100% it should be pretty damn good.Quote:
"Mr" wrote:
Online companies are risky investments. Google is litterally a 1-1,000,000,000 chance... and with the way this engine looks, it's not going to be much competition.Quote:
I wonder what the stock is selling for?
I'm no business man, but I see the tremendous upside in investing even a small amount in this. Like Ari Gold from Entourage said "First year at Google, they paid their staff with paperclips, now the guy that scrubbed the toilets, has got a billion 5."
"Mr" wrote:
It is actually supposed to be 100% today.Quote:
"C" wrote:
It doesn't look too great right now, but from the sounds of it, when it's up and running 100% it should be pretty gol 'darnit good.Quote:
"Mr" wrote:
Online companies are risky investments. Google is litterally a 1-1,000,000,000 chance... and with the way this engine looks, it's not going to be much competition.Quote:
I wonder what the stock is selling for?
I'm no business man, but I see the tremendous upside in investing even a small amount in this. Like Ari Gold from Entourage said "First year at Google, they paid their staff with paperclips, now the guy that scrubbed the toilets, has got a billion 5."
There is actually a huge media campaign going on with it in the marketing circles.
I've seen some communication regarding cuIl prior to this.
They are actually directly attacking Google, calling their indexing system (which the creators of cuIl helped design) based on "superficial popularity metrics."
I see Google burying them.
In order to take down a giant, you have to release a product that is substantially better than the existing one.
Firefox did it with IE.
OpenOffice failed to do it against Microsoft Office.
It isn't because OpenOffice was bad - infact it was great.
But ti didn't offer anything that Office didn't, except for price.
In the corporate world, product price is less of a concern than inter-communication price - it would cost more to communicate with agencies that ONLY had Office.
People tend to stick with the tried and true unless they have a motivating reason to do otherwise.
The problem I see with cuIl is that it is trying a new indexing system - but the Google system is not broken.
It works very, very well, which is why it became the most popular so quickly.
It does heavily rely on interconnections and hyperlinks - but isn't that what the world wide web is anyway?
I don't know if I want to use a search engine that views content as seperate entities instead of how this content is used in relation to other content.
That presents too much stuff that is out of context.
I also don't know if indexing more is better.
When Google began pruning redundant or non related content from its index, the search experience got much better.
I remember a time when every html header had "Brittney Spears" in its key words because it was one of the most requested search terms.
It didn't matter if the site had anything to do with the pop star or not, but the keywords help improve its organic rankings.
Google has effectively eliminated that way to hack the index.
In the end, despite the hype that I have seen on this (and there is a lot of hype in marketing circles right now), I don't see it as any kind of threat to Google.
If you choose to invest, I would do it with 100% disposable money, because the odds are you will never see it again.
Cuil sucks