Technology news site has been abuzz with a new search engine called "cuil" from a former Google engineer. I have tried a few search terms out just to try it out, sadly, my first search terms alone didn't yield any results. I typed in "Samsung i780 Review" since it's one of my main keywords on one of my other websites and I was surprised that Cuil didn't yield any results. Not even a single unconnected page was churned out...And they say that their search engine is comprehensive.
I'm not saying that I'm a Google fanboy but even though Google most often of the time spews out junk they at least are able to spew out a few good sites out of those results. I guess I should give Cuil another try in maybe 6 months or so, that is, if they did anything new with their system. Maybe they haven't refined their search engine yet to include long term keywords. I know I always use long keywords in order to get more specific results and it seems more and more people are doing that too. If Cuil doesn't do well in terms of long term keywords, then therein lies one of their weaknesses.
Also, the fact that Cuil doesn't have regional sites--yet, would make long time Google users wary to transfer.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Cuil Review: Why Cuil is not so cool
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I have to agree. I run 3 sites all of which appear as the number 1 result in Google UK. Tried them all and got nothing from the results. Very disappointing especially as I was really hoping for a real challenger to try and take on Google, as competition is a healthy thing.
Maybe it's early yet? Although I would have thought they would have made sure that the engine could provide the results they claim it can.....
Agreed. I'm not at all impressed with Cuil's results, as cutely displayed as they are - but I'm sure other less deserving sites will be. My long-established, no-nonsense site features nowhere in their first 3 pages. Even articles that I've authored, with inbound links to me, appearing on unknown websites rank before me (if indeed I rank at all).
My established law blog ran several Cuil searches and got very poor results. It seems the logic punishes blogs. Even in locating a competitor's blog, I found that its first result was a link to it from a static source rather than the blog itself, and results for its author's name found my blog naming him rather than his own blog. So I ran one on Gordon Sumner and found an article on bipolar disorder. Maybe the man is known for something else? http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2008/07/new-search-engi.html
So, the criteria for judging a new and different search engine is whether your pet blog is ranked comparably to the arbitrary (yet accepted as truth) ranking of a fundamentally different legacy search engine? The implication is that the Google-Yahoo consensus is somehow a "correct" or "accurate" estimate of absolute page rank. There is no such thing. These rankings are as arbitrary and "correct" as Cuil's.
No, of course not. My point is that Cuil can't come up with ANY results. I just happen to use a keyword term that I often use when trying out new search engines just to see how my site fares with other Search engines. I'm sure that's what the others are trying to say.
not just that Cuil lack of comprehensive result, the way the results are presented also lame. may be i am so used to with google or yahoo presentation. when using Cuil, did anyone get warning of the computer is infected. i tried different computers from different locations, all got warning.
I have also been trying cuil out, and as far as the results layout goes I much prefer it to google's flat list (in particular when widescreen is involved).
What I have found though is that Cuil is very pedantic about the search terms. Your search for "Samsung i780" yields no results, yet "Samsung SGH-i780" yields 13 million+.
I am keen to see where they go, so will keep trying them in the hope that more usage means a better search engine in the long run.
Post a Comment