I agree with you Graham that Cuil looks, well kinda cool and seems to have neatly developed the search engine interface.

What I would say is that it was dreadfully slow and here's interesting for a rival of Google, it does not seem to have indexed any blogs hosted on Google's Blogspot platform - or at least none I have searched for painfully slowly.

I had a quick search today and it was rubbish. Searched for my employer and the logo's appeared under different websites/company names.

Keep trying! Nothing will ever beat Google - bet ya

Thanks Nigel and Dan for your comments. True, Cuil does have some teething troubles. But we forget that it was a couple of years before Google really sunk its teeth into search properly. Remember all those failed searches because they couldn't cope with the server loads? Remember all those sites that took up to six months to actually appear on Google's index?

Today is only Day One for Cuil and expecting it to be where Google is after nine years of development is asking a lot.

I'm looking at this from a different angle - a cognitive psychology one. Google's results are comparatively difficult for our brain to interpret, Cuil's results are much easier for us to work with. That means a significant human advantage for Cuil.

And as for nothing ever beating Google - didn't someone once say it would be impossible to build a flying machine, or that the world would only ever need four computers? One day Google will fall from its pedestal - and my bet is sooner rather than later.

Of course Google will be beaten - studies show that 8 out of 10 people who use Google FAIL to get any useful results. That means for most people most of the time Google isn't working - but, because it is largely all we have, people persist in using it because the alternatives are weak.

Give Cuil some weeks to build its index and to increase its server capacity and it will be the most serious threat to Google we have seen.

And 10 years ago I remember being told that Yahoo had a monopoly on search and no one could ever catch them. No what ever happened to them...?

I've just checked it out- my website in on page 1 of google for 4 search times, including being at number 1 for careers coaching but I don't appear on the first 5 pages of Cuil.

Also spotted a lot of the entries are from sites with Yalwa in their name, wondering what that's all about?

Intuitively I like Cuil. Testing it on a search for me, my business or me and my business and it fails each time. 'Fails' as in it doesn't point to me - as does Google. That's a huge disappointment for me.

If other searches 'fail' in the same way will the users care as long as they find what they want? Graham's probably right.

However, many people are searching for a specific business and if that doesn't appear in the search results users will consider Cuil to have failed too. Will they give it a second chance? In time perhaps.

Quote:
Today is only Day One for Cuil and expecting it to be where Google is after nine years of development is asking a lot.


No it isn't. When you announce to the world that you are launching a product that's superior to the one most of the world already uses then the least you can offer me is a working search engine. Cuil doesn't even offer this (yet). So why should I go back and give it another go? People are creatures of habit/lazy, any marketer will tell you motivating people to change their buying habits is very expensive.

Beyond the novelty of the 'magazine style layout' I also think the masses will prefer a straight list. There's no obvious heirarchy to the information Cuil presents. We are used to information being presented in a heirarchy (newspapers, web pages, magazines). Why should I change?

I also think they've made a big mistake with their 'the world's biggest search engine' strapline. Take a clipboard into the street and start asking people who is the biggest. Whether they're actually bigger on some metric or not, the fact is most people believe Google to be the daddy. If you're going to take on a giant you don't do it on their terms. I can't help feel that if they are making such basic mistakes in their marketing then the substance isn't going to materialise.

And finally as for Google not working for 8 out of 10 people, having a crap product but a dominant market share never stopped Microsoft.

Google is infuriating but I don't see Cuil being the great white hope.

Thanks for your comment - I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree. However, people will change because the results are contextually presented. Google does not have any heirarchical presentation anyway - so if you want that you have to move from Google.

Using the Mark Lee criteria, ie does it talk about me? then I like it. Lots of stuff about me. How cuil is that!

Like many others, I'm disappointed that I only come up on page 3, whereas a search on my name in Google puts me at number one on page 1. Other search terms don't pick me up at all. I find that the same sites come up on page 1,2,3 and so on. I wonder if Cuil is truly international; it seems to have a strong US bias with no option to "Search pages from UK only" There is no cuil.co.uk. Maybe we have to think again about search engine optimisation.

I agree that Google doesn't have any heirarchical presentation but most people's perception is that the search results are presented in order of importance. The whole SEO swindle is thriving on this misconception (as is Google itself and its ridiculous adwords policies).

Now I'm not a psychologist so if you're going to shoot me down please use a silencer and make it a head shot, but isn't the whole problem here one of perception? People think Google is the biggest so it's the best. People think Google presents search results in order of 'importance' so rarely look beyond the first page.

I'll agree to disagree. At least Cuil has got people talking 9and thinking) about whether Google is any good and that's no bad thing.

You're right about the SEO situation - indeed we only need SEO because Google is so poor at indexing. They would like us to think it's all complex but I suspect smoke and mirrors.

Yes, perception is important. But so too is effect. People gave up on Yahoo because it was having less and less effect. More and more pages were being added to the web and Yahoo couldn't keep up. Along came Google which boasted it could and we switched in our droves.

Cuil is different because it handles search completely differently to either Google or Yahoo. Google and Yahoo don't look at context but Cuil does. That means it will have more useful effect to people - once it has built its indexes. It claims 120 billion pages, but Google claims 1 trillion. So Cuil is only one tenth of the way there.

Remember too that Google began with only word of mouth and PR. People switched back and forth between Yahoo and Google for quite a while before Google became de facto. The same will happen with Cuil - PR will help it build up its index, attract some users, helping it develop further. Then more PR will help it attract people who will share it with Google. Then when they see the results are completely differently presented and that the search is more relevant and useful they'll go to Cuil. Social networking will replace word of mouth and Google will have to respond.

Even if Cuil ultimately fails, it may be the boot up the rear Google needs to reduce their arrogance.

I like the look & agree that Google deserves that boot, but you asked 'Has Google met its match?'
Not if this report from the Register is to be believed;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/31/inside_cuil/

Time will tell Graham. Looks cool though!

I like its sleekness and its fast. I wonder how you would search for pictures or video, does one have to look through the main results?