| 8:52 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think this new search engine is great because it puts my site back up to #1, right where it should be! ha
| 9:04 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Oh-oh, be careful, don't mistype Cuil.com. I'm serious. Such as li instead of il. ;) |
I really like what their doing, and hoping for the best, but what in God's name were these people thinking with this cuil.com domain name? If they didn't know 2 transposed letters puts you on a porn site, ya gotta start wondering.
| 9:06 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Originally they were named with two Ls at the end.
| 9:08 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Originally they were named with two Ls at the end. |
Ya. They lost one in search somewhere. :)
The owners of the li just became Millionaires! Probably were already. ;)
| 9:40 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Search for 'cuil'. They don't have themselves listed! |
Guess who does though. ;)
That pretty much sums it up.
| 10:00 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I find it interesting in that more and more sites have turned to a black background (at least on their homepage) which was once a big no no, but something I have been considering doing on my main sites for a while now.
What I do not get though is how they get the logo's all mixed up.
Plus as already mentioned some results are full of the same domain.
I like the layout, even if the results did all look like ads to me on my first try.
BTW I did manage to get to the second page and do numerous searches so I guess they fixed the load problem or less people are searching.
Does'nt Google have an anti-competitor clause in its employment contracts?!
[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 10:01 pm (utc) on July 28, 2008]
| 10:03 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The images are annoying because they so often have nothing to do with the search or site. Searches on myself and my own sites will have some guys picture. One of them looked like Christian Bale. Batman, I'm not.
Well, okay the people they are showing look better than myself. But that's the only positive thing.
| 12:09 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I've checked search results in several segments and find lots of small, spammy sites or sites that should barely rank for the phrases. Scraped results as well.
| 12:23 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My first impression of the name a few months ago was that it means "see-you-ill" -- there's probably a story behind that.
I was, and still am, thinking that the name is just for the short term; the thing was made to be sold.
[edited by: Tourz at 12:25 am (utc) on July 29, 2008]
| 12:30 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Considering I let this start up crawl for the entire time I am not happy with the launch. How could anyone launch without paying for the content it scraped? It is obvious who they are paying or part and parcel with in this venture - there is no relevance in the search terms unless you are on the inside (might want to check for eBay execs on the board - that much is obvious).
Considering the goal is to beat or at least compete with a publisher system the lack thereof was a tremendous let down. A fraction of the 33 million could very well have been applied to a payroll system for publishers even if it meant taking on debt to finance it.
I provide services as unique and original as you will ever find online with entirely self moderated information appearing across all my two-thousand or so websites. The days of the free ride internet are obviously getting to the point of over. This launch was not cuil it was just cruel.
| 12:33 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|backed by 33 million dollars in venture capital |
Seems like it would've been cheaper to buy out something like Gigablast, which seems to work OK, remodel it a bit and move forward quickly instead of starting from scratch.
| 12:54 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Seems like it would've been cheaper to buy out something like Gigablast... |
Combine that idea with buying the domain Cool.com (mentioned earlier in the thread), then apply cutting edge algo engineering and the same (brilliant) PR campaign, and you just might see a more serious contender.
| 12:54 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>Seems like it would've been cheaper to buy out something like Gigablast
Not cheaper, but less expensive. With only $33M they need as much traction as possible.
| 1:44 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Didn't read this whole thread, but my first impressions are not good. Did some basic queries and got alot of results that aren't even related. It is also very slow at the moment. I can give a little on that point, but the speed of google is one of its highlights.
| 1:56 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The consensus so far, here and elsewhere, is that it is not doing too well. Yet.
but there's no doubt that their innovative approach has come up with something much more interesting than m*h*l* and many other 'giant killers'.
the question that concerns me, however, is this:
If it settles down and starts delivering the goods, will we have to rewrite the seo book? (sorry, Aaron!).
Either way, I think it would be unwise to write it off just yet, and a new direction gives us hope of more competition than we've seen since M$ promised to beat Google, a few years ago.
| 2:43 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I think it would be unwise to write it off just yet |
Write it off?
But it's still blocked from my server! ;)
[edited by: incrediBILL at 2:43 am (utc) on July 29, 2008]
| 3:48 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
LOL, Incredibill. I also had the UA Twiceler blocked, hence I am not in the engine results. They must have done something bad in the past to make it to my black list.
I have since (today) un-blocked the cuil bot but will be watching it closely.
| 4:11 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I can only imagine the long list of cuil jokes being passed around the water cooler at the plex.
I have seen $49.00 shareware external search scripts handle crawling and ranking better then this lol.
| 5:01 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I have seen $49.00 shareware external search scripts handle crawling and ranking better then this lol. |
No, it'll be even funnier because NUTCH is free!
| 5:53 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
They are using my images to list the websites of a couple of my biggest competitors. And ... one of my competitor's images to list my website. This really is a joke! How much longer before they will have to deal with the first copyright law suit because of this? This is stealing content to promote a competitor!
| 6:13 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Interesting - i have noticed activity on our sites with it - word must be getting around
| 7:17 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Checking my Analytics account, I had three organic referrals from Cuil today, all going to a specific country directory on my website. Only one of them bounced.
Not much of course... but interesting to see.
| 7:24 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I only WISH they had done a limited beta first, or maybe even an alpha. There are some brilliant people involved in this project, and frankly I am feeling SO bad for them.
| 7:44 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It is just an SE with pics. Nothing new there and TBH I have got so used to manipulating the G algo that new comp is bad news for me.
| 7:53 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|In July, they crawled less than 1% of my total pages. And they claim to have indexed how many pages? 121,617,892,992? Bull. |
For my main site's keyphrase which is returns a #3 in Google, my site cannot be found. But I see all the russian scraper sites who found my sites content useful.
Way to go guys!
| 7:57 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|... I find it interesting in that more and more sites have turned to a black background (at least on their homepage) which was once a big no no, ... |
In this case it was probably done for being the opposite of Google
| 8:26 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I agree with nzmatt the results are shocking. I'm really quite excited about searchme.com.... but I wish they'd use the google search results for the main web listings though!
| 8:32 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Now the battering of their servers has died down and it allows a little more thorough testing, I have to say that non-commercial queries on things (say) like artists, classical music and poets (amongst others) brings up pretty good results with excellent catagorisation and good layout (IMO). Commercial search term results are pretty bad, in the main.
Issues with images really does need addressing. I share a name with a pretty well-known sports personality. A search (correctly) brings up sites about him - but with my picture :)
Flattering for me - but not very accurate!
| 8:36 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think you're all writing them off too early. The engine seems to be working for me each time I visit it now and if the fix the tech issues and QUICKLY learn from the data they're collecting... I think they might be onto a winner... and they've got the publicity...
... but they should have purchased cool.com long before the launch... now it will cost them dear.
[edited by: Asia_Expat at 8:36 am (utc) on July 29, 2008]
| 8:56 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I can't help asking myself "did they release the wrong version?"
And also, I wonder if it's a sneaky HCI test. I made a rubbish system on purpose to test user behaviour and reactions once. And it was very successful research.
Just a few stab in the dark theories.
| 9:01 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|and QUICKLY learn from the data they're collecting |
Except, they do not collect the data. As per their privacy statement.
Hopefully they are reading the feedback here and elsewhere. That's some valuable data as well. ;-)