I just checked on a few niche topics where I have specific knowledge, and while the articles seem to look good, the content is utter nonsense.
File under "Failure".
Ah, I see there is already a folder named, er, Cuil.
I guess I'm having a tough time putting what I'm thinking into words, amazing as words and thinking combined may seem after reading cpedia, which means I'm probably not saying nothing about how much of their dumbopedia rubbed off on me because on Monday it was sunny, so maybe this will make more rain on Thursday, but it could be realer to readers that maybe taking a paragraph or sentence fragment grenaded from here and putting it with the text from another battleship is much like humpty dumpty after the fall is before winter when the seasons are changing.
But I'm not really sure...
looks like a scraper site just to get indexed (unique pages) and sell links from it :D
Went and took a rest break (you know what kind) came back did a little code, then took a look at cpedia again... amazing in that it links only to itself (even though I recognize a lot of the source material... after all, I wrote most of it! for a particular niche). This is no search engine. The "charm" didn't last long. Put me in the fail whale category.
Looked a bit closer at this nonsense.
On some entries they are using thumbnail images without any attribution or link-back to the source. This can be quite tricky for them since they host the thumbnails on their servers. And this is not a search result, but an automatically put together article, i.e. a transformative use of the image to illustrate the "article". I can only come to the conclusion that this is plain and simple copyright infringement. Don't they EVER learn from their mistakes?*
Now off to looking for some of my stuff. :-)
*When Cuil launched, they had put thumbnails of my images next to results leading to competing websites! Big, big fail.
Apparently they're suprised by how "vituperative" the response to Cpedia has been.
They appear to believe they're doing no wrong. Even pointing out that they cite sources. Of course, even a generic scraper site generally provides a direct link back. In cpedia you need to go through another intermediate cpedia page first!
Ironically enough, they conclude by implying (as far as I can tell) people simply aren't listening enough and that's why they don't get it. Interesting approach to PR. Don't think they'll be getting whitelisted for my sites (which contain many of the unique nuggets on certain topics that they are supposedly trying to dredge out).
Throw some adsense on all those pages.
They just don't get it. Cpedia is just a scraper. An apparently well financed scraper but just a scraper. They don't get it in the same way that they just didn't get it about Cuil.
I'm glad I blocked Twiceler in .htaccess ages ago. What a load of pants.
Another complaint was that we have stolen, plagiarized, looted, thieved, etc., the information we were providing. People were shocked that all the sentences came from other sources. Yes, all the sentences come from other sources, and we have links to exactly which sources they come from.
On the following page you tools! From now on I'll just scrape everyone and put all the sources on a Credits page buried within my site.
|Wow, the haters are out in force today. |
When the vast majority are "haters" it's time to admit you have a denial problem Cuil. Why haven't they been sued yet?
I gave it a second look and it is a perfect scraper site.
The text on the page does not make sense at all. Need to place Adsense there so only text that makes sense would be ads. Perfect scraper site.
Just have a look at this link: [cpedia.com...]
|Cpedia has errors. That is intentional. We have tried to be inclusive, and dredge to the bottom of the web. |
Heck, they even admit to being bottom feeders. Are they really that oblivious to the general sentiment on the web about their service? What, did they have some change leftover from the Strawberries and Muffins?
I'm sure if that thing remains in its current incarnation, the BIG 3 will come to our rescue and just bury it. Send it right back to the bottom where it is dredging.
Cpedia problems.. (I am trying to be positive)
1. It is not even an Alpha version
2. Trying to keep user in the site longer than it has to
i like the entry for bananas. the very first sentence is "Reason being the more ripe bananas are sweeter."
They must be copying some of it straight from blogs, because a sentence further down says "I make smoothies with fruit, but I would like to add more vegetables to my diet..." That doesn't sound very academic. Under a sub-heading "Bioversity International" it says "My husband I think was expecting something closer to the real thing and thought whipping cream or cool whip was a must." I like this bit too: "You have heard me talk about my caretaker's expertise on certain food items... B A-N-A-N-A-S! (I sing the Gwen Stephani song to help me spell banana, it works and it's fun!)"
I stopped doing searches after about 10 queries. It was really painful to read through the content and try to make heads or tails of it. I wanted to post some examples and thought those following along with be just as confused, so I opted not to.
All developers use that as an excuse.
All developers use that as an excuse of the first excuse.
I'm sure someone will come along and say "aren't you guys/gals being a little harsh?".
I think the community have been pretty diplomatic so far, don't you?
Yeah, they're citing sources alright. A snippet of my content is attributed to a different MFA site that has a link with that same snippet back to my original content.
Scrape the scrapers and call it original. What a joke...
From Cuil's response (linked above):
|The notion of the identity of objects is not a settled matter – the classic example is Theseus’s Ship, but a simple one is of an axe: if you replace the handle twice, and the head once, is it still the same axe? |
It's suddenly clear why Cpedia entries make no sense. They're like an axe you see.
I have changed my perspective on Cuil, I love them for the entertainment value.
|I have changed my perspective on Cuil, I love them for the entertainment value. |
Best quote yet. I even Tweeted it. :)
Unfortunately your quote will just be more fodder for the cpedia page for Cuil
"I have changed my perspective on Cuil, I love them. I had a motorboat once, but it ate my cat, totally not cuil."
So cuill is really a "brammer" with its handle replaced by a broomstick and the head by that of a hammer. I can see some good ways of injuring oneself....
|if you replace the handle twice, and the head once, is it still the same axe? |
Once the laughter dies down they really need to be sued and/or shutdown. This sets a bad example for all the scraper kids if Cuil is allowed to get away with scraping at this level.
When they throw ads on their stolen content it won't be so funny anymore.
This mess is the best laugh I've had all week.
Seriously though, the cuil IPs are all going onto my server's banlist now. Their IPs are published at
Cuil, be honest, you're just a ----> [cpedia.com...]
Regurgipedia. Please tell me some writers are on staff to add value to this stuff.
Ah, never use new words like that around here! Not with me around. I'm the proud owner of Regurgipedia.com. :)
Maybe I should 302 it to Cpedia.com?
P1R... no... you didn't...
YES YOU DID!
falling off my chair. LOL!
william burroughs released a few cut-up novels, taking paragraphs from different places and mixing them up. that was called art. maybe cpedia is meant to be a piece of art.
that is good stuff pageone... : )
pageoneresults, you just gave them a name to be proud of. LMAO.
Thanks everyone but it wasn't me! Kudos to Sgt_Kickaxe for the Wordsmithing. I had to get that one right away, it's a classic. :)
Ya the results are horrible.
I did a search for wolves and the first page has NOTHING about actual wolves.
The results are for a movie, a book, a sports team, a British nationalist and racist militant party.
How awesome, hopefully no one uses this for their child's science project on wolves.
The only thing that Cuil has succeeded in doing with Cpedia is in possibly replicating the effects of brain damage. Cpedia isn't powered by artificial intelligence. It is an exercise in natural stupidity.
| This 99 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 99 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |