driller41
msg:4204663 | 9:26 am on Sep 21, 2010 (gmt 0) |
This was doomed from the start, they were never going to overturn a major search engine with a direct frontal assault - they needed to attack from the rear and provide the next 'big idea' - whatever that is of course.
|
jecasc
msg:4204878 | 5:08 pm on Sep 21, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Well - they tried, they failed.
I wonder if some of those dancing on their virutal grave here have ever even tried.
|
StoutFiles
msg:4204912 | 6:05 pm on Sep 21, 2010 (gmt 0) |
When Cuil first launched everyone wanted them to succeed...they were given every chance and failed because of one big reason: they did NOT listen to their user base, claiming them "haters" when they pointed out Cuil's faults. Had Cuil actively tried to improve upon the complaints, they may have had a working product.
It seems like Cuil was, from the very beginning, a search engine that wanted to take off quickly and sell out when a huge profit could be made, mostly by making extraordinary claims about number of pages indexed and the low cost of doing so. They spidered nonstop, used images with other people's products, and outright stole globs of content with their automated encyclopedia. Their takeoff lasted about one day, deservedly. We all want a real competitor to Google, not a thief/poser, and that is why Cuil died not with a bang, but a whisper.
|
Rugles
msg:4204990 | 8:48 pm on Sep 21, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| Expiration Date: 30-dec-2015 |
|
Who has beat me to the back order?
|
IanKelley
msg:4205421 | 6:44 pm on Sep 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| Most of the members posting to that day 1 discussion were happy for Google to have competition |
|
I think asas111's point is that Google did not, in fact, have competition in Cuil. Anyone who thought they did was projecting their dreams :-)
| Cuil would of been great for the Iphone/ipad |
|
Humorously irrelevant results fail on any device.
|
netmeg
msg:4205427 | 6:55 pm on Sep 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
It was kind of pretty, but I never heard or saw anything about it after the first week or so. So it fell out of my brain. Probably fell out of a lot of people's brains.
|
dstiles
msg:4205518 | 11:11 pm on Sep 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
It was a contributor to the meta-search engine StartPage / aka ixquick.
|
McSpike
msg:4205748 | 12:34 pm on Sep 23, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I'll pay $5000 for domain name! :D
|
SEOMike
msg:4206219 | 5:59 am on Sep 24, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I remember them getting so much hype so fast. It was interesting to hear people from non technical jobs asking if I'd heard of Cuil the "Google killer." I had high hopes for them until I kept coming back to the same crappy results.
I agree that Cuil's bot was terrible. On Jan 21st of 09 they were basically DOSing me trying to open port 21 on my webserver.
RIP Cuil. Next time, be quiet until you get it right!
|
jmccormac
msg:4206674 | 2:49 am on Sep 25, 2010 (gmt 0) |
From the completely ignorant, makey-uppy twee Irish history and claims about the word Cuil representing knowledge rather than 'fly','bug' or 'arse', to the utterly clueless approach to search index quality and matching, Cuil was a triumph of PR and a complete failure to meet expectations. There is a rather apt one word Irish expression to describe Cuil.
Regards...jmcc
|
machine11
msg:4207010 | 3:38 am on Sep 26, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Redz is awful,
their sales reps must have called 15 of my websites on the 1800 numbers trying to sell me a good ranking position on their engine.
Matter of fact, when I call web/net friends, I always pretend Im a redz sales rep because they've been called as well and can't stand them... lol
|
Quadrille
msg:4217346 | 9:29 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Just think where they might be today if they'd started quietly and just done their darndest to build a great site.
Sad for the big brains that got hurt; a lesson for PR-obsessed 'venture capitalists'.
And joy for all us poor folk who always knew that style can't win out over substance forever.
|
BarryStCyr
msg:4217349 | 9:36 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Think I could pickup the domain name cheap?
|
| This 43 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 43 ( 1 [2] ) |
|
|
