I can still recall the day I first logged on to Google, then just the latest of a host of search engines. This morning I heard a news item about a new search engine: Cuil.
After a very quick inspection, I'm impressed. It's fast and it's pretty—you get graphics as well as links. I'd welcome your comments about it and how well it meets your needs.
Update, July 30: David Olive, a columnist for The Star in Toronto, is not impressed.
I'm not sure it's so promising. As an example, my name nets 9,200,000 hits on Google (partially because my last name is also a UNIX command, but in the first page of hits, 7 out of 10 links are relevant.
On Cuil, which has supposedly indexed three to four times as many pages as Google, there isn't one of the first ten links that points to something about me. Since I'm not on the web in that many places, Google is doing a much better job of finding me than Cuil.
Another test. "Nagano Sushi Cambridge", to find the restaurant I ate at tonight (which I know doesn't have a web page). Google, 4 of the hits on the first page were useful to get the restaurant's address and phone number, and the first link was a restaurant review in the local newspaper. Cuil? No results.
By the way, yesterday (launch day), it returned an error page for more than 3 search terms, and apparently had no hits for "Stephen Harper" or the word "jaguar". Google's safe for now.
Posted by: M@ | July 29, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Another problem I noticed when trying it out is that there is much more duplication of results than in a Google search. This is so extreme that on clicking through the subsequent pages of results I often had to go back and check carefully to see that it was in fact a "new" page.
Posted by: alqpr | July 30, 2008 at 09:48 AM
I'm not sure if it is promising also.
ann torres
Posted by: web site design los angeles | January 21, 2009 at 08:25 AM