Who Needs another Search Engine?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to sign up for email alerts.
From all the StumbleUpon shouts I received today two really intrigued me. They both led to articles covering a “hot” new release – another search engine is on the loose.
Cuil (pronounced “cool”) states that it “searches more pages on the Web than anyone else—three times as many as Google and ten times as many as Microsoft.”
Well, at least we know that they count on quantity – because the “quality” reviews are still raising questions. But even the quantity is questionable!
According to Cuil’s About page:
Cuil searches more pages on the Web than anyone else—three times as many as Google and ten times as many as Microsoft.
Cuil’s landing page is more exact: the search engine indexes today 121,617,892,992 pages. But this is not even ¼ of Google’s coverage if we are to believe Google’s latest statements:
The first Google index in 1998 already had 26 million pages, and by 2000 the Google index reached the one billion mark. Over the last eight years, we’ve seen a lot of big numbers about how much content is really out there. Recently, even our search engineers stopped in awe about just how big the web is these days — when our systems that process links on the web to find new content hit a milestone: 1 trillion (as in 1,000,000,000,000) unique URLs on the web at once!
Of course Google will not index all these pages – many are duplicate content, and we all know how much the search engine hates dupes. But we cannot ignore that Google “sees” them all. Does Cuil “see” so far? I doubt it. Even worse: a basic search returns way too many irrelevant pages, error pages and dupes. This makes me wonder… after criticizing hakia for comparing its results to Google’s, what’s wrong with the rest of the world? For a search engine that cannot even deliver the same amount of results for a given query to state that it is a “Google killer” is way too much. TechCrunch already tested Cuil and the conclusion was that Google Beats Cuil Hands Down In Size And Relevance, But That Isn’t The Whole Story:
More searches, Cuil v. Google: Apple (83 m v. 571 million) - neither mention the fruit. France (102 m v. 1.5 billion) - Cuil’s category refinement makes their results better for this query. Stonehenge (800k v. 8.5 million). Silicon Valley (3.2 m v. 24 m). Techcrunch (600k v. 6.5 m).
An extensive review by Danny Sullivan raises similar questions. Other Internet gurus comment against Cuil’s coolness too: Chris Brogan cannot find the echoes to satisfy his ego (results that actually do show when I search on Cuil, however many irrelevant, but this is a matter of poor algorithms), Rafe Needleman shows how not to launch a search engine (and he saves me a lot of time and effort, because after reading today’s stories I was tempted to write a similar article) and also makes a valuable point:
At the moment, Cuil’s design and interface shows a lot of promise, but results matter, and it’s simply a poor search experience.
Andy Beal finds yet another bug in Cuil’s search algorithm, Chris Gaylord comes with I’d dare say a rhetorical question: Does Cuil just offer more to ignore? , even Gizmodo covers the news, but at least with a better title than anyone else: Ex-Googlers Build Cuil Search Engine, Say it’s Bigger Than Google – if you ask me… given the fact that Cuil cannot be bigger than Google (with only $33 million venture capital I don’t see this possible), the only “sensational” news about Cuil is the presence of the ex-Google faces in the management team.
This raises some questions: does Google have its tail already in Cuil or are these people merely attempting a “personal” vendetta against their former employers? If this is a “vendetta” can these people really beat Google just because they know how Google operates? Nah!
It’s hard to put together the pieces of the puzzle and to offer a full picture of what the web looked like after Cuil’s launch. No other search engine before managed to trigger so many reactions in such a short time – which is positive. However the reactions were partially negative, acknowledging yet that Cuil does have a better (?) design (three column magazine style results display).
Negative PR is better than no PR as they say. At least Cuil managed to raise some brand awareness, but if their search results will not improve fast, the buzz is pointless. Speaking about branding… is Cuil really the best choice?
Do we need another search engine?
I don’t know… to be honest I spend less time searching on a search engine these year compared with the last years. I count more on social sites and recommendations from my friends to find what I am interested in. I prefer searching in social bookmarking sites for the most popular entries related to a certain tag… and I believe many other users adopted similar behaviors. I think the birth of a social search engine makes more sense than the birth of a next Google wannabe.
I would have liked to have seen a viable alternative to Google if only to loosen me somewhat from Google’s internet-wide grip. Cuil has failed for so many reasons, perhaps the most important is for overselling a failed product.
The Cuil phenomenon triggered two things we me. First, to test their ’superiority’ claim I put Google into their search engine and it came back as ‘nothing found’! Second the Cuil guys are falling into the tekkie ‘we have a better bit of kit therefore we will do well’ delusion. Cuil is not a ‘brand’ in the minds of users therefore it cannot hope to de-risk ‘purchase’/useage decisions like Google, people simply trust Google too much. Not only that they haven’t bothered to find out what the critcial choice factors are from search engine users. Nothing they offer is sufficient to tip interest in their favour!