Today marks the begining of search results for Cuil, pronounced “cool”, the new search effort created by ex-Google employees.
Taking some test runs on Cuil, it’s a nice search environment. A couple positives is that it lets you dig down into your results by giving you different categories that would apply to your search. This is something that Ask.com tends to do pretty well also.
Overall, it’s nice but it’s no Google. Perhaps it’s the constant pattern of using Google that has ingrained in my mind what search results are supposed to look like. But I’m not so sure that’s the case.
Along with the title link, there’s a much longer description shown with results that don’t appear in vertical format but rather a series of floated divs. There also is much more imagery with the results.
I believe that for research, Cuil looks like it could be a very useful tool. But for continual search? I’m not so sure.
That wouldn’t be because of a lack of search index though. Cuil’s search index spans 120 billion web pages. Cuil believes that’s at least three times the size of Google’s index, but who’s to know since Google stopped publicly talking about it’s index breadth when the catalog reach 8.2 billion pages three years ago.
If there’s something that would put Cuil over the top, it would be in content analysis. They aren’t trying to mimic Google’s method of ranking the quantity and quality of links to sites. Instead, Cuil’s technology is focused on drilling into the actual content of a page. The question that jumps to the front of my mind with this is… How easy is it going to be to gimmick the system? Part of what makes Google’s results relevant is exactly the method of ranking the quantity and quality of links to sites.
Technology aside, branding is going to be the biggest obstacle that Cuil will have to overcome if it has any hope of challenging Google for the top spot in search.
Google has become synonymous with search. Merriam-Webster even has an entry in the dictionary.
Cuil is definitely cool, and I will make some use of it. But it’s no Google.