Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Google move over - Knowledge on the way



July 28, 2008 – Comments (11) | RELATED TICKERS: GOOGL

It seems that google is going to have some new competion...  I tried Cuil (Irish for knowledge).  The news on iy says it is supposed to "index, faster and more cheaply, a far larger portion of the Web than Google, which boasts the largest online index."

 Next time I do a search I will try it.  They are boasting they have 3 times the pages indexed compared to google.

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 28, 2008 at 2:17 AM, dwot (29.03) wrote:

Does Google look scared or what.  I just did a simple search, zinc mining just to see what happens.

I got this warning page.

And who is providing the warning....  Then what happens seems to be a scary mess....

Report this comment
#2) On July 28, 2008 at 2:18 AM, dwot (29.03) wrote:

Himmm, only the "Zinc mining in Canada" link is scary...

Report this comment
#3) On July 28, 2008 at 3:46 AM, DemonDoug (31.32) wrote:

deb, i'm kind of confused as to your comments.  On google, "zinc mining" returns "about 446,000" hits, where cuil returns just over 6,000.

And remember, it's google's algorithms that are pertinent for the usefulness of links.  Yahoo has tons of links too, but there seems to be a lot more noise on yahoo search which is why it sucks.

Do a search on the term "mish" on yahoo, google, and cuil.  This is just one easy example of how much better google is versus every search client on the planet.

Report this comment
#4) On July 28, 2008 at 4:27 AM, AnomaLee (28.87) wrote:

I read a lot of technology news from the white hat community and I heard the rumors of this a while ago. These are the brainchilds codewriters of the search industry. They developed AltaVista, and they developed the code powering the Google of today, so this it looks promising. I agree with the article below: I don't know if this will ever put a dent into Google's market share for a long time.

Ex-Google engineers debt 'Cuil' way to search
SAN FRANCISCO - Anna Patterson's last Internet search engine was so impressive that industry leader Google Inc. bought the technology in 2004 to upgrade its own system. She believes her latest invention is even more valuable — only this time it's not for sale. Patterson instead intends to upstage Google, which she quit in 2006 to develop a more comprehensive and efficient way to scour the Internet.

The end result is Cuil, pronounced "cool." Backed by $33 million in venture capital, the search engine plans to begin processing requests for the first time Monday.

Rather than trying to mimic Google's method of ranking the quantity and quality of links to Web sites, Patterson says Cuil's technology drills into the actual content of a page. And Cuil's results will be presented in a more magazine-like format instead of just a vertical stack of Web links. Cuil's results are displayed with more photos spread horizontally across the page and include sidebars that can be clicked on to learn more about topics related to the original search request.

Finally, Cuil is hoping to attract traffic by promising not to retain information about its users' search histories or surfing patterns — something that Google does, much to the consternation of privacy watchdogs.

Google has become so synonymous with Internet search that it may no longer matter how good Cuil or any other challenger is, said Gartner Inc. analyst Allen Weiner.

"Search has become as much about branding as anything else," Weiner said. "I doubt (Cuil) will be keeping anyone at Google awake at night."

But this will be the first time that Google has battled a general-purpose search engine created by its own alumni. It probably won't be the last time, given that Google now has nearly 20,000 employees.

Patterson joined Google in 2004 after she built and sold Recall, a search index that probed old Web sites for the Internet Archive. She and Power worked on the same team at Google.

Although he also worked for Google for a short time, Monier is best known as the former chief technology officer of AltaVista, which was considered the best search engine before Google came along in 1998. Monier also helped build the search engine on eBay's online auction site.

Report this comment
#5) On July 28, 2008 at 5:46 AM, DemonDoug (31.32) wrote:

I am going to disagree with the general sentiment, from both you anomalee and dwot.

Here is a quote from the end of that article:

Patterson enjoyed her time at Google, but became disenchanted with the company's approach to search. "Google has looked pretty much the same for 10 years now," she said, "and I can guarantee it will look the same a year from now."

Here is my addition: And this is why Google will continue to succeed while your browser will fail.  Apple, I believe, has followed Google's lead, by taking the Google approach to making things simple.  Taking the KISS principle and using it over and over.

"Search has become as much about branding as anything else," Weiner said. "I doubt (Cuil) will be keeping anyone at Google awake at night."

This is also complete BS.  Google is the best.  Period.  There are so many search engines, and advertising for search, etc.  Google has succeeded based on the quality of it's search, and a large part of that quality is not just pertinency, but also simplicity.

A lot of this "" PR madness seems too good to be true, and after reading that article, my BS meter went from about 5 to about 98.5.

I know you like looking for and calling out overvalued companies deb, but invest against google at your own peril.   If MSFT and yahoo spending hundreds of millions on search can't even come close to it, how are 5 former google employees going to simply just overtake them?  And with a prettier interface?  Give me a plain list, please.  Show me a stock quote if i put a ticker there, sure, but keep it simple, stupid.

As far as the "brainchilds" of search - some of the people who started the company happened to write code for altavista.  A far inferior search engine that just happened to be the best before google came along.  I'll stick with Page and Brin, thank you, who came along and completely blew away everything everyone else was doing at the time.

I think Patterson needs to rethink her investment idea - because hopefully in 20, 40, 100 years, the google search interface will look the same (or if not the same then slightly more streamlined if that is even possible).

Report this comment
#6) On July 28, 2008 at 6:32 AM, AnomaLee (28.87) wrote:

C'mon Doug,

I wouldn't expect you to ignore cycles like this -- especially in the world of technology. The internet is dramatically different than it was 10 years before and in another 10-20 years the internet will be completely different again. If not 20 years then certainly in 40 years we won't even be using keyboards and mice, and traditional television will be obsolete by then. Hell, you might not even have the freedom to use search engines as you can today several years from now.

I understand the KISS arguement for Google, but it reminds me of the entire 'Get Big Fast' approach of Amazon. The innovation in technology changes so fast that you can't just boldly state something like that as if these things are static truths or unchanging law. Look at Moore's Law for example which has recently been disproved and is becoming harder to accomplish even though it's been widely believed for almost half a century.

The thoughts on Yahoo have ranged from it's never-ending dominance to its impending failure. The reason Google achieved success is because they had the better business model not because they had the better product model. They based their revenue on ad revenue and not extracting money from their users by charging fees, and that's why they attracted more users and grew faster not because of their KISS design or superior search engine. If Yahoo hadn't ignored them early on and adopted the same approach you would still be talking about how the dominance of Yahoo. Now, I'm sure Google will maintain a 50-60% share for the next several years, but that doesn't mean that Google will maintain it's dominance in the same market forever without changing.

I don't think Google, Microsoft, Apple or any of these companies are going the way of the dinosaur. A lot of people thought the same thing about IBM and look where they are almost 40 and eventually 50+ years as a company, but these companies had to innovate and change their products, markets, and marketing. Twenty years in the technology sphere is almost forever...

You could eventually see Walmart will go the route of K-Mart in your lifetime or eventually get bought by Belgians or the French or Chinese. Who knows... but becoming a dominant search doesn't take a business model thousands of workers and vehicles it takes a business model, thousands of lines of code and servers

Nothing is forever...

Report this comment
#7) On July 28, 2008 at 9:00 AM, TMFSpiffyPop (99.82) wrote:

Nothing is forever, but that doesn't mean arbitrary-seeming endings to extreme dominance lead to correct predictions.

I'm with Doug on this one.

I thought the layout for was innovative. The search results, however, were inferior enough in my 10 minutes of play with it that I'll have to be somehow convinced to ever return again. I tried "rule breakers" on both, and the difference in terms of relevance and currency was extreme. essentially had a large list of links to our 1999 book. Google had the tags for Rule Breakers on CAPS, link to the Rule Breakers service, etc. One was so 1999, the other so 2008.... Try your own examples. "Drilling into the content on the page" does not appear to me to be as great an asset to search.... --D 

Report this comment
#8) On July 28, 2008 at 9:38 AM, FoolishChemist (92.19) wrote:

OK is it just me, buy why when I clicked on the link in comment #2, there is a girl mooning me?  It says "Copper, Nickel, Lead & Zinc Mining in the US ..." but that pic has nothing to do with it and there is nothing like that on the linked page.  Anyway after a few simple searches, I am unimpressed.

Report this comment
#9) On July 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Tastylunch (28.61) wrote:

so far not impressed by my search results on, actually was moderately annoyed bt the aesthetics too. The black is a bit much and it's distracting.

The didn't list my buisness so that torqued me off a little.

time will tell I guess.

Report this comment
#10) On July 28, 2008 at 8:36 PM, hansthered0 (< 20) wrote:

Cuil sucks a$$....sorry to be so blunt about it. It seems to be worse in every way.

Report this comment
#11) On July 29, 2008 at 4:46 AM, DemonDoug (31.32) wrote:

Looks like you got fooled by the hype machine deb.  A lot of reviewers and blogs are completely bashing cuil.  Look at my pitch for Google.  Everyone thinks that online search is a "narrow moat."  I highly disagree.  33m in startup money is no where near enough to build a better mousetrap, and Google's is the best by far... at best a search engine at this point can only hope to match Google.

Anomalee, I agree that things change, but in case you hadn't noticed, Google hasn't just stood flat on their feet.  They are two steps ahead of most people, and their mission is to do their best to maintain that competitive edge.  If any company understands the nature of the changing technology in this world, it's Google.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners