Cuil - Latest Stats
Hi folks,
Following on from your suggestions, we have been keeping an eye on the usage stats for the new search engine Cuil. Unfortunately, we have been watching a quick decline rather than a steep ascent to success!
Despite an impressive start, stats for Cuil have been falling steadily. It’s unfortunate that the engine couldn’t capitalise on the initial interest it generated following widespread media coverage, and it remains to be seen if and how Cuil plans to tempt many disgruntled users back to the site as the index improves. It looks like the folks at Cuil have some tough work ahead of them.
In the meantime, please find below the latest stats for Cuil - these figures show the % of searches performed using Cuil relative to the total number of searches performed.
| Globally | US | UK | |
| Jul 29 | 0.10%(1 in 1,000) | 0.11%(1 in 1,000) | 0.19%(1 in 500) |
| Jul 30 | 0.11% | 0.12% | 0.19% |
| Jul 31 | 0.08% | 0.09% | 0.10% |
| Aug 01 | 0.06% | 0.07% | 0.10% |
| Aug 02 | 0.05% | 0.07% | 0.09% |
| Aug 03 | 0.04% | 0.04% | 0.08% |
| Aug 04 | 0.03% | 0.04% | 0.06% |
| Aug 05 | 0.03%(3 in 10,000) | 0.04%(1 in 2,500) | 0.05%(1 in 2,000) |
| Aug 06 | 0.03% | 0.03% | 0.05% |
| Aug 07 | 0.02% | 0.03% | 0.01% |
| Aug 08 | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.01% |
| Aug 09 | 0.02% | 0.03% | 0.01% |
| Aug 10 | 0.01% | 0.02% | 0.01% |
Note: This information is based on a total sample for the period of over 365 million page views globally.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Sorry, but I tried Cuil a few times, and was completely underwhelmed. I don’t like the layout of it at all. I prefer Google’s listing, 10 results, stacked in a list. Cuil’s grid method just doesn’t work for me. Probably one of the reasons nobody’s really taking to it.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I expected as much.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The guys at Cuil have a lot of work ahead of them……..for some odd reason many search results are showing old links…….some as a year or more……
August 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Cuil is definitely going for it, but it’s hard to imagine them doing anything but incremental changes to what Google’s done. And even that would take years of effort.
Me.dium.com has taken a different tack. We have a full web index, but we change the results based on the surfing activity of our user base (now over 2,000,000). It’s in alpha, but I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. http://me.dium.com/search
August 11th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Pity to see the stats declining. Innovation and more competition is always a good thing in my view.
I noticed that their search didn’t have the depth of Goggles, maybe just because it’s early days for them.
As an example:
I’m widely known as the StartBusinessMentor and despite their ‘About Us’ page saying they are search 3 times as many pages as Google my search on this term gave the following results…
Google - > Results 1 - 10 of about 428 for startbusinessmentor
Cuil - > 14 results for startbusinessmentor
Hmm…
Cheers,
AllanJames
(the StartBusinessMentor)
August 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
That was bound to happen!
Shiva
August 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I hate to be negative but I am not surprised at all. Cuil’s three column format is hard to skim, their indexing frequency is zero, and there really is no advantage over any other search engine.
I hope they can make some changes and bounce back, but it will be an uphill battle.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Different isn’t always better. Even if Cuil had come out of the blue with no presss, they would be hard-pressed to prove they’re better than Lycos, Webcrawler, or any of a dozen SE’s in the ‘B’ and ‘C’ list. Google’s format is simple, but also probably the best way to display information. Also Cuil might find it hard to keep their index current since their Twicler bot has ticked off so many webmasters for over a year already. Google/Yahoo/MSN might at times gobble a good amount of bandwidth, but nothing like this evil bot. I would imagine people have been writing in droves for months (like I had to), demanding to be delisted from their search index. That can’t be good for business if search is what you do.
A year from now, people will be saying “Whatever happened to that search engine with the funny name?”.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:16 am
The numbers intrigue me. By the looks of it, there will be no pageviews using CUIL at latest by the end of September. That’s stretching it.
So what can we glean from this? Google Rules? CUIL is no threat to any search engines?
I was wondering if it would take the same amount of media impact CUIL got from CNN in the beginning to salvage what dwindling users they have, or would it take something even more explosive? I’m sure the numbers have the answer.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I dont like the black of the page…
If is irish should be green….
August 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
> So what can we glean from this? Google Rules? CUIL is no threat to any search engines?
We can glean from it that Cuil appear to have done insufficient user research and usability studies on their own product to find out (a) what problem they’re trying to solve (i.e. what subset of internet users would switch to a different search engine, and why?), and (b) whether they’ve managed to solve it for that set of users.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
2 reasons why cuil is not going to do well.
1. the layout, it confuses people when they use it. People expect it to stack down the way not in collumns.
2. Their bot (twiceler) has been hammering some websites and hitting bot traps which has resulted in some websites banning them from crawling their website. Ive unbanned them basically to see if the bot has started to behave.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Yep. C.r.a.p. was a great idea to start off with but then it fell to pieces like one of mums coconut macaroons.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
First day it wouldn’t even find my site as number one. I couldn’t find my site for it’s own unique term. I think it is getting better but first impressions count. Good luck they’ll need it.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
They couldn’t find any result for “Retro Garden” when I searched. My site has been up for over a year, is well indexed and generally going well in Google (not least because it’s number one in Google for Retro Garden). Nothing at all.
It’s no surprise really.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Its the only place where thunderror.com doesn’t come out as the first result when I search for thunderror.
They’ve improved, but why should I go to there when I’ve already got to google.com
August 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The fatal blow for Cuil was the irrelevant results. When people try a new search engine they are first going to type a search query where they have a good idea what should rank near the top. If the engine doesn’t deliver sites they know are relevant, they won’t use the engine. This was the #1 problem with Cuil.
Secondly, the grid layout is cool (no pun intended) but were they ranked left to right, top to bottom or top to bottom, left to right? I couldn’t make sense of which site was #2 and so on. I’m afraid they portrayed themselves as a fully-functional Google alternative with a half-baked algorithm.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Cuil has demonstrated one thing - there is room for a fresh way to present results - one that combines text and image and that has a sensible classification system. However, Cuil is not effective at either of these - and it’s indexing is completely erratic and unreliable to boot.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Well said michaelmross. I agree. It does show that there is room for some others. Maybe BOSS (yahoos “Build Your Own Search Engine”) is the answer? Maybe it needs a new approach, but one thing is for sure….. Someone is trying.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Even though I always knew that Cuil is no Google Search killer, still there were hopes that it will present a nice foundation alternative for Google. All I can say, whenever I search something in Cuil , I hardly find anything relevant to what I am searching, no wonder it traffic is falling down. I do think that they will improve in future.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
[...] has published new results stating that statcounter has moved from 1 out of every 1000 searches now to one every 10,000 [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I found that the Cuil results were highly accurate, fresh and relevant to my searches!!
Well, I did when I was looking to find expired domains, KW stuffed spam pages or wanted to be redirected to a porn site.
But for anything else - not so much.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
From the very first day that cuil was hyped in the media, it’s format foretold doom. I wonder if the investors were at all internet savvy?
August 12th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Cuil is a successful failure. Ten seconds after visiting it I had to leave - it’s just ick.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
If you are going to challenge the gods, you better be prepared. What’s funnier than the crap they built is that we all gave it a chance with some expectation. What a piece of cuil.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Failure for Cuil, but success for whatever marketing/pr firm got them their original hits. If it was a viral marketing project, then it worked.
Anyone know who did it for them?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Cuil is not a serious search engine. It must improve all about it.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I have a strong feeling
Cuil was nothing but a google experiment, to see if a privacy-conscious competitor (fake competitor, i should add) would drive users away from google.
Note also that yahoo.com did the same thing with Yuil - the similarity in names are not a coincidence.
It is a serpentine marketing trick from google - setting up a fake competitor for a strong loss.
The reason i say this is that their search results are simply too awful to be true.
Further details here (though nothing to authenticate my hypothesis):
http://letterfromtheplanetofapes.blogspot.com/2008/08/theres-something-about-cuil.html
August 12th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I thought they had some nice ideas, BUT then you do a search and most results are bad or just plain irrelevant.
Cuil can’t compete with google or yahoo or live, hell they were the worst results I’ve seen in a long long time
anyway best of luck to them
August 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Finally, the most ridiculously overblown “news story” in the history of online technology blows over.
Why does everyone insist on wishing them “good luck” with these “horrible search results” that “need massive improvement”?
There’s so much other promising stuff on the internet, and the media picks something that sucks from the get-go to harp on??!
This company deserves no sympathy. You don’t release a product until it’s AT LEAST semi-usable. Surely they knew it wasn’t close to that.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Cuil is strange….It doesn’t even have most of the websites indexed and there is no where to go to add your website. I get tons of traffic from Google and other search engines but nothing from Cuil.
Anyone have any suggestions on how to get added?
I did a few searches for different topics and it came back with very poor results. Why would people want to use Cuil when it doesn’t index popular pages?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:13 am
[...] Gracias Juan por el link Actualización Statcounter, sobre una muestra de 365 millones de impresiones da unas estadísticas deprimentes para CUIL [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Cuil doesn’t seem to be ready for a public release yet. The system is working, and according to the owners, they can index MORE sites than Google. The results, however, are way less relevant than those found by other traffic exchanges! Really, Cuil finds the weirdest things sometimes. Not to mention the dark and gloomy website design isn’t really a good thing nowadays…
However, I should probably wish them luck. Google founders started from nothing, and look at them now; these guys have equipment and their ’secret’ algorithms. Only it’s incredibly more hard to get into the search engine market now
August 13th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I dont like Cuil but full credit to them for giving it a go. Competition is always good but I think David might just loose out to Goliath this time…
From a personal point of view - I will be using Google as a search for Lamb Cam puts my site http://www.lambwatch.co.uk in second, whereas in Cuil it’s nowwhere to be seen
August 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am
We include Cuil.com in our innovative multi search algorithm.
2try4.com can save time by searching up to four popular sites at once, which proves excellent for research. A search provides four expandable screens (click the top grey bars), filled by top search providers.
It is specialised for deep web research and has search models which range from !images to !video search.
Our users are worldwide, however we are still very much a beta in appearance with basic help guides.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for the follow-up, StatCounter people. The results are not surprising at all, I must say. In a field dominated by Google, you have to be good right out of the starting gate or why would people go back?
August 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
[...] Statcounter har ganska bra koll på besöksstatistik. På allmän begäran har de kikat närmare på hur många som hittar webbsidor med nya sökmotorn Cuil. Baserat på 365 miljoner sidvisningar syns en tydlig nedåttrend, dag för dag. Läs mer på deras blogg. [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
So it was only a traffic driven spike. Now that Cuil has become associated with failure, it will find it difficult to get any of that traffic back. It has to be better than Google and the rest. There is no “as good as” in the search engine business. People need a reason to change search engines and Cuil, as it stands now, is not providing any reason. It would be interesting to see a graph of Cuil’s traffic fall off to get some sense of search frequency versus time.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Re “People need a reason to change search engines”
There are plenty of good reasons to switch from google.
Google now tracks everything one does on the web for a lot of people:
* those that use firefox’ built-in anti-phishing feature, it means every URL you visit goes to google first,
* google syndication and doubleclick engulfment can cover pretty the entirety of an unsuspecting person’s web behavior
* people have somehow turned the verb “search” into “google” , adding more to the omnipresence of google
Personally I’ve long been using yahoo and other so-called “B-List” search engines. Admittedly the results are not as good as google.
But I believe in choice, and fair competitiveness and variety .
I don’t and will not buy into this frightening “Google == WWW” trend.
It may suit them and their shareholders , but it doesn’t suit the interest of privacy, innovation, fair market competitiveness .
PS. Note , I don’t mind using google’s blogger services, because there are other blogging services that “on par” with their service.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Effectively, google’s web usage tracking is exactly what spyware does.
I’ll continue to keep Cuil on my search engine list along with yahoo,altavista (one of the first) and others - particularly the regional search engines.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Cuil is a good example of how not to launch a website. All that money spent on PR has been wasted (unless of course its a black marketing campaing from Google in which case, money well spent.). If they want to get those kind of hits again, they will have to spend even more money on PR the next time to convince people that it’s not as rubbish as it used to be.
Statcounter helped me learn the same lesson with my own website. I launched it before it was ready, got loads of hits, but the visitors were dissapointed that it wasn’t fully ready and never came back in full numbers.
The world wide stats are also interesting, showing which countries are more susceptable to media hype / propaganda etc. Or perhaps which countries are the least loyal to Google?
August 13th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Even before Cuil was ‘public’, I saw mention of it on another forum, and the thinking there was that it was all a ploy to develop an alternate search strategy to Google, then sell the technology back to Google. If Cuil is made up of ex-Google employees, that would make sense in light of the abysmal failure Cuil has been to the general public.
So they sell Cuil back to their former masters for a killing, and a year or two later, we see some form of an alternate ‘Google-pretty’ search engine, marketed for people who don’t like search engines or some other marketing nonsense.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Alexa Traffic Rank is showing the same decline - http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/cuil.com - but it’s also showing a new climb since a day or two ago!
August 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Cuil guys have to go a long way…..
Cuil search no where stands in front of google search.
One more thing i notice that Cuil don’t even read the meta tag “description” to get the description of the page…
August 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I also think that the grid layout is not user friendly, I like the standard list of results - I dont think theres really any floor in this display method and dont think it really needs to be changed.
Other than that, I like the look of cuil it looks modern and attractive.
However, I think they’ve set them selves a very tough task - drawing people away from Google, or in fact any other major search engine. To accomplish this I think they really need to offer something fundimentally better than Google offers and I dont think they do - I know they are boasting a much larger search database, but in practical terms, can you get anything from Cuil that you cant get from Google? Thats the question, and even if it was slightly better than Google - why bother to change, people trust Google.
I think they need to think about some of the floors in the other major search engines and focus on that; things that spring to my mind:
Far too many directories come up in Google listings, I personally think if you are searching for say bouncy castles, you want to find a bouncy castle site not a directory of a load more resulsts for bouncy castle sites - I think this is becoming a major issue in the search engine sector.
Secondly, some better and maybe user interactive filtering methods - what are the average amount of results returned for a search? Maybe 500,000? How can you ever look through that many results. I think it would be good to make an interactive search engine where you can continuously interegate the returned results and narrow it down.
Or perhaps even the search engine equivelant of a spam filter - if you get rubbish results you mark them as spam and them pages are analysed and the search engine builds a profile of what results you like???
http://me.dium.com/search - Like your site Chris, I think that looks snazzy!
August 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
It is very difficult for a new search engine to survive out there. People are so used to Google. It is extremely difficult to detach them from the big G. Last year, Mylivesearch from Melbourne made a lot of noise.These days, I do not hear anything about them as well.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
After millions of dollars was invested they made one of the biggest mistakes a company could make… right out of the gate… They announced they were open for business when they were not 100% ready.. made a bunch of statistic claims that they could NOT back up..
I tried it the first day… and when a few of my search terms (popular ones) did NOT return ANY results… I never went back.. as I am sure millions of other people did..
Lesson to be learned… don’t brag unless you can back it up — AND — never announce your grand opening until all the bugs are worked out… CUIL will be in the black abyss in a few months and that domain will be worth a cuil $8.95…………………
August 15th, 2008 at 1:29 am
I did the same thing as others. Tried it the first day, plain old regular keywords returned zero hits, and I’ve not been back. If you want a different kind of search engine, try searchme.com. It was listed in most of the articles along with cuil. Not sure the hits are any better, but at least it seems to be of value.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:56 am
One thing that seems very apparent is that a large portion of CUIL’s initial burst of traffic was because webmasters were checking where they ranked in CUIL’s results.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:03 am
I think they need to think about some of the floors in the other major search engines and focus on that; things that spring to my mind.I tried it the first day… and when a few of my search terms (popular ones) did NOT return ANY results… I never went back.. as I am sure millions of other people did..Cuil is a good example of how not to launch a website. All that money spent on PR has been wasted (unless of course its a black marketing campaing from Google in which case, money well spent.). If they want to get those kind of hits again, they will have to spend even more money on PR the next time to convince people that it’s not as rubbish as it used to be.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
My two main issues with Cuil
1) I did not like their results layout, difficult to read and browse
2) Put my name in (I’m a writer with multiple sites) on Google and you get thousands of hits. Put it in on Cuil and it gets no hits. That means either their page collection methods are incomplete, or I don’t exist. Rene Descartes suggests I do.
I am actually an old AltaVista partisan from way back, who only grudgingly went to Google as it became more powerful…winning tme over to yet another engine will require it to be better, not inferior.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Their PR worked fairly well because here we all are 3 weeks later still talking CUIL.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The layout is just way busier than it needs to be. Also, I typed in the name of a website, and it didn’t find it. But it found one site that referred to it. That’s just not useful to me. As Danny says, I think it was the PR that worked, because of the many search pages I’ve seen, this is one of the worst.
-B
August 15th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Cuil was definitely over-hyped. Yahoo search is much much better.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Take a google search result, add more text to each entry and maybe a related picture, and then put it in 3 columns; that’s the impression I got from cuil.
Google grabbed the top spot from Altavista years ago with their innovative ranking algorithm that put the most important pages first. There really was a *need* for that. What need is cuil responding to?
August 16th, 2008 at 2:12 am
My new theory is that Cuil was never intended to be a search engine that delivered relevant results. Instead, I think that the reason for Cuil is to have the biggest index of the internet and then sell that database onto another company like Microsoft search or Yahoo.
When you look at the profiles of the ex-Google employees at Cuil, their skills are all in the field of creating large indexes/databases and no expertise in extracting relevant results from such an index.
August 16th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Thanks StatCounters! What a user friendly, attractive site. How do I add your Logo to my Blog without forfeiting my counter stats?
Thank a million, and keep up the great work!
NakedApe
StatCounter Team Response:
Hi NakedApe!
Thanks for your kind comments! You can of course add our logo to your site - have a look at this page for more information.
All the best!
August 16th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I actually like Cuil’s website layout better. The colors are a bit harsh but I could get used to it.
I think the failure occured at the actual searches.
The main difference between Google and Cuil is that Cuil doesn’t measure CTR, because CTR infringes on your privacy in a way. Cuil wanted to be the search engine of a new era - ethical searching perhaps. The problem is that CTR shows the psychology behind every search - what you actually searched for instead of what spammed its way to the top.
Cuil will have to find a replacement for this without infringing on peoples privacy. I think it can be done, and I believe cuil does have a future as a google competitor. Hopefully they will figure it out soon.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Any new search engine that wants to take on the big G needs to find something representative of result quality that can’t easily be impacted by those with the resources to skew results.
Links can be manipulated.
On page content can be manipulated.
Search result click behavior can be manipulated.
It’s a tough game to play!
August 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Yahoo search is much much better!
August 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The name itself is stupid, anything but cool. Cuil??? Give me a break.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Unfortunately, Cuil just isn’t putting out good results.
For example, search for “Jewish Learning Connection”. The first link in the upper left is Cleveland’s Jewish Learning Connection. But it is an old page at an old URL that hasn’t been used since 2006. The current site isn’t found.
Another link on the first page is the United Methodist Church. Sorry, but that site hasn’t got diddley to do with anything Jewish.
And all the links are displayed with invalid graphics. Search for “Heights Jewish Center” and you will find some worthwhile links. But the pictures that accompany those links don’t come from the linked sites.
I wish the good folks at Cuil every success. Competition is the backbone of free enterprise, and competition can spur the established players such as Google and Yahoo to get better. But right now, Cuil is not competitive at all.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
What I thought was funny, is that I checked on my key words, and I was listed with a photo from my site. BUT, a lot of the other listings had pictures of my heating pads next to their listing. I thought that Cuil would straighten it out. But now, I am on page 2, and those other sites that are on page one, still have pictures of my products! I guess Cuil loved all of my pictures of my snuggleys!
August 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I remember seeing a news bit about Cuil on CNN while I was having lunch and the TV was on. The news crew tried to search for “George Washington”, and nothing came up. Then they tried to search for “Rick Sanchez” (the newsanchor at the time), and still nothing came up.
They couldn’t get anything up with those search strings? When CNN was actually trying to pimp them out as an alternative to Google? No wonder they’re going down.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Statcounter Team,
i wanted to ask you that can we select the range to check the amount of visitors, locations, other features etc. etc.
(like we can select the range in summary… cant we do such things in others also [just like analytics ;)])
August 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Excellent to get to see some specific statistics on this new entrants performance. Although this site really seemed more geared to take some market share away from Yahoo (due to its three column image rich results display) I am saddened by another search engine not being able to at least get a foothold in this almost monopolised market.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I typed 3cx3000f7 into google: 895 hits
I typed 3cx3000f7 into cuil: 0 hits yes……zero hits.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I’m surprised it was released without better customer feedback un-cuil if you ask me!
August 21st, 2008 at 1:07 am
I must admit, I caught onto the hype behind CUIL but when I got there, didnt think it all that user-friendly.
It’ll be interesting to see just where it ends up.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:08 am
why I am not able to open cuil?
August 21st, 2008 at 9:15 am
Thanks for the info on cuil.com and for this update too. but i must say the name is a bit off the track.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hi,
Thanks for posting these stats - they make interesting reading.
I hope Cuil will break the monopoly of google - sadly I cannot see it.
Unfortunately the hype overpowered the end result - I was certainly a little disappointed with the search results Cuil brought up.
My own website search term “groove sharpener” brought up some very strange sites - although I personally do like the presentation aspect of Cuil.
We shall see what time brings to us - however I think the reign of the big G will continue unopposed.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 am
“The world’s biggest search engine” is a very bold statement by a company in it’s infancy with many teething problems.
The layout is very confusing & will definately take a lot of getting used to.
My website is top of the list on Google for a search of “Hellvellyn” (a purposely mis-spelt Helvellyn) but doesn’t even show in the 19 pages displayed by Cuil. On a search of “hellvellynsviews” only the home page shows, compared to 59 pages indexed by Google & almost as many by the other search engines. Surely if Cuel searches 3 times as many site as Google, all 68 pages would be indexed. If all the other SE search bots can find their way round my site, Cuil’s surely can.
I’ve found that many search results from Cuil are irrelevent.
I intend to keep Cuil on my toolbar for the now in the hope that it IS just a case of teething problems.
All that said, it’d be great to see Google knocked off the top spot!
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
To me it looks like fall from sky to earth. Cuil may go longer but these reports are not highly encouraging. If you remember looksmart’s crawler eating out the bandwidths led the fallout despite it has greater potential. I am waiting for twiceler to come and see whats happens.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
all may not be lost , there might be hope for them yet with their adsense alternative…
http://www.satireandcomment.com/0808cuil.html
August 25th, 2008 at 8:41 am
[...] Aug 10: 0.01% [source] [...]
August 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I find myself using CUIL more and more. The search results tend to be more relevant than those of other search engines (Google tossed relevance out the window years ago) and the layout is superb.
They do still have some problems and the lack of advanced query operators ensures they won’t be my primary search engine for some time. But their work is impressive.
This is the best entry into search technology that I have ever seen. If they follow historical trends, they’ll probably become a major contender within about 2 years (but I would not bank on them becoming a force in less than a year).
August 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I am not surprise. I tried it just now. Not many results, those that appeared were not what I wanted and the layout was hard to read. Google on the other hand did a great job. Yahoo, while not giving as many results, was also on target. As was answers.com I just don’t see what this site is offering, to tell the truth.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
[...] Fuente: http://blog.statcounter.com/2008/08/cuil-latest-stats/ [...]
August 30th, 2008 at 4:13 am
I can see why they are ex Google employees.
They have no design talent at all. The SERPs are horrible layout wise. The results aren’t much better.
If Cuil was supposed to be Googles biggest competitor, Google has nothing to worry about.
August 31st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Cuil just needed to bring two google employees to make it work… Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
I find it funny when I type my sites address, I get nothing… even though under the search bar… it states…
“Search 121,617,892,992 web pages”
and their about page states:
“Welcome to Cuil—the world’s biggest search engine. The Internet has grown. We think it’s time search did too.”
If the world’s self proclaimed biggest search engine can’t even find a single URL that every other search engine finds… then I’d say they are lying.
I don’t like it when people lie to me. It makes me distrust their credibility.
September 1st, 2008 at 8:55 am
such an ugly name - cuil - i’m sure that has to be part of the problem.
there’s a new one i’ve seen - a bit buggy at the moment - that flicks through websites like an ipod flicks through album covers. i can’t recall the name - but the future of web browsing, in my books!
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
[...] Cuil, on the other hand, has a much larger space into which it may expand. They can increase their resources, enhance their technology, and ultimately show people that they are here to stay. It is way too soon for people to care about how much traffic Cuil receives after the launch. [...]
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“much ado about nothing”
PS: i agree with a comment above: the layout (horizontal+vertical) is just confusing.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Oh well, it came and went.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
thank you
September 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Its going to be interesting to see if Cuil survives……….time will tell
September 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I just have tested Cuil.
1) So, very poor base. I think it will take a lot of time to crowl all the web. Time will show.
2) Uncomfortebl layout, site prevew taks too much space. Google and Yahoo is bater in this case. But, time will show )))
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Honestly, i found no advantage over google or yahoo. The layout is no good.. i don’t like the design at all..
October 7th, 2008 at 7:42 am
i’m sure that has to be part of the problem.
there’s a new one i’ve seen - a bit buggy at the moment - that flicks through websites like an ipod flicks through album covers. i can’t recall the name - but the future of web browsing, in my books!
October 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Невероятно красиво!
October 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Классно!
October 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
They must start to think of some value added!
Why people will leave google and yahoo to use a new search engine? they must find something to be superior.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I love that one of the real definitions of “cuil” is “fly; flea, gnat,” because that’s about as threatening as Cuil is ever going to be to Google.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Unless there is some uniqueness or added value Cuil will not fly as a search engine. Google has 68% and yahoo another 25% of the searches. This doesn’t leave much for the other search engines. With that said, I would like to see someone give Google a run for their money.