DISQUS

Paul Walsh · 1 year ago

I wouldn't go up against Google. I'd rather come up with something which either Google uses, or can be exploited via Google. We don't need more search engines. If we did, we'd still have the likes of Excite - the first to introduce strings; handsome + nic + equity + boy

Jens · 1 year ago

A new search engine makes sense when it does something unique that is of great value to the user. And it better be hard or not interesting for Google to copy this for either technical or business reasons.

Cuil doesn't (seem to) have anything unique that is of great value to the searcher. Maybe they have something that is of great value to Google, Yahoo or Microsoft. Who knows...

@ Paul Walsh: Competing with Google is okay. But only if you are significantly better and there is nothing that Google can do about it. That is obviously a pretty difficult combination, as nobody has cracked that, yet. I agree that focusing on other areas is easier.

Paul Walsh · 1 year ago

@Jens - do you really believe it's possible to come up with something better than Google a_n_d have enough marketing power/budget to out-punch Google? OK, anything is possible. But, is it a wise business decision - I don't think so.

nic · 1 year ago

Thanks for the comments guys.

Paul - I would be more than happy to have a go at Google in one of the areas I mentioned. For sure it would be a risky venture, but the upside is huge if you get it right. Plus there are a few companies out there that will see a lot of value in a company in this space that has made even a small amount of progress :).

Jens · 1 year ago

@ Paul Walsh

I actually believe that at some point somebody WILL come up with something that is better than Google. Or can you imagine that in 100 years time search will be the same as it is now...? :)

Would I want to take on Google in their own game? Probably not right now, but who knows what technologies I will have access to in a few years time.

Danvers · 1 year ago

The auto-generated photos on a Cuil search are bizarre - I searched against my own name and some of the photos it threw up were bordering on offensive - and most of the results were very US (i.e. .com) focussed. Not tempted to convert.

alan p · 1 year ago

Heck, I thought I was being +ve about Cuil - you should see what others wrote ;-)

I thought the "Cuil is gaelic for knowledge" bit was silliest, as it is so easy to check.....

Azeem · 1 year ago

Nic

There is also always room for an alternative way to solve the IR problem, which is what True Knowledge is doing.

I think it is tough to pretend to be a Google-killer because there is such depth to their offering and it is dumb to attempt to attack them on exactly the same or similar enough value axes that they excel at.Sometimes sidestepping the competition is also a sensible move (to be played out...)
aa

Alex Kelleher · 1 year ago

It does occur to me that Google's fundamental idea (who links to you) can be fragile (I've seen too many SEO hacks that are successful!). Other variables - popularity, social search as you say, relevance and so on may eventually be more important, and less spam-able. My business is all about targeting and relevance, so I am biased, but it's where lots user benefit can potentially be found.

Google's brand is a real barrier in main-stream search, so I'm intrigued that Cuil doesn't seem to have done anything that special with their branding - or made the design very appealing.

nic · 1 year ago

Hi Azeem - I agree, the trick is to pick off a corner of the market which Google underserves and then build out from there. Going head to head would be suicide.

Alex - I agree that links have been heavily gamed - that is what attracts me to social search, as that is inherently game proof (at least as long as you keep good company...)

Hoover · 1 year ago

I'm sure this will sound childish and off-base, but to my mind the trick to beating Google is simple.

Bear in mind that Google has invented the wheel. But the gap between inventing the wheel and building the car you drive is immense.

When I search for something, I want only one page. Only a lunatic could want 15 million pages, so I've no idea why they boast about finding so many results.

One page, and one page only. It's that simple. The gap between Google's product and a search engine that will offer me that one page is immense.

Google is primitive. The way to beat it is to imagine the difference between inventing the wheel and building a car.

Google's competitors get nowhere because they say "Google may give you a blue wheel, but we offer a red one".

Nobody cares.

I only want one page. Ever.