Is Cuil a Googleslayer? Nope, Not Yet–Not Hardly

When your first result for "iPhone" isn't about Apple, you've got trouble!

By  |  Monday, July 28, 2008 at 12:23 am

A search engine called Cuil launched tonight. It touts itself as the world’s largest search engine, with more than 121 billion pages indexed–three times as many as Google, it says. Its “About Cuil” page sniffs at “superficial popularity metrics”–for which read Google’s PageRank–and says that it has a better approach to figuring out a page’s content and relevance. The site’s management includes multiple veterans of Google, plus Louis Monier, who was instrumental at AltaVista, the first important search engine. In short, both its claims and its staff set the bar high. And its claims, in particular, beg you to compare it with Google.

After spending a bit of time playing with Cuil, though, I’m more puzzled than impressed by the results. It would appear that the site is suffering some technical glitches tonight: In some cases, it’s told me it found zero results for a search, then has returned lots of them when I tried again. In fact, that’s happened often enough that I’d be cautious about judging any results that Cuil provides tonight:

I’ve done a bunch of other searches in hopes of finding an instance in which Cuil clearly beats Google. No luck so far. When I search for George Washington, the first result relates to George Washington University, not the Father of the Nation. The second result is Wikipedia’s entry on the great man, but the text excerpt is a snippet from the bibliography at the end of the article, so that’s not clear. The third result is a page about the George Washington Carver museum in Austin, Texas. I can’t imagine anyone arguing that that outdoes Google’s results. In fact, placing a result relating to George Washington Carver so high is evidence that Cuil’s understanding of my search was shaky; it’s unlikely that anyone looking for information on George Washinton Carver would fail to include the “Carver” in the search.

When I tried to pull up info on a local Thai resaurant with the search “osha restaurant san francisco,” all the results on Cuil’s first page were from Citysearch, and they included dupes. Google gave me the restaurant’s official site, the addresses of all its locations, reviews from Yelp, and more–including a link to Citysearch.

Cuil’s first result for “america” is AOL; its first result for “capitol” is for the Nebraska state capitol; its first result for “hamburger” is a site selling a book of restaurant reviews for airplane pilots.

Oh, and its first result for “iphone” is for a phone from…Cisco. (McCracken’s Fifth Law of Search Relevance states that zero percent of people who search for “iphone” are seeking information on Cisco VoIP products.)

Other Cuil results are also odd: When I search for “cuil search engine,” I get one result–which isn’t about Cuil. It’s true that the site was formally known as Cuill, with two Ls at the end. But when I do the same search on Google, I get plenty of relevant results.

There’s some evidence that Cuil’s index, whatever its size, isn’t super-current. When I searched for “dark knight,” I rightly got a link to the official site as my first result. But Cuil’s text snipped for it referred to it as an upcoming film, and most of the other links on the page were similarly stale. Google’s results were much more current.

Cuil displays its results in a manner which is decidedly un-Google-esque: You get a gridlike page with ten or eleven results laid out in rows and columns. The results give you a larger-than-usual excerpt from the pages they link to, but I’d love to know Cuil’s thinking behind using the grid rather than a traditional top-to-bottom list: For me, at least, the Cuil approach is dramatically harder to scan, since I can’t just swoop my eyes down the page.

The search engine does have some features designed to help searchers. As you type, it begins to list searches that include the characters you’ve entered: For instance, when I typed “honda c” it presented me with this

You also get tabs that provide access to related searches:

And an “Explore by Category” box that provides links to further related results:

None of this is strikingly new, though. Here’s Yahoo doing something quite similar, for instance:

Then there’s Cuil’s claim of having the Web’s largest index. Over at TechCrunch, Michael Arrington did some searches for which Google returned more results than Cuil did. But judging a search engine by the size of its index is a basically iffy proposition. The search engine with the biggest index may have done a poorer job of eliminating dupes like the one I found in my Thai restaurant search above. And getting millions of results for a search doesn’t help you a bit when even the most dedicated of searchers don’t look at more than the first few pages of results. (Millions more pages in the index is meaningful only if some of those extra pages are so relevant that they show up near the top of some results; otherwise, they’re just dross.) Which helps explain why when Google announced last week that its engine knows of a trillion URLs on the Web, the company also said that many of them are irrelevant and therefore not in the index.

None of this is to suggest that Cuil might not turn out to be something good. I cheerfully admit that when I first used Google–back when it was an obscure upstart with a lot of buzz, not unlike Cuil–I was distinctly unimpressed and went back to whatever search engine I favored at the time. (AltaVista? Hotbot? I forget.) It simply took awhile before Google became Google.

In fact, given the pedigree of the folks behind Cuil and its underwhelming performance in most of the searches I tried, I think the technology more or less must be better than the experience I got tonight. So I’ll give Cuil another try soon. For now, though, I’m surprised that this is one new site that doesn’t have a little “Beta” label next to its logo. Actually, what I experienced tonight felt like a shaky alpha, even if there’s powerful technology lurking inside there somewhere…

(Update: I just tried Cuil again and got a “We’ll Be Back Soon” page saying that Cuil usage is outstripping capacity.)


Read more: , ,

6 Comments For This Post

  1. FaTe Says:

    well have none repeating exact searching result listings isn’t exactly the greatest start however simply because the engine does not point you at the brand sites associated with terms such as apple with iphone etc could possibly be a good thing if the search results where truly counting link backs and not what some large company paid to have there.

    In short its not the greatest search engine but I think it could show some aspects of how searching should be.

  2. Nate Says:

    Any idea what the images associated with the returned results are? Most of them seem to be either completely or nearly unrelated to the text… for instance, searches on sites which I have developed myself return text from the site plus images which come from… somewhere? Who knows? Kinda weird…

  3. Shane Halloran Says:

    Do a search for ‘criticisms of Cuil’ on and you get irrelevant results such as ‘The Annals of Ulster’! Is this some sort of censorship of it’s critics or is it actually just that crap?

  4. Harry McCracken Says:

    Shane: I dont think it’s intentional–more likel, it’s more evidence that Cuil’s results are kinda stale. It may not have caught up with all the coverage of itself over the past coupla days…


  5. John K Says:

    “Cuil”? More like “Blows”!

  6. Karlonia - Cuil Search Engine Says:

    Apparently Cuil was not quite ready for launch during the first day or two – many medium long tail queries did not return results at all, and even general queries returned way fewer results than they should have considering Cuil’s claims of having indexed so many pages already. They did improve somewhat afterward, however, and seem to be picking up more results and increasing relevance as more people have been testing out the engine.

    In the long run, I hope they get things together and perform well enough to compete with the major search engines and then maybe do some advertising. I would like to see more serious competitors to Google in order to hold their power in check and encourage more transparency overall.

14 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Tynan on Technology (beta) » Blog Archive » Too Cuil (cool) for school? Says:

    [...] McCracken over at The Technologizer has more details. He apparently got it to work, or almost work. But his assessment isn’t [...]

  2. Ex-Google engineers launch ‘Cuil’, the first results Says:

    [...] looking at the amount of search results, we find that Google’s results are much, much more extensive. Let’s measure again in a month or so. I hope you like that post! The Next Web Blog covers [...]

  3. | Social softies Says:

    [...] redenen? Reden 1 Reden 2 Reden 3 Reden 4 Reden [...]

  4. Cuil is Back Up! Sort of! | Technologizer Says:

    [...] all:&nbspNews Last night when I trudged of to bed, much-hyped new search engine Cuil had launched, was giving me odd-to-awful results–and then was replaced with a [...]

  5. Ten Reasons It’s So Damn Hard to Out-Google Google | Technologizer Says:

    [...] be a better search engine than Google–maybe even a more successful one someday. Judging from my experience with it so far, the real question is whether it’ll get marginally adequate, not whether it’ll topple [...]

  6. Cuil gelir hoş gelir Says:

    [...] Sonuç sayılarına bakınca Googe’ın Cuil’e nazaran çok daha geniş sonuçlar çıkardığı kesin. İndexin sayısının değil uygunluğunun önemli olduğunu burada belirtmek lazım. Şu an için [...]

  7. Google, Cuil of Dabedoo? « Doc 1.5 Says:

    [...] Is Cuil a Googleslayer? Nope, not yet – not hardly [...]

  8. SocialSofties » Blog Archive » Stilte aub Says:

    [...] Reden 3 [...]

  9. Cuil Me Once, Shame On You… Says:

    [...] all: News Remember Cuil? Back in 2008, The search engine gained brief notoriety back in 2008 by claiming to be better than Google when it was in fact laughably, bizarrely bad. Then it mostly disappeared, except when bloggers need a synonym for “failed launch” or [...]

  10. Cuil Me Once, Shame On You… | Tech News, Reviews, Business, Health News and More Says:

    [...] = 60; Remember Cuil? Back in 2008, The search engine gained brief notoriety back in 2008 by claiming to be better than Google when it was in fact laughably, bizarrely bad. Then it mostly disappeared, except when bloggers need a synonym for “failed launch” or [...]

  11. Goodbye Cuil? Says:

    [...] Friday, September 17, 2010 TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington is reporting that Cuil–the dreadful search engine that claimed to be better than Google, and which later launched a bizarre automated Wikipedia competitor–is down. And maybe out for [...]

  12. Search-Engine Wars: Can Bing (or Blekko) Beat Google? | 义乌外贸之家 Says:

    [...] stand with the express goal of shattering the McDonald’s hegemony. (In Silicon Valley, one failed would-be Google killer, Cuil, is practically synonymous with overweening ambition.) (See a new Google product in TIME’s 50 [...]

  13. You Should Be Using Wolfram|Alpha Instead of Google for Search - Techland - Says:

    [...] to set itself up as a Google rival, or to be perceived as a Google killer. I mention Cuil, the definitive failed Google killer. But there's another example that's worth remembering: [...]

  14. Google会被打败么? - 想乐空间 Says:

    [...] stand with the express goal of shattering the McDonald’s hegemony. (In Silicon Valley, one failed would-be Google killer, Cuil, is practically synonymous with overweening [...]