Has anyone tried new search engine Cuil

[timlee79]

http://www.cuil.com/ This is a new search engine out made by team of ex google and stanford programers. Still fairly new but takes a different approach to other search engines displays results in frames rather than lists and uses different criteria to rank its search. They also claim to keep no history on your searches.

[Bunjiweb]

find it a bit odd myself... you can't really better google and in my opinion this provides no more information than on google and has less features...

Ben

[Funkstar]

Heard of it before but never tried it.

Not convinced. Searched for a couple of things and got exactly zero results!

Google:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Cuil:
http://www.cuil.com/search?q=sanyo+hd700

Not very useful is it? It didn't even drop the HD700 and give me results for just Sanyo.

[Whiternoise]

If it's quite a new search engine does it need a bit of time to index, well, the entire web fully?

It's quite an interesting proof of concept - something i would imagine would work well if google took it on board as a view option - not as a default you understand.

And also bear in mind that in 2000, Google was pretty much unknown and Yahoo! was considered the engine of choice. All very well you saying you'll trust the big G till you're dead, but there was a time - not that long ago - when people didn't!

EDIT:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/27...e-whole-story/ this is sort of my point.

Although according to them they index 3 times more than Google. But still, the fact remains that this is a new start up and Google's had 10 years to hone their algorithms..

[TheAnimus]

its a bit NSFW, as el reg pointed out shortly after launch, you can get unsuitable images from innocent queries.

[noTHINGface]

I tried it (after reading the Registers coverage that was pretty funny)! I didn't get on with it so back to Google I went...

[Mithrandir]

I read an news snippet a few weeks ago but forgot to have a look.

At the present time it seems too cumbersome. I think its a nice and different take on searching but a lot of ironing out. Definitely not on a patch of Google or Yahoo, but it might be in a year or so.

[Funkstar]

If it's quite a new search engine does it need a bit of time to index, well, the entire web fully?

And thats fair enough, but to get zero results on something like that is a little rubbish isn't it? Like I said, drop the second item in the search term and you then get results.

Would have been different if they had a few hundred vs the 460,000 for google.

Oh, and i never used Yahoo! in the past it was either Altavista or Excite I used

[2Cold Scorpio]

I rather like it. I won't take over Google and Windows Live Search as my two main ones, mind you, but I did add it in as a choice in IE.

[Stringent]

Im old so I remember Google when it first came out. It wasn't all that anyway. The guys who did this are Google rejects so they want their revenge I guess.

[Butcher]

I really don't like the font they use - it seems to have forced anti aliasing on, which I really dislike.

[Whiternoise]

Windows Live Search is pants, it's not a patch on the big G for relevance..

[MarcLister]

Tried it briefly but wasn't that impressed. Just seemed too chaotically laid out. I did one search, for Google. All it gave me was Google Mail and Google this and that but not Google.com.

[chicken]

Pah!

[Zhaoman]

I like the interface but the search engine isn't great

[shrek101]

Yes I tried it, prefer google though but I may try again