top stories

New search engine Cuil takes aim at Google

Cuil's homepage.

There's a big new search engine launching Monday: Cuil. Developed and run by the husband-and-wife team of Stanford professor Tom Costello and former Google search architect Anna Patterson, it's pitched as bigger, faster, and better than Google's flagship search engine in pretty much every way. See video interview with Tom Costello, below.

I have not had a chance to spend much time with the engine. I'm getting open access to it the same time you are. I did get a preview. It's a very serious effort, and it has enough funding to get off the ground and become a player.

The most important difference between Cuil and Google is its ranking system. Rather than assigning priority to pages based on inbound links as Google does ("Pagerank"), Cuil analyzes the content of Web pages to divine their relevance to a search query. Costello bristled when I asked if this was a semantic search engine like PowerSet (recently sold to Microsoft). Costello said Cuil's search is "contextual," and that, "we're trying to understand the real world, not the Web."

Cuil really does a better job of displaying search results.

(Credit: Cuil)

What this means, in the real world, is that Cuil results are automatically categorized. When you search for a common name, for example, Cuil will give you a result page where results for different individuals with that name are groups under tabs. It will also break out sub-topics related to each name. In Cuil's canned demo, if you search for "Harry," there are different tabs for "Harry Potter" and "Prince Harry of Wales." On the Harry Potter tab, you'll get further sub-links devoted to actors, Gryffindor dorm-mates, etc. "We have a strong ontological commitment," Costello told me, meaning that parsing search results into readable chunks is a very big part of the Cuil value proposition.

The service also displays images from Web results whenever possible. It all adds up to search results pages that are much more attractive, and useful, than Google's.

Another potential advantage of the context-based search is that it allows Cuil searches to be more respectful of user privacy. Unlike Google, which simply has to track every single click to refine its index, Cuil's context-based search does not. In practice, the distinction may be moot because Cuil will need to track clicks to see if their results are actually working for people, but it could serve as a marketable distinction.

Context-based indexing also presents a juicier target for search spammers, but as Costello says, "that's a success problem."

It's one thing to have a nice interface and show users good results, but the size of the Web index that the engine has access to matters a lot as well. And this is where Cuil makes its boldest claim. Costello says that the engine is launching with 120 billion pages indexed, well over the 40 billion he says Google has (although see Google's latest bluster about the company's power at Web indexing). Costello also claims that Cuil's Web crawler is three times faster than Google's, although it wasn't clear to me if he meant that is per search computer or for the entire system. Compared with Google's globe-spanning data network of data centers, some literally set up near dams so they can tap hydro power more efficiently, Cuil's two puny data centers hosting less than 2,000 PCs total will have to run pretty fast to outpace Google's crawlers.

Cuil will launch on Monday, and in a refreshing (and gutsy) move, the site is just plain launching. There's no weasely "beta" tag applied to the service. Costello thinks it'll be good enough to use from day one.

It won't, though, be as complete as Google. While Google has had failures in extending its brand (Froogle, Google Base), its collection of services that are affiliated with its mainstream search product, like Google Maps, Image Search, and desktop search, can make switching away from Google difficult for users. Costello realizes that Cuil needs to layer in additional services, but as he said to me, the company has to start somewhere.

Upshot: Cuil is certainly worth trying out. If you like it, services to put it in front of your face (a browser toolbar, and widgets) are coming soon.

As a business proposition, Cuil is obviously a big bet. While search is a monetizable business, it's hard to change the behavior of a generation of Web users who think "Google" is a verb. No other search engine has come close to entering the public consciousness like this. Of course, Cuil doesn't have to trounce Google on day one. It took Google quite some time to surpass Alta Vista and Yahoo in the search wars.

See also: Yahoo, Microsoft, Ask, Hakia, etc.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 71 comments (Page 1 of 7)
by spark9991 July 27, 2008 9:47 PM PDT
rafe, i tried a very common search term on cuil and the results were way, way worse than ANY other search engine in the world....ANY!

whoever funded cuil was a sucker. it's NEVER going to beat even today's alta vista! pathetic...

btw: i tried this link on cuil, the 'about' link, and got this error message:

Oops! We couldn?t find that page.

Please verify that the URL is correct and try again.

cuil can't even make a basic about us page and get it to work...!

in the future please don't hype a new search engine as 'taking on google' when it cannot even get a basic search or about us link working !
Reply to this comment View reply
by JoJo Pumpkin July 27, 2008 9:49 PM PDT
Seems like an awful amount of errors in the search. Tons of page not found, including the privacy policy and on search terms that IT suggested.. Hmmm! When it did work it seems effective. Perhaps MS should beat these guys up and let Yahoo fail on their own.
Reply to this comment
by BestSellerAuthors July 27, 2008 9:53 PM PDT
the UI looks clean and cool.. but as the post says, there just is not enough there.

Didn't we stop the pissing contest over number of pages searched about 10 years ago?
Reply to this comment
by GameCIAcom July 27, 2008 9:59 PM PDT
Well.. I was very excited to hear this. I tried a few searches myself. I thought maybe this is a joke? No? Hmmmm, maybe when the Professor gets a chance at it .. it will work. My searches were way, way off. (Even when searching for a keyword with .com on the end of it. Results returned were in Spanish .. literally).
Reply to this comment
by zcollvee July 27, 2008 10:01 PM PDT
clean. but still....
not too many right results
Reply to this comment
by starbuckscrazyliz July 27, 2008 10:04 PM PDT
Although the interface seems nice and the pictures that appear on the search do help find useful information it seems that there is still a lot of work to be done. After running through various searches I found that error pages were common and the results would appear on more than one of the results pages i.e. link to x page was found on result page 1,2, and 3. Also if they want to compete with major search engines an images, video, maps. etc. tab might be useful. This is an interesting attempt and I think if they can get around to fixing all these problems it might stand a chance but as I said much work must still go into this search engine and for claiming to have that many web pages indexed the search results come short of being able to back that claim up.
Reply to this comment
by member57081210 July 27, 2008 10:27 PM PDT
Extremely poor search results. Some queries got "no results" when same query
on Google got over a million hits.
Reply to this comment View reply
by steveaustin24 July 27, 2008 11:12 PM PDT
this seems to use the algorithm that one of the founders of cuil used to index all the pages at the internet archive, http://archive.org/ , a while back. it seems to only index certain popular words and phrases and takes some shortcuts that just don't yield results when they should. like for these searches:

http://www.cuil.com/search?q=how+to+make+fireworks
http://www.cuil.com/search?q=how%20to%20bake%20a%20cake%20with%20an%20oven&sl=long

so while they may claim to index 120B pages, it is really only a partial index job, indexing a tiny fraction of what it should, so the 120B is a misleading number. (plus they don't have cached pages, that would certainly take up too much hard drive space)
Reply to this comment View reply
by rshah29 July 27, 2008 11:31 PM PDT
Contender with Google; No. A new option to search; Yes!

I'm not sure why folks are trashing a start-up. Google had the same issues mentioned in the comments here when they initially launched. It's quite refreshing to see folks trying to create an alternative to the Goliath.

Let's see where Cuil ends up. Give them a chance.
Reply to this comment
by Kanzu5665 July 27, 2008 11:36 PM PDT
I'm sorry, but this should be in beta. A good concept, but bluntly, it just isn't working.

I tried searching up Cuil on the search engine. Guess what? No results!

I searched Cuil on Google. It pointed to some content about it.

As of now, Google > Cuil.

Also, it's interesting to note that when Google was made, one of the advantages that it had over engines such as Inktomi and Alta Vista was that when it searched its own name, it actually pointed to relevant content. It looks like Cuil is going backwards.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

New to Web 2.0?

Check out the Webware Newbie's Guides:

Facebook | Twitter | Flickr | Google RSS | Flock

Webware

Webware

COOL WEB 2.0 APPS FOR EVERYONE

CNET
Visit other CNET Networks sites: