ReactionDynamics

There has been a lot of criticism dumped on new (formerly ’stealth’) search engine ‘Cuil‘ (pronounced ‘Cool’, meaning ‘Knowledge’ in Irish) with prolific bloggers, analysts and experts the world over giving it an overwhelmingly negative rap.

The Good

Cuil presents search results in a nice, neatly formatted way (perhaps falling short of truly intuitive), with a categorical breakdown of search results, called ‘Drilldowns’. It’s fast, for an index of a claimed 120 billion pages, and as yet is (as far as I can tell) free from ads and sponsored search results. The interface encompasses useful, modern navigation elements such as tabs, and neat AJAX auto-suggest that supplies permutations of common search terms. The in-line thumbnails are potentially a great feature, as they could enable users to find what they’re looking for quicker being a visual aid rather than just text.

The Not So Good

However, where Cuil shines well on the arguably superficial interface standpoint, it falls pretty heavily on what should be (and what they state is) their most important feature. General relevancy.

It may be that I’m simply too used to Google style results being close to what I’m searching for, not always exactly correct, but pretty close. However with Cuil, I’m often presented with a list of results that don’t seem to come close to what I’m searching for, and even the thumbnails that could help me, are quite wrong.

For example, if I enter the term ‘Mount Gambier‘, a specific and unique place, the search results are quite well done, especially the “drilldowns” which ooze good relevancy. I’m given a list of South Australian regions, nearby South Australian towns, cities and wine related links for which the regions around Mount Gambier are known for.

However, if I make my search term more general, lets say ‘monkey‘ the results are very different to what I’d expect. I’m hit with pop-culture references, movies, and mostly strange “drilldowns”. I would be expecting a Google-esque search, which provides me with a link to Wikipedia, telling me what a monkey is. Much better in this case.

My Issue With The Negativity

My problem with it all is the ultimate, and unavoidable comparison between Cuil and Google.  Google began in an age where there wasn’t the sort of instant web we have today. Word didn’t get around as quickly for Google’s problems till far, far later in the game. With Cuil, where scorn could be heaped on and seen by interested parties immediately - instantly and perhaps unfortunately damaging Cuil’s reputation.

I think Cuil’s problems are intrinsically it’s own, but also feel it doesn’t deserve to be written off. It’s specific results with unique-ish terms such as people and places aren’t bad, I’ve definitely got worse from Google and even Yahoo.

Summary

Done right:

• Interface is simple, modern and effective
• Speed is very good
• Large index, theoretically means more results.
• Decent new take on the age old web search
• No ads

Done wrong:

• Search relevance needs work, both in results in general and images returned
• Failure to take into account the effects of social media community rejection across the board
• Failure to undergo extensive (and necessary) staged development (alpha, beta, and consultation with users and tech experts on expected search relevancy)
• Branding is soft, slightly clichéd, Web 2.0 logo that is prone to misspelling
• Perhaps should have purchased Cool.com