As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004 OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005 OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005 OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005 As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight" As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds< As of 10/31/07: Still 217 down! As of 5/18/08: Still 217 down! Now announcing for the NBWA and GAW television! www.wdws.com home of DWS Sportsnight and downstate radio home of thecubsfan!
For starters, there's a little Google pedigree in Cuil (which, contrary to instinct, is pronounced "cool" instead of "quill"). Google acquired the technology behind Anna Patterson's last search engine four years ago. She spent two years at Google after that before leaving the company, gradually constructing Cuil along with a few former Google engineers.
The site claims to scour far more of the Web than Google does. It promises to sift through more than 120 billion pages to arrive at the best results. Google no longer publicly offers up its breadth, though its silence there will only stir up the hype that Cuil is, in fact, the new Google.
Apparently, the buzz is overwhelming them at the moment, as the functionality isn't quite living up to the hype. On the other hand, expectations far out-weighed reality - and I think the search engine will only improve over time if given the chance.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53A completely un-biased comparison (I searched for sec19row53) found 4376 matches on cuil.com, and 1380 matches on google.com.
Ah, but how many were useful?
I did a couple tests to see what/if any results would take us here. I was not encouraged.
Sure enough, a quick scan of today's referrals reveals zero from cuil.com (aside from one test from me, so I could see what their referrals would look like and recode the referrals page accordingly.)
I know we've been crawled for them in the past... their bot Twiceler has been all over our logs for months (and I guess they were cuill.com back then - no wonder everyone's pronouncing it "quill" ;-) )
Originally posted by Sec19Row53A completely un-biased comparison (I searched for sec19row53) found 4376 matches on cuil.com, and 1380 matches on google.com.
Ah, but how many were useful?
[Setting myself up for a well-deserved beatdown for posting this many times in one thread, so tongue is placed firmly in cheek with this response] I think that would be up to the user to determine.
Seriously, most of what I found at a quick glance was me.
Given the two known commodities that come up when search my user name (me, and a card manufacturer in China) I'm going to stick with Google.
Cuil had less than half as many hits, and many of those hits appeared to be duplicates based on how different web pages treat comments/board posts/user ids.
When searching my actual name, no relevant results showed up, unless I specifically put quotes around it.
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
I did a search under my last name, and got no hits. Yet, using my first name or middle name received some moderate success. Odd. There are a number of people who share my last name, including the former drummer for the Grateful Dead, though I'm not sure there's any relation between Bill Kruetzmann and myself.
Nat at all impressed. 2 pages of link alias pages on my screen name - page 3 til I got the first The-w hit
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
I tired the search engine and did not find the results extremely useful. Additionally, the layout (magazine format?) isn't really that agreeable with the points of search engines (lost of results rendered with lightning speed that can then be quickly reviewed for relevance).