cuil.com

norch says: Cuil is generally quite good for a very small search engine. The search engine page looks "cuil" (geddit!) and regardless what anyone says it is good. Good points: Revolutionary technology. Cuil has different computers/servers for different categories. Cuil inc. claims that this makes indexing costs 1/10th of what google pays. Some results you get are extremely relevant. Sometimes you can find the result you are looking for without scrolling down the page let alone looking on another. Great aesthetics. On google you have a boring white screen with white buttons and some blue writing with Cuil you have a black screen with grey (and a blue i) letters. Plus you have a really nice glow when you put the mouse over the search button. Bad points: Sometimes you get irrelevant results. However it is very easy to report bad results as there is a "give feedback" button. Lack of tabs at the top of the screen. Google and other search engines allow you to search for images and gift items Cuil doesn't but you could put that down to the search engine being less than a year old. Overall very good for a start up and the system should have been tested more so that that boom on its first day had not been disappointed.

infoguru says: When I learned about Cuil over a year ago, I was rooting for them. I told friends and co-workers to check it out. However, I'm a little disappointed with (Cuil) the search results I receive when I do searches. Sometimes when you do a search for a certain keyword, it tells you, "No results were found, send us your feedback." When you try the same search on other search engines like Bing and Google, you get results. Anyway,I hope Cuil improves; I like to root for the underdog.

Facebook User says: Out of the gate I thought cuil was pretty poor. It may have been that the servers were overloaded, that the algorithms needed work, or something else. Whatever it was, the experience was not one that would keep me coming back. Fast-forward 9 months and things have improved dramatically: fast, relevant, visually appealing. What I really like about it is that for searches that could have multiple contexts (eg. a name search), they do a great job of giving a least one result per context, rather than having the list dominated by results from the most common context. What I think still needs work is that, despite the 125 billion pages they claim to index, it's easy to find quoted phrases they have no results for, even though smaller search engines do.