3 ms·
Cuil didn't die because people were "too lazy to switch to something new." It died because among the few who did know what Cuil was, opinions ranged from "disap
by chc 14y ago
Cuil didn't die because people were "too lazy to switch to something new." It died because among the few who did know what Cuil was, opinions ranged from "disappointment" to "laughingstock". Remember "Cuil theory", in which degrees of disconnection from reality were measured in Cuils?
Cuil was ambitious, and that was laudable and did get it some attention. But unfortunately it was nowhere near good enough for the level of hype they built. Many of these "Better than the big guy" products have the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree — they are better by some very specific metric, but that metric isn't the one that most people associate with the product's value. In Cuil's case, relevant and accurate results were what people wanted, but Cuil was worse on those axes than ancient search engines like Mamma.com.
- EdiX 14y ago> Cuil didn't die because people were "too lazy to switch to something new." It died because among the few who did know what Cuil was, opinions ranged from "disappointment" to "laughingstock". Cuil died the day it was announced. They went live with a great PR fanfare and a corrupted index, everyone marginally interested in it saw it when it was broken, which is how it got its reputation as a laughing stock.
- chc 14y agoLet's not forget the Cpedia pivot, where they turned their search engine into a sort of Dadaist Wikipedia. That was probably an even bigger mistake than launching a broken search engine (and more ambitious, too).