 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: New Search Engine
|
|
|
Subject: New Search Engine From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:21 AM Here is a new search engine, www.teoma.com Here is a link to it click here Deleted a space and added an >. --JoeClone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Search Engine From: nutty Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:31 AM Here is your link John click here you forgot to close it Added a colon. --JoeClone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Search Engine From: The_one_and_only_Dai Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:40 AM (snicker) www.teoma.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Search Engine From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:41 AM Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Search Engine From: nutty Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:42 AM Good for you Dai ..... there are some days when nothing goes right |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:12 PM Looks like teoma.com went out of business and was taken over by ask.com. Now there's another new one: http://www.cuill.com. My search for cutty wren brought up sone nice results - although the response was slow, and the service has now been taken offline with this message:
Apparently, not everyone is happy with Cuil/Cuill. Its indexing mechanism has been putting a burden on Websites being searched, and on the Internet as a whole. Click here for more information. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Bill D Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:21 PM What a strange set of stuff you get when you search for "Mudcat" there! Pages I never knew existed, plus links to internal history. Interesting...They sure have a different algorithm than Google.....and they swear they are anonymous: "our privacy policy is very simple: when you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period. We have no idea who sends queries: not by name, not by IP address, and not by cookies (more on this later). Your search history is your business, not ours." cookies are set ONLY to allow you to set preferences |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: MartinRyan Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:25 PM Curious Quote from the homepage: Cuil is an old Irish word for knowledge can anyone confirm this? I can't! Regards |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Bill D Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:38 PM I was wondering just the other day why there had been no serious competition to Google. I do know that maintaining a database of that magnitude requires LOTS of hardware...which means lots of money. Cuil seems to have done their indexing before they went public. And I see nothing about 'making a profit' yet. They DO claim they index 3 times as many pages as Google! Now THAT is amazing, if true. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: JohnInKansas Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:59 PM Ex-Google engineers debut 'Cuil' way to search Cuil hopes to attract traffic by promising not to retain user information By Michael Liedtke The Associated Press updated 6:24 a.m. PT, Mon., July. 28, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO - Anna Patterson's last Internet search engine was so impressive that industry leader Google Inc. bought the technology in 2004 to upgrade its own system. She believes her latest invention is even more valuable — only this time it's not for sale. Patterson instead intends to upstage Google, which she quit in 2006 to develop a more comprehensive and efficient way to scour the Internet. The end result is Cuil, pronounced "cool." Backed by $33 million in venture capital, the search engine plans to begin processing requests for the first time Monday. Cuil had kept a low profile while Patterson, her husband, Tom Costello, and two other former Google engineers — Russell Power and Louis Monier — searched for better ways to search. *** The trio of former Googlers are teaming up with Patterson's husband, Costello, who built a once-promising search engine called Xift in the late 1990s. He later joined IBM Corp., where he worked on an "analytic engine" called WebFountain. Costello's Irish heritage inspired Cuil's odd name. It was derived from a character named Finn McCuill in Celtic folklore. /quote John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:16 PM I read about cuil.com in the paper this morning, and have tried it several times today. I like the way it presents results; the layout is much easier to view than google or yahoo. What I don't like is that it seems a little slower than the big two when navigating between page listings. Maybe, though, they had a lot more traffic today because of the newspaper. A second thing I find off-putting is that it doesn't seem to handle complex searches well. I'm going to use it as much as possible this week...give it a good tryout. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: JohnInKansas Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:44 AM From the article linked a couple of posts above: quote: Cuil is just the latest in a long line of Google challengers. The list includes swaggering startups like Teoma (whose technology became the backbone of Ask.com), Vivisimo, Snap, Mahalo and, most recently, Powerset, which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. this month. Even after investing hundreds of millions of dollars on search, both Microsoft and Yahoo Inc. have been losing ground to Google. Through May, Google held a 62 percent share of the U.S. search market followed by Yahoo at 21 percent and Microsoft at 8.5 percent, according to comScore Inc. Google has become so synonymous with Internet search that it may no longer matter how good Cuil or any other challenger is, said Gartner Inc. analyst Allen Weiner. /quote One of the MAJOR DEFECTS of Google is that, although it reports millions of "hits," you can ONLY SEE THE FIRST FEW. There is no way to display the ones that come after what the snot-nosed-little-brats-who-only-want-to-know-about-entertainment-stars'-misbehaviour have made "most popular." I haven't checked out Cuil as yet, since the article indicated still in setup, and I expect heavy intital traffic; but it's on the list to do after I finish my new Vista setup - - - (current schedule about 2009?) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Declan Date: 29 Jul 08 - 02:41 AM Finn Mac Cuill is the strangest way of spelling this name I've seen. I remember getting a book about him as a kid where the name was spelled McCool (which is close to how it's pronounced). I suppose Cumhaill would be difficult to pronounce for most non Gaelic speakers. Legend has it that Fionn (son of Cumhaill) burst a blister on the skin of the salmon of knowledge with his thumb while it was cooking and when he wanted to know anything he simply had to suck his thumb. I presume this is the connection with knowledge, although they seem to have got their stories a bit muddled. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: JohnInKansas Date: 29 Jul 08 - 02:55 AM Maybe they've been too busy gettting the site set up to have looked up the legend? Having spent much of my youth sitting in the "tree of knowledge" (i.e in local libraries and bookrooms and numerous classrooms) I've thought that I should be able to just scratch my a** to know just about anything; but it doesn't seem to work all that well for me. Maybe I'm just not "Irish" enough. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Declan Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:02 AM Just Cuiled myself (doesn't work as well as Googled) and yes I am a sad person sometimes. First impressions are it's slow in trying to scroll through a long list of hits (almost none of which are me by the way), but you do get considerably more info on each one, so getting at the meaningful information may well be quicker in the long run. I expect they're getting a lot of activity on their first morning which probably doesn't help the speed. The initial speed that it came back with the number of hits was impressive. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Nick Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:19 AM As an initial observation, it seems to suffers at the moment from the ease with which it can be spammed. If you type in the words property uk you get some strange results. The first would be that rightmove doesn't get a mention in the first few pages which is surprising. Looking at the summary that appears under the site name it would appear that stuffing the early part of the text with repetitions of keywords seems to up your position. Google dealt with that one a long time ago. Quite easy to abuse I would think. I tried it with a site I have and compared it to google. On the main keywords I judge it it is no 1 in Google and Cuil. On the second main keywords it is 9 on Google and 2 on Cuil. On a more general search it comes nowhere in the top 100 of Google but still features on the first page of Cuil results which far outweighs where it should be as many more sites sould come before it - I would say that first impressions are that it has a long way to go |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: pavane Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:46 AM I seemed to get strange results when searching for a phrase delimited by " characters, like a full name. Though it did limit the search, it still showed items in the results which were only PART of the search phrase. Don't fully understand what it is doing! I couldn't find an Advanced Search page where I could really specify exactly what I needed. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:10 AM "I couldn't find an Advanced Search page" Precisely my biggest frustration. I wonder how long it will be before the Cuil-Aid packages come out. That's right folks! You heard it here first! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: pavane Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:20 AM Overall, it doesn't seem as useful as Google, or even Yahoo. Too many unexplained hits, which seem to have no connection at all with the requested search. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Zen Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:05 PM I've been testing it today against Google with various rather specific work-related scientific searches and it has been yielding more useful results than Google. On some random searches it sometimes did better than, sometimes worse than Google. I prefer the way search results are listed to Google's and the integration of images into the search results. On another comparison site (on a search for an author) it apparently produced more "academic" type results while Google produced more "product" type results, e.g. Amazon hits. Overall, Cuil seems quite good but they will probably need to sort some bugs and anomalies out before it can begin to rival Google. But, still, it's only the first day of operation. I'll be continuing to use it beside Google. Zen |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Bill D Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:54 PM I suspect they introduced it now BECAUSE the need the equivilant of "beta testers" to discover & kibitz about problems. If, as they say, it has INDEXED 3 times as many pages as Google, it could easily become a valued tool once some of the problems are addressed. One thing though...they don't have the name! "Google", usable as verb & noun and easy to say is one of the cleverest marketing ploys in history! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Gulliver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:03 PM I've had mixed results testing against Google. This morning I found the chords I was looking for in 2 seconds using Cuil, whereas I spent over half an hour with Google yesterday without success. On the other hand, when I entered a phrase in Cuil, looking for a poem, I received only one result, and that had nothing to do with what I was looking for, whereas Google came up with about a dozen hits of exactly what I was looking for. I guess we'll just have to give it time to see whether these anomalies work themselves out. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: JohnInKansas Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:32 PM A first search at Cuil came up with lots of "results" but the first 12 pages (~132 hits) were all from EXACTLY THREE web pages. There finally was a hit for a fourth web page on page 13 of the results, but nothing at all useful (to me). A couple of other searches did show more potential - enough to merit poking about some to see if there are better "query construction" methods. And I haven't looked yet to see what "advanced search" methods (Boolian? etc) may be permitted. Cuil has been very secretive about how their "indexing" works. Google has been much the same, but by now we know at least a little bit about Google, while Cuil is "sort of a blank." Like a new instrument - we'll have to learn to play it before it makes music for us, perhaps. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: CarolC Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:42 AM I have mixed feelings about this search engine. On the one hand, it digs up some interesting things that I wouldn't have expected. On the other hand, if quotation marks are put around words that I want to search for together, it doesn't display all of the pages in which the words appear together before it displays pages in which they appear separately. I think I would use this one more for random exploration and continue to use Google for targeted searches. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: CarolC Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:47 AM It also, unlike Google, doesn't appear to allow one to view a cached version of a page. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: pavane Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:56 AM I searched (For obscure reasons of my own) for "Claude Chappuzeau" Google gave 2 hits, both valid (sites I already know) Cuil claimed 2132 hits, but only showed 3 pages, containing 20 items, none of which contained the wanted phrase. (Where did the rest of the hits go? Example "Daniel-Paul Chappuzeau de Baugé. Saint Chariton. Job Charnock. Augustin Patissier, dit Châteauneuf. Claude Chauvigny de Blot. Ariane Chebel " So this had the two words, but not as a phrase. But when I took away the quotes, Cuil gave over 6,000 hits. So what is the difference? Who knows, but it doesn't seem very useful. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: pavane Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:58 AM And viewing a cached page is VERY useful when you find your access to the main site is blocked. The cache never seems to get blocked by filters. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Snuffy Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:33 AM A brief play with it yesterday was not impressive: most searches seemed to dish up exactly the same information over and over again, word for word, from several different sites. And much of what it did find turned out to be very old stuff indeed: my search for pubs in Stratford-uon-Avon yielded a load of stuff only peripherally relevant to pubs and Stratford, and a solitary pub website - last updated in February 1997!! And it appears assign a graphic to the topic without much regard to relevance: a search for LNWR 0-8-0s (English steam locos ca 1900-1910) produced a picture of an American diesel, while the Stratford 1997 pub had not a photo of the pub, but a clip from Last Tango and Paris showing Brando & Schneider with their kit off! (The pub was the Queen's Head, btw) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:24 PM Cuil is not yet as cool as it may be sometime. I looked up a topic and got five pages, with lots of duplications on each page. Most did not satisfy my search. Did the exact search on Google and got at least as many useful hits on just the first page. I think I've seen enough. Will go back there in about a month to see if it has improved. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Nick Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:35 PM It does good things and bad things for me. Apart from, as I said earlier, being on the top line front page of a 380,123,712 results search for a site I haven't updated in 5 years which amuses me but strikes me as wrong I also searched for galtres festival 2008 where we happen to be playing some music and that comes back with TWO results. If I remember my WOW moment when I tried google for the first time there are similarities. I used to be an alta vista searcher or others that mostly worked badly and then google came along. I searched for a very specific search that I knew existed on a site I had created and google returned THAT page and THAT PAGE ONLY. I was a convert from that day as alta vista (even with lots of boolean bollocks) produced acres of irrelevance and not the page I knew existed. So I will watch with a little interest. If it's good a big fish will come up and grab it no doubt ... I wonder who the bait is for? A better mousetrap for Microsoft? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Gulliver Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:39 PM Has anyone tried the Wiki search engine (exact name escapes me now)? It's different again. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Jim Dixon Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM Bill D: "beta testers to discover & kibitz about problems" I suspect you meant "kvetch about problems". |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: JohnInKansas Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:02 PM My search at Wiki using the search term "search" did not find a Wiki search engine. My impression has been that "Wiki search" searches only on the Wiki site. My "search" search there did bring up an extensive article on "Windows Search" that quite obviously was written by a "political hack" from Microsoft. It not only appears to be WRONG on many detailed points, it is fundamentally flawed in its assertion that "search" in Vista (or in the add-on "Windows Desktop Search" for WinXP) actually does anything useful. Since "Windows Search" is a "new search engine" that some may be forced to use, it's an appropriate subject for this thread; but accurate comments will need to be compiled. It's quite obvious that Microsoft has attempted to emulate "Google search" directly in Windows Vista, and anyone who reads the news should know that Microsoft is paranoid about the mere existence of Google (as a competitor for advertising revenue, mostly?). Google also has a "Google Desktop Search" that appears to have been Experience with Vista "search" on two computers now assures me that Google has nothing to fear from any "Microsoft Search Team" efforts. My quick summary of the "new search engine" called "Windows search" is: IT DOESN'T WORK – for finding much of anything on your own computer. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: Bill D Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:10 PM isn't 'kvetch' complaining and 'kibitz' discussing & offering opinions? If so, I said what I meant....if not, I need a primer on Jewish slang. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: GUEST,Jim Dixon Date: 01 Aug 08 - 02:37 PM kib�itz Pronunciation (kbts) intr.v. kib�itzed, kib�itz�ing, kib�itz�es Informal 1. To look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome advice to others. 2. To chat; converse. Bill D: Sorry, it is I who needed the primer on Yiddish. "Kibitz" is closer to your meaning than I thought. I knew about the "look on" (in a nosy way) but I didn't know about the "offer...advice" part. That's what happens when you try to infer meaning from context without actually looking it up. I hope you can read this; I'm using an unfamiliar computer. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: frogprince Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:05 PM Interesting; I show up 4 times on their first page of search, and once on page 7. On Google, I'm next to last on page 2, then once on page 8, twice on 9, twice on 10, twice on 12, and once each on pages 13 and 14. Does that mean I'm more significant on Google, but more of a celebrity on this one? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: New Search Engine From: katlaughing Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:48 PM Thanks for the info. That looks like a neat search facility. Think I"ll try it out for a few days, too. |
| Share Thread: |