July 29, 2008

It is not fare to critisize cuil at this time. Let them show their stuff and then give your feedback.

Branding is huge. People call tissues- Kleenex, soda - coke, etc... When you start something that is going against a branded product/service, even if you have a far superior product, it may take a lot longer and cost a lot more to change peoples minds. Cuil could be the best engine ever, but with Googles branding power it may take years instead of months for people to start using it regularly. One a side note, this is where social media can have a HUGE effect. If Cuil has a Social Media plan, they can get the word out a lot faster and build up their reputation a lot faster.

Since branding is so powerful, when someone needs online information, I think everyone should start saying "Al Scillitani It!" Hmmmm...

I agree and have thought this for a long time. They have a killer, killer brand that has become part of the global lexicon. This is really hard to disrupt. However, as soon as someone gives me a better way to search, a truly better way, then I will switch in a hearbeat. However, I am a typical early adapter and any competitor has a long way to go to replace google in the toolbar and in other areas that allow for a monumental shift in consumer behavior.

How about "Get"? Short, sweet, and very easy to work into your lexicon....

"Why don't you Get it?"

Rexon - wasn't criticizing Cuil. read it again, buddy, this time with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Trav - that's genius!

Dan B - guess branding isn't dead after all.

Al - i wonder how many coffees in Rome you could buy after beating Google with the AlScillitani search engine???

If we look at the verb "xerox" ("Oh, just xerox it"), nobody really cares if the machine actually is from the Xerox company or not. It's a verb, meaning "to photocopy". I've seen people opening yahoo.com after telling them "just google it".

Before Google, no one thought searching could be better that altavista. Now a lot of people think the same. Google now is just a bulky company that's becoming evil. Skip it, move on.

If we look at the verb "xerox" ("Oh, just xerox it"), nobody really cares if the machine actually is from the Xerox company or not. It's a verb, meaning "to photocopy". I've seen people opening yahoo.com after telling them "just google it".

Before Google, no one thought searching could be better that altavista. Now a lot of people think the same. Google now is just a bulky company that's becoming evil. Skip it, move on.

They do have a powerful brand. You Goliath, me David. That being said, their current strength on the market might not necessarily be indicative of their future performance. I think they are #1 because there's nothing better at the moment. I'm no Harvard MBA, but I'm currently working on something to knock the socks off Yahoo! and Google. We need to ask ourselves a couple of basic questions:

1. Why do people use search engines?

The answer to #1 is simply: to find stuff. Now, Google is successful because it has indexed "the web." Now, ask yourselves the next question:

2. How relevant are your results on Google? Mine stink.

3. Why are we playing "away" games on their territory? Search engine competition is based on the assumption that Google is dictating the rules. Who's to say there isn't a currently-existing set of alternative rules, or even better - rules we can create.

I'm going to continue this on my blog tomorrow (1gresearch.com/wordpress) but let me ask you guys one question nobody seems to have addressed:

What if we create a search engine that only crawls user-submitted sites? One of the top questions people ask is "How do I submit my site to Yahoo! or Google?" Well, if we create a search engine that only searches recommended sites we will have addressed several key issues:

1. Relevant and credible content
2. The cost of crawling the web.

It's time we reclaim the web. Stop allowing Google to dominate what is nothing more than a really big library catalog.

Google came at the right time, when search sucked. People wanted quality and google had it. Right now quality is expected from all search engines and google happened to be a pioneer.

I have been thinking about this very thing in the last few days. Even though I know that Yahoo search usually is more relevant for my needs. I find myself drawn to use Google anyway. That's because I've been brainwashed by a very subtle Google PR (not pagerank) campaign. Being a webmaster doesn't help either. Google is the almighty in most of the web developer hangouts.

Why don't you give it a try? I'm not saying it's gonna be easy. Say it with me now - Yahooeeoo!

If the name was so important, the Ask search engine should then be successful :p

A little bit risky perhaps, but i'm considering developing my own search engine called SOD. What do you think?

As reported on today, CUIL flopped.
Site was down, results were lousy and listings were full of SEO spam.

Google is far from having results that stink.

Why is Google the brand it is today?
On the surface that is simple. They stayed true to their mission. Search. Thats all they were for years. A simple search box and great results. After the brand was built and trust was gained, they rolled out one feature/service/app after another all of which had a kind of Google majic to them. FREE, Simple, Smart and Fun to use.

Search results based on user submitted sites? Talk about full circle, how about the lump of junk called dmoz with its "editors"? Have you taken a poke around lately and seen how many egomaniac, kiss and tell shameless self promoters there are in the SEO? Read my blog and you'll see :-) They will load your site with user recommendations faster than a port a potty at a Beir Bratwurst and Sour Kraut festival.

The best way to beat Google is the beat them at their own game. Play up their evil side in controlling, monitoring and profiting off of your "private" information and privacy(See Big Brother is not the Fed - home invasion) and offer a simple "No Evil" alternative.