Forget Cuil, check this out: one guy and a bunch of pcs
gigablast.com
gigablast.com
That said, after having read some of the comments on the page I think we should cut the guy (or guys) some slack. As jacquesm's link points out 55% of users in a double blind study found gigablast better than Google. We're talking about a couple of guys matching, and maybe beating, one of the worlds biggest software companies at their own game. A couple of guys matching Google's thousands of employees and thousands of servers.
In a word I think they're absolutely fucking awesome and deserve total and absolute respect.
Can they scale what they have to serve the number of SERPs that Google serves? Can they do that cost effectively? Can their algorithms produce as useful results in the face of "optimisations" by 10's of thousands of SEO/SEMs across the globe?
I'm guessing no.
My wife makes the most awesome gingerbread men (and brownies) but that doesn't mean she can put Greggs out of business.
Still props too them, they're doing something awesome.
Please explain.
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce...
Gladwell means that people don't always know what they want (or wont be able to tell you).
He certainly raises some questions about blind tests compared to expert opinion, but as far as repeatable, replicable, methodology goes, my trust is in the blind test.
They made it clear that there was no VC money. Classic bootstrap. Matt wrote most of the original code base himself. I seem to remember they had at least several employees.
There are many routes to success, having a dedicated team that is co-owner of the project is one way of achieving that, but just like any other route it is not a guarantee.
'going nowhere' and 'being a regular business' are not the same.
It's a dated study of course, and I can't find a reference for it (which doesn't help) but it impressed me quite a bit.
edit: found a link: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/gigablast-better-than-goo...
I misremembered the percentage though, not 66 but 55.
I just thought I'd mention it to save other people the 5 minutes I spent researching it because it just seemed to good to be true.
Edit: I just (briefly) tested this myself. Searching for for my username on Gigablast returned 3 results: 2 of my HN comments and a wordlist. Google on the other hand found 3k results, with the top results being my linkedin and facebook profiles (which I would deem the "best results").
Gigablast might have better results for common queries, but those matter hardly to the typical HN user.
IMHO, though, i think the normal search engine becomes more like a marketing game now. Same as "most people prefer something other than Coca-Cola in blind test", yet they are still the biggest seller by far.
Unless something is changing in the landscape that affect users behavior (like social web - led by FB, Twitter etc), i wouldn't expect anyone can win against Google in this game without MUCH higher value propositions.
Search is funny that way, you know instantly if a search engine is 'good' or 'fluff'. Most engines out there today are very comparable wrt to the quality of the results, some are better in one domain, others are less susceptible to spammers but overall there is not that much difference, it's comparable to different tastes in icecream. EDIT: once you've got a user they're not likely to switch away from their favourite flavour, it's what they're used to.
But if some group came along that quietly and without fuss presented you with a search engine that had exactly what you were looking at on page one every time I think the current crop would fade faster than you could say 'altavista'.
Google's strength is obviously in brand penetration when it comes to search engine. After all, most people outside us hardly even know about "Google Chrome" after making such a huge splash all over the place. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ).
So, i wouldn't expect them to type in www.cuil.com or WolframAlpha without something is changing in the landscape that alter user behavior.
http://gigablast.com/press.html
I wonder what he's been doing for the last 4 years?
However, searching for the same from the result page works, so it appears to be just a charset bug with the frontpage (which I’ve notified them about).
While that's obviously a ton of pages, I've just never heard someone call 100,000 servers a minimal amount of hardware. Different points of view I suppose.
Also, there is no way he has 100,000 servers, he never took in outside capital. I think that part should be read as 'it scales to 100,000 servers), probably wildly optimistic since I highly doubt there is a gigablast implementation anywhere that has that many servers.
Copyright © 2000-2005 Gigablast, Inc
It's small enough that it doesn't pay off to game it, but I'm sure that if it would take off (pun intended) that the 'war' would be on pretty quickly.