[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Cuil Stumbles out of the Gate here

[AlanMGross]

I gave this article a thumbs up because basically I agreed with what it said. I was expecting something dramatic from cuil.com, and all a got was a few paragraphs per page, and the preferences didn't allow me to increase that. I used the softball query "Britney Spears" and like the article's "barack obama" query, I just got back a few (out of thousands, it said) and they were similar. I want less summary per site and more sites per page. I'll try the next version, but this one's a disappointment.

[kawebb]

I looked at it yesterday and was not impressed with the search results. Today for some reason, they are much much better; I don't know what they did overnight but it worked. It still doesn't make me want to switch, though.

[crb56]

I searched my own name. No hits on the first page for me, but about half the hits were illustrated with images from my website. None of the images was appropriate, however. In addition, only the first page of hits would display. Cuil is vaporware to the nth degree.

[creeder]

Add me to the unimpressed list. I did a search for our radio service, which has had a site for nearly 10 years and is linked to on a number of radio sites. Also did a search for my wife's name (she's a performer and has had a site for about 5 years) and for my book, which has its own site. In all cases, the URLs actually were the names I was searching for with ".com" or ".net" added. Cuil failed to find any of those sites. It did, however, pull up a number of ancient press releases mentioning us from various dusty PR archives. Maybe people are supposed to read those to find out where our websites are.

[drfriday]

Here's something for all you intelligent readers out there...this site is better than google when it first started out. Why don't we give it some time to refine itself so we have some competition out in the marketplace?

[ProfessorArkham]

"If your mission is to beat Google in the search market, it's probably wise to give your upstart search engine a name that people know how to pronounce. It's also wise to make sure that it appears in the first page of search results for its own name."
Wowsers Mr. Paczkowski. I correctly guessed the pronunciation and I don't even work for the Wall Street Journal. I'll give ya the second comment though.
Yep, they do have a long way to go and perhaps they shouldn't have puffed themselves up like they did.
However, I don't buy the comment here that a search engine needs other 'services'. It's those 'services' that drove me away from Yahoo and are driving me away from Google too. And don't even get me started on the privacy and spying issues.

[poweruser2]

You really think a couple of people and 33 million will be better than Google? I love iGoogle, something cuil will have to have to get my use. I need a service that is integrated with Gmail, Google Cal, Docs, etc.)

[EmilioR]

toao.- (the one and only)
I am willing to wait a while until they get their act together...'cause they do not keep my statistics

[YukonCornelius]

Sounds like a 12 year old came up with the name. It also looks like it was rushed to market. It is slow and the horrible paragraph format seach results has to go. My prediction - unless it is completely re-done, it will be gone in a year.