Cuil vs. Google - My Test Run

After hearing about the "cool" new search engine that is challenging Google for search supremacy, I signed on and tried some comparison searched. First I had to get used to the way results are returned and the look itself.

Google is a blank white screen with the logo and search box centered. It was uncluttered and a welcome relief from the flashing banners and mess that Yahoo and others had become before it's arrival. Cuil is a blank black screen with a centered logo and the search box. Not very original but functional.

The results on Google, I have become used to. I have learned to filter out the ones that are paid rankings and keyword ads and can quickly find what I figure will be most relevant to my quest. On Cuil the results come in a series of tables with a paragraph of content from the site itself. To quickly scan the results you have to scroll and personally I find them a bit hard to work with.

Also, Cuil has not yet developed a robust suggestive feature for dyslexic people like myself who misspell words constantly. Here is an example.

I searched for the term "Matachine" on both search engines. Cuil brought up a page of results leading off with "Matachine dances bind generations in tradition." Since I was looking for a history of one of the first gay rights organizations that would be a pretty lame result. Google also topped the list with the same link, but it added a note "Did you mean: mattachine?"

When I clicked Googles suggestion the first entry was a Wikipedia link for the Mattachine Society. A direct hit, albeit after a gentle correction to my misspelling. Nowhere in the Cuil list was that word shown with my spelling.

I am glad to see competition to Google, but Cuil will have to figure a way to streamline it's results to make them easier to scan. The multi-column text boxes are clumsy and do not lend themselves to a quick read.

Additionally, unless they can develop a similar suggestive search technology to Google's, I will stick with the Big G for now.