From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

first day stuff[edit]

impressive the day the site is starts there is a wiki artical kind like free ad? (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah odd that, and no, you don't pronounce it cool, you pronounce it crap (Don't give me damn columns!) - yet another bloatware search engine which will be dead in a year. At least i hope it will. --IceHunter (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Not much of a free ad if the site can't handle a few hundred visitors without breaking! (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

very cuil ! -- (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could probably do with some copying from the privacy statement and 'about us' page. Good start for the first day.--4drammelech (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Or could it work... It seems the Search is working, but the results are not shown. It lacks one of Google strengths: simplicity (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was working fast, earlier today, now it's slow, fsex teen sex am and you sex ..ahahhairst day overload no doubt, there's been lots of publicity. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We are seeing a swastika image next to a clients website. Totally unrelated (B2B) content. What a mess. Way to waste $5 million worth of PR!

Is anyone else having problems searching on Cuil? We keep getting "We didn't find any results for xxxxxxx". Multiple blogs are also blogging about issues related to not finding results or irrelevant results. Csyd (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very slow and botched up, likely being way overloaded. It was working rather wonderfully a few hours ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I.. think that everybody is too harsh on it at launch. Google wasn't perfect at launch -- still isn't even perfect now. Truth be told, Cuil isn't "bound to fail" at the same time isn't "bound to succeed" now, in six months, lets see where it is, at the same time I encourage any anyone who is like me and looking for something new to check it out. obviously they're a startup company, they are on a budget, probably have a limited network, and times are and will be rough. Intranick (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to forgive Cuil, if the site wasn't months old (it had a "secret" launch a while back) and funded with $33 million dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

well.. if i was making something of that magnitude I would also launch it secretly to make sure everything was working right. no harm ,no foul. its a good way to get the indexers up and running and test things. Also, I think it should go mentioned that this is her second attempt at a search engine, perhaps just a method to get more money out of Google. that 33 million you mentioned, I believe was directly from google buying her last attempt. What will google do this time? i dont necessarily want to see cuil to be the victor over google, but google has at times, lost their "dont be evil" value. be nice to see some healthy competition whom can encourage google to improve. Intranick (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a CUIL search for Fox News and it continually posted a picture of Rush Limbaugh beside the Fox News link. Limbaugh has nothing to do with Fox News and I don't much care for his schtick. But I do like Fox News. I fear CUIL is in cahoots with the political left and if that's the case, at least half of their potential users will find out quick and continue to use the more fair and balanced Google.tradamericaTradamerca (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I highly doubt that the images are influenced by political views. I think that the engine just can't quite match images with results they should be used on. For example, searching for "fark" turns up the result, with a picture of "Opie & Anthony", instead of the logo. However, the next result, "Can Fark Trademark Not Safe For Work", DOES have the fark logo, despite not being on a website associated with fark. Remember: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories from Wikipedia ?[edit]

Look at the categories in the right bar, in this search for example:

It seems that it fetch categories and items in these categories from Wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to use wording for categories similar to the ones used in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is under the GFDL so what can you do? Althepal (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Mention somewhere in your site that you use this GFDL content? They don't seem to do that.Tzafrir (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It does seem to be using Wikipedia's categories as a template for the Cuil category widget on the right. Take the results for a search on "Dublin Ireland". The categories list on the right has all of the content from Wikipedia's Category:Dublin (Namely: Museums In Dublin, Buildings And Structures In Dublin, Squares In Dublin, Visitor Attractions In Dublin, Geography Of Dublin, Streets In Dublin, Transport In Dublin, Theatres In Dublin). Coincidence? I think not! There is no "proof" however, so unsure whether it should be added or alluded to. Guliolopez (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Take it over to Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance if you suspect it's an issue. I did some quick searching to see if article categories matched up to the categories they show and didn't find frequent pairings. Still, might be worth looking into. -- (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This was taken up at GFDL compliance. Cuil has been added as a non-complying content reproducer. Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/ -- They pull text straight from articles for tooltip & use cat information. :(, see also Wikipedia_talk:GFDL_Compliance#Cuil User A1 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

searching abilities[edit]

Unfortunately, it cannot find this article if you search for "cuil" and "wikipedia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The page has to be indexed. Althepal (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only returning one page of searches. Despite finding 11,000 results for one search, when I click on page two, it craps out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

'Current' template[edit]

The current template is used for (or rather, it should be used for, and would be used for if not for User:Yellowdesk who, without consensus, made the usage of that template only for highly-edited pages and has single-handedly enforced this by removing the template from throughout Wikipedia) current events, not just new software. Template:inuse might be better here. Althepal (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks. I think I'll just remove it altogether since I think the edit speed will die down now so InUse isnt really necessary. Soap Talk/Contributions 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of name[edit]

According to my Gaelic Dictonary (ISBN 0-08-025712-7), the Gaelic word cùil: means cool or (in the plural) corner, recess, nook or niche. Knowledge can be translated as eòlas, aithne, tuigse, fios, fiosrachd, fòghlum, ionnsachadh, soilleireachd, fiosrachadh, or tùr. Hazel is translated as calltunn. I therefore cannot substantiate the claim that "Cuil [is] from the Gaelic for knowledge and hazel." Bovlb (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So mention both facts: What says about it and the etymology you researched, note the interesting difference, and source them both. Althepal (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because a WP editor found a contrary etymology doesn't make that notable. Find a reliable third party who makes notable mention that the name might not mean what the company states, and then we include it. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, please check your source for the work "cuill" with two "l"s, as I recall reading that they dropped the 2nd "l" for their branding purposes. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough, reading that, I looked into it a bit farther. according to Webster's Online Dictionary it also means niche, which interestingly enough.. arn't they trying to be a niche search engine, or however you would say it? Intranick (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic etymologies can be skeinish. There is nothing untowards about citing all the sources in a wholly neutral, uncritical way. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The key is "all the sources". Perhaps there's a source out there that confirms their etymological claim? Why should we mention only those that editors happen to stumble upon or have on their personal bookshelf? This is the very reason why not to allow original research, and only mention this if a reliable source makes mention that the company's stated etymology is in question. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
See WP:V. So long as the information is given neutrally, it's helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, to me, it is misleading, as if we are implying that the company is wrong, simply because we happened to find a source that contradicts. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in the text says the company is wrong. Let the readers infer as they like, lots of them are smart enough to be able to handle contradictions in the sources without thinking the company is "wrong." Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've looked in four different Gaelic dictionaries and have found not a hint that cuil means knowledge or hazel. Looks to me like they muddled something in some take on the tale of Finn McCuill, along with the character's name, with the wholly separate word cuil and its Gaelic meanings. That, however, is my original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, it is all original research. Until and unless an independent source notices the contradiction, then it's not up to wikipedia editors to link these two together. This is an article about the search engine cuil, and not the word cuil. If the word cuil is noteable enough for an article (which I doubt) then it would be fine to discuss the meaning of the word in said article and probably to link this article to said article, but mentioning it in this article is OR without a source which links the two facts. It doesn't matter how smart our readers are, OR is OR. Given how much press this has received, it seems likely to me some reliable source is going to notice but if not, well then perhaps it's because no one really cares Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If we said that they were wrong about the meaning of "cuil" because of what we saw in the dictionary, that would be a synthetic conclusion, and hence original research. A brief, non-judgemental mention of what the dictionary plainly says is not original research. In my original phrasing[1], I used the phrases "would normally be translated" and "any common translation" to cover the possibility that the dictionary is incomplete. It's still possible that "cuil" could mean both knowledge and hazel in Gaelic, but they must be very obscure senses if a Gaelic dictionary shows nothing under any of the three words. This company have chosen an unusual (English) word and make some marketing play out of its etymology. It is appropriate for us to give a little background. (ZimZalaBim: I find nothing listed for "cuill". There are other words commencing cuil/cuill, but none seem relevant.) Bovlb (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep again. I see nothing untowards about putting back the neutral, sourced Gaelic dicdef info. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Per my note above (see "MacCumhaill" discussion) I would tend to agree with Bovlb. A factual statement that simply says something like: "in modern Irish, the word "cuil" is often translated to mean fly or insect [2]" would seem fine to me. I've yet to find a corroborating secondary source for the company's translation. (And I can put my hand to any number of Irish dictionaries). As some people have stated, "cúil" (with a fada on the "u") can be translated as "goal", "back", or - as a modern loanword - as "cool". But that's not the company are apparently using, and I would point out that the fada (Ú as opposed to U) makes it an entirely different word.
In that vein, I would strongly recommend however that anyone adding any notes in this respect be very careful. There seems to be some confusion in syntax, orthography and referencing. Including confusion between Irish and Scottish Gaelic. (For example, the MacLennan reference provided is a Scottish Gaelic reference book, and Scottish and Irish spellings and translations rarely equate.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that likened definitions are so rare, but I know what you mean. I also agree about the fada. The thing is, I can't find a fadaless cuil anywhere (so far). Note the article does have a fada in the dicdef reference. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that an Irish, fadaless dicdef has been found I'm ok with that one instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Deindent). I understand the point that there are more overlaps between Irish and Scottish than not. I possibly overstated the difference to make it clear that there was some confusion in this case. As noted, I have added a source for modern Irish usage and can provide other book cites as neccesary. As stated, the only definition for cuil in modern usage is "bug", "insect" or "fly". (Where the word is in the nominative) See

The other definitions that were previously given in the article were for "cúil", which is a different word, and not based on the spelling that the company website itself uses. (Which doesn't use a fada anywhere). What the company website does speak of is the salmon of knowledge story. The text focuses on the overlap between hazel, hazelnuts, salmon and their association with knowledge in certain folkloric stories. In modern orthography, hazel translates to "coll" (again see The genitive of "coll" is "coill". As in "cnó coill" or "hazelnuts". At one point it may be that this genitive was spelled "cuil". It certainly would be pronouced the same as "coill" (both sounding like "quill"). It may be that in ancient Irish spelling (and in the original Fiannaíocht texts) cuil was the spelling used. But I can find no sources supporting that. Guliolopez (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely why we shouldn't be engaging in our own research as to whether the company is correct in their stated etymology. Wait for an expert to publish an expert opinion on the matter, and then we can note and cite that. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, there is no original research in neutrally stating a verifiable fact. The article says nothing about whether or not the company is "correct." Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
But what Guliolopez has pointed out is that some of the definitions provided by other editor's efforts might be for the wrong term, thus creating unnecessary confusion as to whether Cuil's use of the term is correct or not. By introducing these alternative definitions (whether neutrally stated or not), we are implying something. We are editors, not linguistic experts. Leave it for the experts to point out any etymological issues. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not reliable sources, but here are a couple of blog posts that discuss the topic.[3], [4] Bovlb (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a neutral source that disputes the etymology of cuil: If you look at the bottom of that blog post, you'll see that some expert linguists solicited a comment from an expert on Gaelic who says that he cannot substantiate Cuil's claimed etymology. Now that there's independent research from a notable expert, maybe we can stop arguing over this. I'll let someone else edit the article though, I'm running late. (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but this discussion has made a recent posting on Language Log [5] Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have studied both Old and Modern Irish and it is perfectly clear to me that the claimed etymology is based on the word coll 'hazel; knowledge' and its declined form cuill. Irish is a messy language and it's easy to get things wrong, especially when you're a businessman more interested in a good corporate name than the details of Celtic morphology. I think the sentence "Independent modern dictionary sources list the Irish word cuil as meaning fly or insect" should be deleted as irrelevant and replaced with something like "The Irish word in question is actually coll (genetive cuill)." Languagehat (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add that my "coll 'hazel; knowledge'" is shorthand for "coll means 'hazel,' which is associated with knowledge/wisdom"; the word coll doesn't actually mean 'knowledge.' Languagehat (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I see the issue has also made it into PC World magazine ("What's in a Name? Better Not Ask Cuil"), which I think is a sufficiently reliable published source. (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why I changed the spelling to MacCumhaill[edit]

[6] states that "A famous poet fished for many years on the River Boyne ... any time he needed to know the answer to a question, he sucked his thumb." This is clearly a reference to the Fionn mac Cumhaill, although they chose a different spelling as there are many spellings for this name in use. I think that it makes sense that we should link to the article for Fionn mac Cumhaill even if it has the Cuil spelling. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling variation, you can add the other spelling but keep the spelling given by the sources, WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I like how you handled it. Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of verifiability - either we quote them, in which case we use their spelling (a perfectly reasonable alternative), or else we use the spelling that is used in Wikipedia. Though on further reflection, the article Fionn mac Cumhail should perhaps be at Finn MacCool on the basis of WP:UE, and Finn McCuil does appear to be an occasional alternative version, so perhaps the article would make most sense using that version after all... Palmiro | Talk 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange that a company which prides itself in finding information, put out what seems to be mis-information as far as I can find. Cúil the closest word I can find means rear or back, in sporting terms it means goal. None of which tally with what was put in the press. Being an Irish speaker myself I was intrigued by the idea when I first heard it. As I assumed it was related to the Fionn MacCumhaill and the salmon of knowledge, so it is some what ironic I think that an information provider failed to provide the correct information. Seoirseofinn (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Sourced criticism of this will likely show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also be interested in seeing the company's sources for the claim that "cuil" means wisdom or hazel. Or is pronounced "cool" for that matter. I am glad therefore that (for now) the wording here is that "the company says that its name is Irish for knowledge and hazel". Although I possibly would use "claim" rather than "says".
I appreciate that one of the founders is Irish, and I'm sure he researched this, but the claims don't tally with what I know of Irish. Firstly, on pronunciation, "cuil" (without any acute accent or "síneadh fada") is pronounced as the english word "quill". "Cúil" or "Cumhaill" are close to the english word, but "cuil" is not.
Secondly, on meaning, "cuil" in modern usage means fly or bug. (Which is a little ironic frankly.) As is in "cuileog" (fly), "cuil Bhealtaine" (mayfly), etc. Again in modern usage, Hazel is translated to the Irish "coll". In genitive case, "coll" MIGHT be rendered "cuil" in some cases, but not in the nominative. All seems very suspect to me. But then, as above, I wouldn't advocate commentary here without "sourced criticism" per Gwen Gale. Guliolopez (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy of Copyright Violation[edit]

Starting with the Verifiable reference:

7. You have images beside your results. How do you pick which pictures to use? We know from our research that people can make better and quicker decisions about relevance and quality when they can see an image from the website. We do our best to take images from Web pages that accurately reflect the content of the website. Many websites are full of images, so we use advanced algorithms to determine the best image to show the user.

The information needing to be added: Cuil takes imasges from sites and uses them to illustrate entries for other sites without the copyright holders permission. Fair Use for a search engine would allow them to use text, a photo or make a screenshot from a website to illustrate that website entries. To use images etc to add to other entries is effectively using those images as decoration and is thus blatant copyright violation.

As this is a stated policy by cuil to do this I think there should be a section on this. It is very important in that we have here a start-up who is trying to establish a principle of non-recognition of copyright (ie rather than recognising copyright and correcting infringements, it will only recognise copyright if you jump through hoops to complain).

There is also the misuse of trademarks were logos of companies appear alongside entries for their competitors.

My Prejudice: Images from my site have been used to illustrate entries for dozens of other, sometimes totally unrelated, sites. As I am incensed by this, I will not modify the entry but leave it to other more impartial wikipedians to think about.


-- (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I too have contacted Cuil to complain that my IP is being used to advertise other peoples' websites. I expect fair payment if my work is used commercially, so I've given them the option of removing my images or paying me. D-d-d-d-dave (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do note any independent sources on this if you run across them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC) has comments by Carolina Cellular, Eric-the-Bun, emptymirror, Denise on image piracy ditto - last para refers to uncredited images - image problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, found the search results generally corrupted by irrelevant imagery, where either my images were attached to other's sites or vice versa. Clearly they are creating an image thumbnail cache lacking an essential element: a record of the original source site. On raising this with the site's staff, I was at first given a dismissive response, which as I persisted became progressively less helpful. Nor has image relevance improved in the months since. Whether by sleight-of-hand or plain incompetence, its completely unsatisfactory as a search tool as it comprehensively misrepresents the content of genuine sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Searching Abilities, Part Two[edit]

A agree that the site is slow and that many of the results don't show up. But it is the second day of their launch and their still trying to work the kinks out of the system. It was mentioned before that no search engine is perfect. But we should give it a chance. I am sure that they will never take over Google, but it would be nice to have another alternative engine to search on. The site itself looks very "cool" to me, but i have to say that the whole column's layout thing is not working for me. They should realy consider changing the layout or at least have an alternative layout for people that don't like it. One thing that i realy do like is the tabs. They are not always relevent but i'm sure when they start fine tuning the search engine everything will slowly fall into place. Mariam-t (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


This article includes some interesting details on their platform and algorithm, though I'm not sure how to rewrite it. --Hypertext (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


I did a vanity search on my name, hoping that I'd be directed to my large personal website (.uk domain) that gets around 4000 hits a day. My name is relatively uncommon, though there is an American football player who shares it, and a member of a long-defunct minor American rock band. It concentrated on them.

Finally, on page 27 of the search, it came up with one of the internal pages of my website. It missed the fact that my name appears three times on the index page. Unfortunately Cuil added a photograph that is nothing to do with me, does not appear on my website, and is in fact a photograph of something I'd rather not be associated with.

Is it America-focussed? Has it crawled the entire Web yet? (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it as bad as reference 12 from The Register? Verbal chat 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Privacy Policy[edit]

"When you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period."

That does not mean "Unlike other search engines,[3] Cuil's privacy policy states that it does not store records of users’ search activity or IP addresses.[4]" - as the article states. It simply means "When you search with Cuil, we *do* collect *non-personally* identifiable information"

Nope, basic logic teaches that the inverse of a statement does NOT equal to the statement itself. So "Cuil not collect personally identifiable information" does NOT equal to "Cuil do collect personally non-identifiable information". They are logically unrelated, one does not imply another. So it DOES NOT mean "When you search with Cuil, we *do* collect *non-personally* identifiable information", it simply means "When you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period." and just that. (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. To clarify, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period may hint that other information is being collected (which is likely so), but it is not an assertion that any information is being collected at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - section [Launch criticism][edit]

This articles largely lacks on neutrality. It is explicit the will of the autor to express his own opinion instead of simply dissertate about the subject in question. In the section Launch criticism it is evident that the autor wish to denigrate the object being presented. Fox example, when one says: receiving negative reactions one is suposed to present more than just one example/citation because of a basic premise of the plural being emphasised. This is not the case in this article, showing a clear attempt to estabilish a non-neutral POV.

It is evident even in the discussion page, turned into a computation forum, that the Wikipedia's enrichment is secondary here.

I suggest this section to be rewritten as a whole to fit in the Wikipedia's philosophies. Gustavocc (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added an NPoV tag since someone keeps removing wholly sourced and verfiable content from the article (please be aware that if this carries on, it will be disruption, which is blockable). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There are 5 cites to negative reactions, justifying the plural, in the paragraph. Verbal chat 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about that, at all. Please re-read what I said above, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was replying to Gustavoc, sorry. I was just about to try to find the information you're talking about, but I thought I'd reply first. Can you provide a diff for the removals? If you're talking about the Cuil definitions, I support this addition. Verbal chat 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag[edit]

Can the neutrality tag on the article please be justified here, as I'm a bit confused as to the problem. If it's to do with removals can diffs be provided. Thanks. Verbal chat

Here are the diffs you asked for. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, how about we add back the following:
  • While other overloaded Web 2.0 launches using massively parallel processing might fail with a slow down or crash,[1] Cuil's architecture was responding with incomplete, "less-than-relevant results that then appear at the top of users' pages."[2][3] Cuil VP of communications Vince Sollitto said the search engine was experiencing heavy first-day overloads and they were "busy putting out fires." Sollitto said Cuil "will only improve with time. It's day one. Traffic is massive. We're new. There are bugs to fix, results to improve."[1]
I see no reason not to have this, it's well sourced and accurate, all I've done is move one reference forward. Verbal chat 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps the first part of the sentence is the problem, and reading again it does seem to be speculation that isn't attributable to anyone notable, so how about:
  • Cuil's architecture was responding with incomplete, "less-than-relevant results that then appear at the top of users' pages."[1][4][5] Cuil VP of communications Vince Sollitto said the search engine was experiencing heavy first-day overloads and they were "busy putting out fires." Sollitto said Cuil "will only improve with time. It's day one. Traffic is massive. We're new. There are bugs to fix, results to improve."[1]
Other suggestions welcome. By the way, I agree that this is a disaster and Cuil is currently very poor - but they are getting a lot of brand awareness from this mess... and we don't need to only be critical. Verbal chat 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the sourced (CNET) explanation by the company of "what went wrong" the first day. If it isn't removed again I'll take off the NPoV tag within about a day. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a PR tool. Why this article is not neutral[edit]

There seems to be a continuous striving here to put a very positive spin, on what is arguably the worst launch of a website, ever!!! There is ample proof on the internet. Just Google it!! This is unequivocally a launch disaster - this is a fact. The section title was originally "Launch fiasco", which is apt, as almost every blogger and journalist on the internet would agree. But, it seems someone on Cuil's payroll is trying to dilute the language in favour of Cuil.

Instead of altering and skewing Wikipedia facts, Cuil should concentrate its efforts on making their stuff work.

Stop removing sourced content, which explains the disaster, Ravik, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The sourced content is only for citation purposes. You cannot water down the article, and say that "people will go to the source and see for themselves.". Thanks, Gwen.

The launch was clearly a technical and PR disaster which the article does and will carry on describing. Please stop removing sourced and verifiable information from the article. You're becoming disruptive with your uncivil hints that editors who disagree with you are being paid by Cuil. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my comments caused offence. I shall explain.

The phrase "received negative reactions" has now been changed to "received critically by some" by ZimZalaBim. What kind of ambiguous comment is that? Almost everything in the world receives criticism by "some" people. The world's best products receive "some" criticism. The aforementioned alteration has made the entire passage devoid of any meaning. In the case of Cuil, reviews were almost UNANIMOUSLY negative, and most of them openly ridiculed the site. If you wished to alter it to "by some", you should have cited at least one out of thousands of articles, which positively appraises the performance and search relevance of the site.

By using watered down ambiguous language that can be applied to almost any article in the world, you are robbing the English language of its expressiveness, and misleading the readers of this article. "Neutrality" does not mean "bland language". It only means, express facts as they are. Maybe Wikipedia needs to elucidate further, the definition of neutrality while maintaining the expressive range of English.

So, anyway, I have other things to do in life. I shall let the article stand as it is.

BTW, you can also check some blogs which remark on the fact that all negative aspects of Cuil are systematically being removed from Wikipedia. --Ravik (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Only speaking for myself, I never took out any negative, sourced information about the launch (and almost reassured you and other editors that one could add as much negative, sourced content to the article as could be found). My only worry was that you and another editor kept removing the company's sourced (CNET) explanation as to why the search results were so unhelpful during the overload. I do agree with you about blandness, there is no need to soften the wording used by sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ravik about the misleading phrasing of "received critically by SOME," which is trivially true of anything ever invented. "... by MANY" is simply more accurate; it's not an issue of neutrality. Any number of negative reviews could be added in support, if that's really necessary. Would anyone argue that the word "widely" should be removed from the preceding sentence? "Widely covered by the press" is equally subjective and is not supported by the single named source. Barpoint (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c d Needleman, Rafe (July 28, 2008). "Cuil shows us how not to launch a search engine". CNET news. CNET. Retrieved 2008-07-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Hamilton, Anita (July 28, 2008). "Why Cuil is No Threat to Google". Time Magazine Online. Retrieved 2008-07-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Burdick, Dave (July 28, 2008). "Cuil Review: Really? No Dave Burdicks? This Search Engine Is Stupid". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Hamilton, Anita (July 28, 2008). "Why Cuil is No Threat to Google". Time Magazine Online. Retrieved 2008-07-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Burdick, Dave (July 28, 2008). "Cuil Review: Really? No Dave Burdicks? This Search Engine Is Stupid". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Neutrality again[edit]

Look, i'm not sure who you people are talking to. I certainly don't work for cuil and didn't change anything at all in the article. I just put the NPoV tag and started the discussion here.

Now, about personal interests i can ensure you that my only concern here is to wikipedia. I don't really care if cuil is good or bad or a fiasco. I'm here just for defending the fact that wikipedia isn't any forum or blog. There are no reviews to be defended in such an entry. Our personal opinions don't matter, at least they shouldn't.

If someone is altering the entry code before dicussing it and without properly consent of all the others maintaining such an entry, it is surely an irregularity and should be denounced to the competent administrators.

One thing more. Cuil may have some good aspects, some good peculiarities. Doesn't it? Now, why just keep writing about what a disaster it was when launching. Because this is what this entry says: Cuil is a search engine. It is a crap. Period.

Is this really neutral? Think about it!

BTW: english is indeed a rich language. A text may be as much ambiguous as it's writer want's it to be. But a thesaurus/enciclopedy must not.

Regards. Gustavocc (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest editors add whatever sourced information, negative, positive, neutral, hopeful, cynical, happy or sad, as they please. I would also say Cuil is still very new and although the launch was very weak, nobody can say what this search engine will become, other than noting that Google's capitalization is over three orders of magnitude greater than Cuil's, making it unlikely (but still possible, given how search engine usage can change with the click of a mouse) that Cuil will ever be more than a niche provider. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Touche. Once again, really sorry for any offence I caused. I may have let my temporary anger sway my comments. FWIW, I myself am not affiliated with any rival search engine company, in case that suspicion should occur. However, we here at Wikipedia are not here to '"give companies a break". Crap is crap. Excellent is excellent. Punches cannot be pulled because "company is new. Come on. Don't be too hard, etc., etc.". Everyone here is putting a lot of voluntary effort to make Wikipedia better. All the best. Cheers. Ravik (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Gwen Gale. But partially. If an enciclopaedia article may be as straight as possible, and in this particular case, must have a structure like: Bla is a thing that do something. Or, perhaps, Bla is a thing which creators wanted to do something and which unfortunately doesn't., how can one be cynic writing so? It would be possible in any newspaper, magazine, forum, etc. But not here thought. I don't encourage writers to write whatever verified information they wan't. We're not newspapers columnists. And if we are, this is not the journal we write to. All things being write here must, first of all, be rich in information about the thing itself. We may have trivia sections as well, but it is secondary. Our article here fails to do so. I personally got here to read about cuil and i found it to be something that specialists didn't like. And it was all. Now, i understand the will of writing as fast as possible to enrich the encyclopaedia at the time of being, but articles like this one doesn't do so. Our's, for instance, is kind of a newspaper highlight. Extra, extra, cuil sucks!!. Now as you said, we're not here to make previsions about cuil's faith. This is why enciclopaedias like Britannica and Barsa take some time for releasing new versions. They write about things (persons, events...) as they happened to be so they can write as much as possible about such things. I don't wish anyone to take it personal. I'm just standind for a neutral and enciclopaedic point of view... Best regards Gustavocc (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Britannica and folks do come to Wikipedia for new articles like this straight away. The article follows what reliable sources have to say about Cuil so far. It also includes the response which the company's management made to the overload that first day. If you can find some reliable sources which have something positive to say about Cuil, or more about its architecture (and so on) please do add them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But we're not making it into the point. I'm sorry if I were miss interpreted here, but i didn't suggested nice and good things to be written. I have just suggested more things to be written, so the reader can be aware of what cuil is intended to do. And in this case why he didn't make it. You know, information about cuil itself, not just about why people don't like it. Gustavocc (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to do this. Keep in mind, the company is very new and experienced editors will be wary of company descriptions which lean too heavily on sources it has provided, such as through its website, since these would not be independent. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got here and am a bit confused. Cuil got lots of positive mention in mainstream press e.g. and even the negative bloggy stuff has been tempered by this Saul Hansell piece today What's so encylopediac about obsessing about launch criticism without balancing it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenie130 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The first and second sources you gave are neutral launch blurbs, the third is negative. As for "obsessing... criticism," the article has 14 sentences. Only 3 contain criticism (which is sourced) and this is offset by 2 long sentences carrying sourced coverage of the company's own response to its first day woes. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not directly related to anything, but I found this: In other words, Cuil itself is admitting it had a rough start. That certainly goes a long way towards getting the criticism section considered neutral. We might all want to save this page, since it'll probably change soon. I plan on writing them some advice myself ... I really have no idea whether my letter will be one of hundreds or one of millions ... nor can I really say if my advice will be helpful, since it may well be that they've already considered doing things "my way" and found that it just can't work. But hopefully they'll read it and even more hopefully I might get a response. Soap Talk/Contributions 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really a completely wrong understanding of what "neutrality" means. Many Wikipedia editors are under the misconception that ambiguous, bland language is what neutrality means. For example, these editors will immediately dilute and remove words like "negative, wrong, fiasco, disaster" - these words are never ever found in Wikipedia - why? Because the collective bureaucracy of Wikipedia hacks has deemed these words as "non-neutral". Hey, everyone!!! Neutrality is really just a "neutral point-of-view". And while remaining within an NPOV, one can unequivocally, unambiguously state that Cuil received predominantly (if not unanimously) negative criticism worldwide. That is a fact. And yet.... Ravik (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, strongly negative words like "fiasco" are PoV and should be sourced as having been used by a reliable, independent source. The article does read "Cuil's launch received widely critical press coverage" which is neutral, straightforward and supported by the cited sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands is lamentable. It's out of date, as almost all the comments date from the time of the launch. In December 2008, Cuil appears to be working quite well. I say "appears" because I don't have the time to do searches of several thousand articles and compare the results from Cuil with those from Google or Yahoo, but I know that Google can be pretty frustrating too. On the few searches I have had time to do since discovering Cuil last night , it has worked well, and for some topics MUCH better than Google. It is ironic that at the top of the Wikipedia page this morning was the comment “ ” Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité ! — Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR (Thank you and bravo for your neutrality!"

It's quite unjustified in the case of this article.If all Wikipedia articles were as bad as this I for one would never have donated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impert (talkcontribs) 12:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


The Cuil team is aware that anybody who understands French will laugh at the website's name and logo? Guest Account (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but I do remember sighing a minute or two after I first saw the written name and plenty of French blog posters are already having fun with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Cul means "Bottom" in French? Something means something in every language. *sigh* But I don't know what kind of sick person would find that funny -- it's not the same word, and it's not the same language. Althepal (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and it's not that big of a deal but nevertheless, as someone who grew up speaking French, because of how those letters look together on a page, if a born French-speaker only glances at that word it will indeed likely bring to mind French slang for a kind of portal which I don't think they had in mind. I would add though, many brand names have this effect on French speaking people, Bodum being another, which I bring up only because I use one of their coffee presses every day. Likewise the name Putin. Moreover there are some (like me) who'd say the French words for this kind of stuff tend to sound a bit worse/harsher in French than the English words do in English, which spins it up even more. I've met Americans and Australians who spent time in Paris and picked up all kinds of "off" slang and when they spoke to me in French, I had to tell 'em in a friendly way, "Oy! I think I should tell you, it ain't the same thing!" :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Niall Ó Dónaill's dictionary, and just about anyone who speaks Irish, "cuil" means a fly. Like, a little insect that flies around bzzzzz. It has nothing to do with "knowledge", any more than a simple fly has intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems as though someone at Cuil muddled the legend of Fionn mac Cumhaill/Finn McCuill/Finn McCool with the word cuil. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it's the stupidest name ever. I know it's supposed to be NPoV, but one can only take a certain level of stupidity before it gets absurd. Anonywiki (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Meaning.[edit]

Cuil has adopted another meaning since the inception of the Cuil search engine. See Amide10806 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I second this. The Cuil Theory is much more relevant for the internet than the search engine. I am dissapointed this article doesn't mention the theory. It is a proeminent meme on reddit. (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a lampoon on the search engine. If this lampoon becomes notable it could be brought up in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Cuil theory is much more relavent than the failed search engine and needs a place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if an academic paper is written on or defines the unit Cuil then a mention (or more probably an article) is easily merited. However, it's not relevant enough to the Cuil search engine, and therefore should not be added unless the Notability requirements are not only met but exceeded. (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point doesn't even exist anymore, but the reddit meme and associated site are still around. Any chance for inclusion in the article now that the lampoon is more notable than the actual site? (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cuil Theory article should be separate, because it really has nothing to do with the search engine except the origin of the name 'cuil'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Cuil is dead.[edit]

It's dead. This is OR, but I've been told the employees were told at 11 AM PDT Friday, and the servers shut down at 4 PM. There will probably be some reliable sources next week. --John Nagle (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources are beginning to show up on this. [10] Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's too bad. For all the weaknesses they had, they did have things that were hard or impssible to find on other engines. I especially liked Cpedia, which, though it would be anathema to Wikipedia where unreliable sources are prohibited, was also able to turn up things I couldn't easily find elsewhere. Soap 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms should be split into initial problems and long-term problems[edit]

Cuil began its life with problems due to inability to cope with the load. Symptoms included incomplete search results. It also began with a crawler that sometimes misbehaved.

Later on, as it stabilized (and possibly because traffic decreased), it ended up as a relatively stable search engine which did not produce good enough search results to attract many visitors. And its crawler did not misbehave any more.

The Article does not clearly distinguish between these two types of problems. A casual reader will go away with the impression that Cuil's main problems throughout its life were a misbehaving crawler and an inability to cope with load.

And while we are on the subject, some of the citations are simply vague hearsay, referring to anonymous persons being quoted by others. If we must rely on statements from anonymous persons posted in a forum, the least we can do is cite their forum postings directly, instead of citing somebody else who in turn is citing the anonymous persons. Rahul (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Does have anything to do with this? (It uses Google search though, instead of its own) (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

so does anybody know what the dealth with is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:1053:0:487A:B545:B7BC:512D (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Content of section "Name"[edit]

The content in this section reminds me of a discussion rather than an explanation for the issue. For everyone who knows the story of Fionn mac Cumhaill it is quite obvious how it came to this misinterpretation (cf. nine hazelnuts - salmon of knowledge - Fionn mac "Cuill"). Compare for example the explanation given here. Imo this section should be rewritten.--Eusc (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cuil Theory[edit]

Removed a big insertion on "Cuil Theory". Only source was Reddit, which is not a WP:RS. John Nagle (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)