Cuil - not going to cull Google!

For a change I thought I'd give my opinions on a new search engine that's being touted around.

Cuil is a new search engine that claims to have the biggest search index and give better results than Google owing to a methodology that looks at word context rather than page links.

There are already lots of comments on Cuil - for example, Webware's "New Search Engine Cuil takes aim at Google" or Karen Blakemen's "Cuil - not so cool"

I too played with Cuil - for around 5 minutes before I realised that this is very much a "what you see is what you get" effort - and I didn't see very much.

One of the first things I do when I use a search engine is change my preferences - to get 100 hits per page. I find a much more efficient way of looking through pages of results - and the time to look at 10 versus 100 on a single page isn't that much more. So I headed to Cuil's preferences page - and found that there was almost nothing to change. So you're stuck with a page of descriptions - and if they aren't right, you're forced to try the next page or a new search. Not clever! Then what about modifying my search - for specific types of content - title search, filetype search. Nada!

My top test keywords (generally "competitive intelligence" and various permutations of this) came up with the expected sites - but nothing new and not even all I'd expect - plus irritating logos attached to each entry that seemed to be stolen from images that seemed relevant.

My main complaint supports a comment on the Webware blog "Didn't we stop the pissing contest over number of pages searched about 10 years ago?". I concur totally. So what if Cuil has 120 billion pages. It's not size that counts - it's what you do with what you've got that counts. (I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before in a different context ;-) That's why Exalead is so useful - as it's so easy to customise, and refine searches. That's why Google is top-dog - as its interface is so simple and the results tend to be accurate. That's why Ask works - as it gives good results, with options to refine and it highlights news, images, encyclopaedia entries all together making search seem simple.

Finally their purported killer feature - relating search to the words on the page and their context. Isn't that similar or the same as the method Ask (or it's predecessor Teoma) uses, or have I missed something? (Or perhaps it only refers to the actual page rather than related pages which is what Ask does - if so, it's also 10 years out-of-date as just relating content to the actual page rather than linked pages was killed off by Google's linkage innovation).

So - not impressed. I still think that there's scope for a Google Killer out there, but Cuil ain't that Killer!

Emotional responses

I've not posted anything for months - not because I've not had things to post, but because of work pressures, and perhaps also not having anything I thought worth posting.

That's not to say that things haven't happened - but others will have posted on the London Online conference, the SCIP annual and European conferences in San Diego and Bad Nauheim, Germany, and the AIIP annual conference in Pittsburgh. I attended all - and each was worthwhile in its own way. (My favorite was AIIP - but then this is such a great organisation anyway!).

In the last few months I've also been to China where I led a workshop on CI, and on a personal level, celebrated my oldest nephew's wedding in Jerusalem and saw the loss of my father a month later.

So what has prompted this post?

Well I try and link ideas to marketing and competitive intelligence. Those who know me will know that one of the areas I specialise in is competitive intelligence analysis and game theory. My talk at SCIP Europe (and also at the SCIP 2007 conference) was on Game Theory.

One of the areas I emphasise is that when looking at a competitor you should try and look at things from their perspective. Just because something looks stupid or illogical to you doesn't neccssarily mean that it is stupid and illogical. It could also be that the competitor is viewing something from a different angle to you - and that if you switched viewpoints it would make perfect sense. Developing an ability to switch perspectives could save you $, £, €, or ¥ as it should lead to greater anticipation of how competitors are likely to respond and thus better and more effective strategies. The assumption is that competitors behave logically, and choose strategies based on the information and knowledge they currently have.

There is, however, an exception to this. Sometimes a competitor can be blinded by hatred, greed, fear, or another strong emotion. In such cases their decisions are likely to be stupid and illogical as they can't see reality and instead, they base what they do on their emotionally biased view of the world.

As a result, when looking at a competitor it is also important to look for any emotional aspect in their decision making. Is this leading to how they behave or react? If it is, then you can use it against them to win out. Of course the same applies to you - and it's important that you make decisions that are not based on emotional reasons. Decisions need to be made based on facts, evidence and logic - anything else will lead to vulnerabilities that can be attacked by a competitor.

There are many examples of companies that have made poor decisions based on emotion: a classic is the failure of the 2000 Time Warner - AOL merger, which was partly driven by Time Warner management's fear of being left behind in a digital world. In fact many mergers fail as they are not really motivated by logic but more by fear of being left behind or greed - seeing acquisition as the best way to grow.

So when looking at a competitor, you need to

1. assume that they are behaving logically - try to see things from their perspective
2. consider that they may be acting emotionally, and not basing decisions on fact and logic.

Which of these two applies will depend on the pattern of decision making, the decisions made, and the competitor's management. Part of the job of the CI analyst is to step back from their own emotional perspectives and, dispassionately, look at the competitor and decide what has led to their decisions and strategies: logic or emotion.

I still haven't answered what prompted these thoughts.

Generally I try to understand the opinions and views of people with whom I disagree - and accept that often there is a valid rationale to these views. I fervently disagree with Islamic terrorist groups, and I totally support Israel. At the same time, I understand the view of the Palestinians and believe that they have a case. I understand the Islamic religious view of Hamas that Israel is occupied Islamic land and that only Islamic rule is valid. I don't personally agree with this - but I accept that from some Islamic perspectives (not all) this is logical as it follows some Koranic precepts. So I'm applying my rule above of trying to understand the other side, and looking at things from their perspective.

I can even apply this (with difficulty) to some terrorist actions in Europe and the USA. The attacks on 911 were reprehensible, evil and criminal. However using the above principles I can understand these actions - as they fall into a logical pattern.

1. Western Values represent an attack on Islamic values.
2. Western Values are winning out - even in Islamic society.
3. For Islamic values to triumph, Western values must be destroyed, so that the world realises that it's only true Islamic values that will lead to human peace and happiness.
4. What the West calls terrorism is actually a misnomer - and is, in fact, an attempt by true Muslim believers to alert their own governments to how they've been led astray, while at the same time to destroy the forces that are doing this - leading to a growth in Islamic values and beliefs.
   

What I fail to understand however, is how a follower of any religion can take advantage of people with mental problems and use them for terrorist activity. One of the basic principles behind all religions: Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist... is the protection of less-well-off and weaker members of society. They teach that it is a major sin to take advantage of such people.

The recent bomb attempt in Exeter, England, when an Islamic convert who was reportedly mentally ill, with low IQ and suffering from Aspergers, was so radicalised that he was preparing bombs to use to maim and kill people, suggests that the people behind him were not acting under any religious framework at all - but were driven by emotions only: hatred and fear. Worse, they bring shame on true Islamic believers, and through their actions will lead even more people to see Islam as an evil creed that only destroys and has no respect for the poor, sick and down-trodden. This is false! So called "Imams" who believe that they can recruit victims like poor Nicky Reilly have desecrated Islam and the teachings in the Koran and Hadith, and should be denounced by all true Muslims as false.