<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cuil, and its Lukewarm Debut</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ariyam.com/2008/07/29/cuil-kul-its-lukewarm-debut/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ariyam.com/2008/07/29/cuil-kul-its-lukewarm-debut/</link>
	<description>and babblings!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: d</title>
		<link>http://www.ariyam.com/2008/07/29/cuil-kul-its-lukewarm-debut/#comment-76993</link>
		<dc:creator>d</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:33:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ariyam.com/?p=220#comment-76993</guid>
		<description>Apparently you're not the only one who has total haterade for it. Here's a bit starker take on it from a long time ad man http://tinyurl.com/6ctukp

Also, the name? TOTALLY freaking lame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently you&#8217;re not the only one who has total haterade for it. Here&#8217;s a bit starker take on it from a long time ad man <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6ctukp" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/6ctukp</a></p>
<p>Also, the name? TOTALLY freaking lame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.ariyam.com/2008/07/29/cuil-kul-its-lukewarm-debut/#comment-76990</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ariyam.com/?p=220#comment-76990</guid>
		<description>It seems to be about once a year that one of these new 'google killers' comes out.  Every time they do, I begrudgingly give it a shot.  And without fail, I go right back to Google and forget about it.

The site didn't even work for half the searches I tried yesterday.  I got no results when I searched for Walden Pond (no quotes).  Yet, a second click with the same terms worked fine.  This happened a few times.  Obviously, they're new and the backend needs a little more support, but come on.  "I was a bit hurt that my own website wasn’t indexed on cuil..."  Actually, it is.  But that's just another example of the site not working properly.  

And speaking of new, what's up with the amount of unwarranted PR these things always generate.  It kind of pisses me off.  I had Mark Laboss - a guy who I can't even get to read my emails sometimes - ask me if I tried it yet, less than 24 hours after it comes out.  The publicity reach for a brand new product that most people actually felt kind of 'eh' about is more amazing than the site itself.

Like it always has, Google just works and it works well.  That's all I'm looking for in a search engine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to be about once a year that one of these new &#8216;google killers&#8217; comes out.  Every time they do, I begrudgingly give it a shot.  And without fail, I go right back to Google and forget about it.</p>
<p>The site didn&#8217;t even work for half the searches I tried yesterday.  I got no results when I searched for Walden Pond (no quotes).  Yet, a second click with the same terms worked fine.  This happened a few times.  Obviously, they&#8217;re new and the backend needs a little more support, but come on.  &#8220;I was a bit hurt that my own website wasn’t indexed on cuil&#8230;&#8221;  Actually, it is.  But that&#8217;s just another example of the site not working properly.  </p>
<p>And speaking of new, what&#8217;s up with the amount of unwarranted PR these things always generate.  It kind of pisses me off.  I had Mark Laboss - a guy who I can&#8217;t even get to read my emails sometimes - ask me if I tried it yet, less than 24 hours after it comes out.  The publicity reach for a brand new product that most people actually felt kind of &#8216;eh&#8217; about is more amazing than the site itself.</p>
<p>Like it always has, Google just works and it works well.  That&#8217;s all I&#8217;m looking for in a search engine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
