Re:Cuil Fail: Traffic Nearly Hits Rock Bottom
by gaius on Saturday December 27, 2008 @12:44PM
(#411161)
Live.com can hardly get any traffic and their search works. I had high hopes for Cuil but gave up when it became clear that their search results were simply bad or missing. They should have held a closed beta for 6 months.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Cuil Fail: Traffic Nearly Hits Rock Bottom
by raghus on Saturday December 27, 2008 @03:39PM
(#411330)
What's your reference for saying that live.com can hardly get any traffic?
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=lang&lang... has them at #4 (which seems unbelievable but definitely past the bar of very high traffic sites)
Re:Cuil Fail: Traffic Nearly Hits Rock Bottom
by bd on Saturday December 27, 2008 @08:11PM
(#411571)
Isn't Live.com actually composed of gazillion sites? I think Alexa counts all subdomains together.
On Wikipedia there are listed more than 50 subsites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live
With many of these being used directly from Microsoft desktop software, it wouldn't be so unbelievable for Live.com to be #4.
Re:Cuil Fail: Traffic Nearly Hits Rock Bottom
by gaius on Saturday December 27, 2008 @03:54PM
(#411347)
Look up the fraction of search traffic they get compared to Google (or even Yahoo) - and the ad revenue they can generate from it.
Re:Cuil Fail: Traffic Nearly Hits Rock Bottom
by pmjordan on Saturday December 27, 2008 @05:18PM
(#411434)
Plus they must get a decent amount of traffic from mistyped URLs in IE - I've ended up at live.com a couple of times while trying to test some XHTML/CSS/JS in IE.
Re:Cuil Fail: Traffic Nearly Hits Rock Bottom
by tokenadult on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:17AM
(#411707)
I suppose each user has his own preferred torture-test search terms. For mine, Cuil has recently (but NOT at launch) returned a better set of results that does Live.com. But neither wows me enough to pull me away from Google.