It is of little doubt that every new Internet start-up, especially those related to the search industry, would like to emulate the Google success story. Hell, who wouldn’t? However, as a fledgling search engine trying to make a name, if you make the claim of being a Google killer, you had better deliver the goods.

With that, allow me to introduce CometQuery, a recently launched search engine who happened to make these grandiose claims. The question is, did they deliver? Before I delve into that portion, I’d like to relay just how much Google is a part of CometQuery’s strategy. Not only have the claims of “Google Killer” been made in other publications, the company uses this premise in their Press Release page, which says:

According to Daniel Jenkins, owner of Search Sensation CometQ - Google is old news. Most experts agree that the reason Google has become so popular for the sheer mass of word of mouth advertisement it recieves, even in schools it is promoted as the “main search engine”. Google is lucky because this diverts attention from some of the features their search engine lacks. Daniel Jenkins and his CometQ team are devoted to filling these holes in search engine efficiency.

Three mentions of Google in the opening paragraph… sounds like they are a little obsessive. Anyway, does CometQuery do what they say? Are they to be recognized as the heir to Google’s throne? From my perspective - not so much.

First off, their index page is taken directly from the Google playbook, meaning they begin their service with as little clutter as possible. Much like their nemesis, CometQuery’s start page has a logo, a search box, a form button and a Random link that takes you to a site appearing in your query (it seems like they copied the “I’m Feeling Lucky” option and changed it to “Random”).

However, presentation isn’t everything. The true test of a search engine lies in the appearance and usability of their SERPs and this is another area where CometQuery comes up short.

When users conduct a query, they are taken to some awfully bland result pages where all of the content is presented in a centered fashion, leaving tons of whitespace on either side. There are no advertisements in their SERPs, so that will probably please the Daniel Brandts of the world, but personally, I’d rather see something besides miles of whitespace.

Another aspect of their search results that need discussing is CometQuery’s use of site thumbnails. Each result has a screenshot of the associated site, something I’ve always liked. However, if you are going to employ this technology, follow Ask.com’s lead and use mouseovers.

Personally, I think a 160×120 image causes spacing issues with CometQ’s search results, which often feature 1-2 lines of descriptive text; not nearly enough to make use of the space the site thumbnail creates. Result pages also invite users to try the FlipNSearch search engine. However, when you click the image link, you are taken to a 404 page, something that definitely needs to be addressed.

I understand my review is negative towards CometQuery, but that’s only because of the bold claims being made about being a Google killer. However, all is not lost. CometQuery is off to a promising start. The results seem fairly relevant and the presentation, while it needs to be tweaked, is a move in the right direction (especially with the site preview). The idea for a strong search engine is definitely there, as long as the developers continue to refine the initial product.

Chris Richardson
Staff Writer | WebProNews Blog

Posted on Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pm. Permalink