Cuil as a reflection of the (T)echo-chamber

Read Write Web echoes my thoughts on the real lessons of Cuil's launch yesterday:

I still don't get it though - how come this startup got blanket coverage from tech news heavyweights, some of whom should know better than to buy into the hype? Did any of those publications actually test Cuil before writing up its greatness?

Especially as:

Some of the initial blog coverage of this story extended the hype. I must applaud Cuil's PR people for managing to get such overwhelming launch coverage, initially positive - although after bloggers actually started using the product the tone of the coverage changed accordingly.

The fact is, Cuil is a very ordinary product right now. In my own tests last night, I was left underwhelmed. Our official post today summed up our views: this is an average product that does not live up to its own hype, the NYT's hype, or the hype bestowed upon it by noted bloggers and those who thought they got a "scoop".

I was also interested in the whys and wherefores....being fact based analytical types we tend to make our own decisions on "stuff" (see our review of Cuil here) but it was instructive to follow the feeding frenzy of the tech blog echo chamber (or is it an eco-chamber, as they are all chasing precious traffic and Ad revenues) and watch the story go from hype to gripe as it became clear that (i) there was less to this than met the eye but (ii) some of the big tech bloggers were copying and pasting pre-digested hyped impressions without actually testing the thing themselves.

Ah, the "wisdom" of In-Crowds

This observation also led to my other thought this morning - choose your news sources wisely, you are what you read!