Awesome. I love it!!

Yes clusty is already there in this clustered search business. Parent company vivismo even licenses its products to enterprise customers. So clusty has dual revenue streams to survive. Search engine space is getting crowded. I think long tail vertical search engine strategy have much better chance of success. Look at snap.com, they have a new way of pushing their search boxes on many websites. One thing is to have a good concenpt, other thing is to get user attention without spending too much. Idea is good but Quintura will have to fight hard to shift users away from google, yahoo etc. There seems to be not enough features to shift user attention from the popular search engines.

It is certainly an interesting approach. However, I am so used to Google that I can’t see myself using Quintura anytime soon.

I don’t get it. They call themselves a search engine, but it appears that all the data is coming form yahoo.com XML. What they seem to be offering is a (wrapper + cloud) around the yahoo search engine. If this is the case, building a business around another business is risky (my opinion). Recent example is myspace not allowing outside widgets.

It looks quite cool, but like Reiseticker, I’m so addicted to Google…

I agree with all the comments posted since #5. It’s pretty cool… but I really agree with Wayne about it being risky, if it’s simply a wrapper on some other web service.

I was just reading about their kid’s search product, sounded good, but I just can’t get past these names, Quintura just stinks, and I don’t think you can impart the spelling without putting on a Spanish accent. I for one will not be going around recommending ‘keen-too-dah’ to anyone.

it just uses Yahoo XML…say no more

Quintura’s meta-search engine looks cool. I believe that future search engines will increasingly focus on designing unique user interfaces in order to differentiate themselves from the rest. In this regard, kudos to Quintura.
On another front, does anyone know what is the nature of the arrangement between Quintura and Yahoo with regard to the provision of basic search results? Will Yahoo continue to officially provide search engine results when or if Quintura displays non-Yahoo sponsored links (ads) alongside search engine results? Will Google do the same as Yahoo? I know that these questions are like a stab in the dark. Nevertheless, your response will be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Rod.

You know, I was going to show up here to make a snippy remark about how weird visual search schemes are like natural language search - a product in search of a need, with no compelling user-demand to drive their adoption.

And that’s probably still true, which is unfortunate, b/c Quintara returned some really great results for me (search on “Suzuki Samurai” for example - way better than Goog) and was a great means of discovering content. Here’s hoping they prove me wrong…

http://slantt.net/source/techcrunch

For less frequent words it works pretty well. I tried the name of my company and it returned pretty good results. It showed the main project we have released as well as the name of the CEO, the fact that we are a start-up. It even found that we have just released a site about the French presidential elections.

When I look for Techcrunch it returns UK as a very near word although techcrunch UK has been on hold for a while now. However, from the cloud you can tell that techcrunch is a blog about technology, mainly the so called web 2.0, and it is somehow related to Michael Arrington.

When you know very well what you are looking for it might not be that useful but it has its potential when you want to investigate about something you don’t know well as it can help you discover other words or concepts related to you research.

The left-half of the screen is distracting and a big waste of space. Get rid of it!

I greatly appreciate a coverage, Mike.
It’s really good to meet at FOWA in London last week.
I’d like to address some of the comments above.

To webtech
We are branching out Quintura into specific user communities. Apart from Quintura.com, there is a kids version at http://kids.quintura.com. Coming soon is Quintura for Women. As well, Quintura is shortly going to launch an affiliate program for web-sites and blogs. The web publishers will be able to create the Quintura clouds for easy navigation and search.

To wayne lambright
Quintura has started building its own web index based on contextual relationships between objects or what is known as the Semantic Web. Though, Quintura can work on top of any web index

To Morgan
Quintura stands for quintessence of searching. Quintura strives to bring a pure essence of search to its users.

FYI,
SearchTheWeb2.com, Google-based search, also clusters related search terms to the initial query and presents those terms as a list starting from popular head to the long tail. Users can refine their searches by clicking on any term in the list.

Interesting idea…

Yakov, as a woman, i’m not sure i’d be interested in a woman’s search engine. I am not even so interested in women’s websites honestly. I like more topical. I could see even more narrow vertical silos being of major interest, like shopping/ecommerce, or parenting, or healt/medical, or technical, or scholastic. Kids is good too. That would be useful.

Or at least a way to continue to filter results until I create my own silo.

Amy, you will be able to personalize and create the Quintura clouds for your own search topics as well store and edit them. Stay tuned to future updates!

I can’t recall the name offhand, but there is a visual dictionary online that does this sort of thing where it displays synonyms and associated words.

Very interesting stuff visually, but I’m not sure how it will translate to functional search. Then again, if it makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for, then it will likely have a future.

Yakov,

I guess if my irritation with domain names is the biggest problem I have, you’re doing pretty well. It’s really not bad, and I’m really not a great judge besides. The logo does look nice.

The bottom line is you’ve got something unique actually working, and it is impressive. Good luck. I should just keep my yap shut if I have nothing constructive to say, you’d think I’d learn someday. Pardon me.

I know quintura already for quite a while.

Search as we know it will change (I believe), but as everyone is addicted to their own search engine (be it GOOG, Yahoo, Baidu, or whatever) I expect that new innovations come from those search engines with the traffic.
It will be very very hard to find an audience for new search engines. And Quintura can come up with a search engine for kids, for woman, divorced men, but that won’t give them a competitive edge over Google.

I do like the interface, but it doesn’t stick.

and what is it what the domainname…

Yakov, I really hope you can change the search environment.

Ok, I’ll give it a try: this week no more Google for me! only quintura.

i tried it.
in conclusion: it’s weird.

i’ll stick to google thank you very much.

besides, quintura sounds like some euro cell phone co

Everyone agrees that it takes time to get used to Quintura. However, it does not aim to change your behavior. It aims to help start finding information more intuitively.

Excellent search engine. Do they offer URL submission? I would liek to submit my WebSite - Http://PohEe.com

Just as an aside, frankly search is a very wierd (big) niche on the internet, what makes Google so successful? I use Google exclusively to find what I need and never ever use Yahoo, although for the life of me I don’t know why… In theory it ought to be simple for a new entrant, but the fact is that I believe that this is the single most difficult area for a new entrant on the web….
As a tip, I would suggest to Yakov that to gain any traction, he needs to run with a partnership model, without this I can see Quintura sitting on a single server until it is forgotten about.

Neil, your advice is taken and I fully agree. We know that we have to be much better than any of GYMA. We introduce improvements to search step by step. As a next one, we shall run a partnership model - a visual search and navigation for your site, blog and the Web.

Neil, you’re completely right…everyone uses google “just because”, and that goes for Ebay for auctions and YouTube to video. Granted, sites like Ebay and YouTube are working off of network effect, but the result is still the same: the little start-up can’t get a voice.

That’s part of what we’re trying to tackle at Srchr (http://www.srchr.com/?PageID=1&q=Quintura), democratizing search. By putting the results of different engines next to eachother we’re giving the little guy a voice while still allowing the person searching to see the sites they “need” to see. Unfortunately this doesn’t really apply to Quintura because their special sauce is in the display.

Nice idea, guys, but I really think this isn’t the vertical to enter. As a search professional (marketing, info architecture, and analytics), I still haven’t seen anything that comes close to Google. Moreover, all these wannabe startups fall suspiciously silent when you start talking about stuff like latent semantic indexing and polysemic hierarchies. That’s because all the people who really know that stuff are working for Google already. Instead, you wrap a second-rate engine’s results in a weird-looking interface, or confuse the issue by talking about “the little guy.” Um, “the little guy” has nothing to do with search–the best has to do with search. The best differs each time, but must be the best every single time. Just as it’s unlikely that the dude behind the lunch counter is the next Jimi Hendrix, so it’s unlikely that Joe’s T-Shirts is going to be the best answer for many queries, if at all. And best means “best,” not “the best of what you got.”

I’m not even going to get into the mechanisms by which Google serves its ads. Compared to its competitors, it’s like an M-16 versus a rock. This isn’t my opinion; it’s my interest in remaining gainfully employed. Many professionals would love an alternative to Google ads. But if we had to depend on Yahoo! and MSN, we’d get fired for terrible results. Other engines aren’t even worth discussing.

If it looks simple, doesn’t mean it is simple. In the trade, we call this an affordance error. Remember: hand grenades also look simple.

Secondly, the “semantic web” is a charming idea, and it sounds good too. But here’s the thing: the semantic web takes an incredible amount of expertise and know-how to use and to build; it’s advanced library science, essentially, which is much, much harder than it looks. Secondly, the semantic web is designed for spamming, except more so. Let me get this straight: I get to specify not one metadatum, but dozens, for my content? Oboyoboyoboy. Guess it’s time to plaster user-invisible “naked Paris Hilton” stickers all over my retail computer equipment page. Take them off, and you break your Web. Leave them on, and you make your Web useless. Thirdly, the semantic web is an outgrowth of the library theory of the 1950s, which presupposed experts, not casual users, and content presentation, not content transactions (or sales). It makes brilliant sense. It’s probably the best, maybe in the theoretical sense the only, solution. It just won’t work on any kind of large scale, or with civilians.

All of this stuff is 101, guys. Read Morville’s Information Architecture. Which is so obvious it leads me to believe that instead you’re just cynically building your company to flip, sucking cash out of the pockets of clueless VCs who think the internet is powered by the magic of little elves.

SEOs call Quintura a cool latent semantic indexing (LSI) tool http://www.seobook.com/archives/001834.shtml
and we can actually make the Semantic Web real

Have you guys tried this? SOme time ago they came up with the badly named Search Radar - but it gives much better results than quintura or clusty

http://www.webaroo.com/share/labs

wow, it’s a sloooow and dull version of a thinkmap for the web.