<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cuill has Irish roots</title>
	<atom:link href="http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/04/17/cuill-has-irish-roots/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/04/17/cuill-has-irish-roots/</link>
	<description>Tracking European web and mobile start-ups</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:49:23 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Esi</title>
		<link>http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/04/17/cuill-has-irish-roots/comment-page-1/#comment-130149</link>
		<dc:creator>Esi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/04/17/cuill-has-irish-roots/#comment-130149</guid>
		<description>It doesnt matter whether you are able to index the web cheaper than Google , success depends on users switching over to you. In order to switch over your results needs to be of better quality and at atleast the same speed as Google.

We have had Gigablast available for over 5 years and their results are good, they have a good index and they use only a fraction of the server capacity Google or any other search tool does . That innovative approach to reduction in server needs , Gigablast requires 1/500th of the servers Goog or Yahoo needs to be able to do the same index yet Gigablast isn&#039;t that well known.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It doesnt matter whether you are able to index the web cheaper than Google , success depends on users switching over to you. In order to switch over your results needs to be of better quality and at atleast the same speed as Google.</p>
<p>We have had Gigablast available for over 5 years and their results are good, they have a good index and they use only a fraction of the server capacity Google or any other search tool does . That innovative approach to reduction in server needs , Gigablast requires 1/500th of the servers Goog or Yahoo needs to be able to do the same index yet Gigablast isn&#8217;t that well known.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
