Yeah it is not well designed.

I think people confuse design with style. Just because something has style doesn't mean it is well designed.

I'm assuming you can't beat Google with 'style' alone, so my use of 'design' pertains more toward the UX and process by which you finally get to the results. Viewzi is pretty innovative by allowing the user to choose where the results are to be pulled from and how they are to be displayed.

I think Viewzi's UX is quite brilliant, but the look on the other hand is too heavy and flashy for my minimalistic taste.

From a design standpoint, Google is so successful because they match their clean and simple look with their basic and straightforward UX.

You choose a 'view' depending on where you want the results pulled from and how you want it to be displayed.

I agree, it isn't very intuitive, but only because it's different than Google, which is what we have been used to for so long.

It's not only because it's different than Google, it's because it's not explained, i.e. they make a poor assumption: namely, that the interface they're presenting contains enough information for me to make a good decision. I don't find that's the case. I find it hard to choose between "Web Screenshot View (Searches Yahoo)" or "4 Sources View (Searches Ask, Google, MSN, Yahoo)". I really have never thought about it. Just give me the results in your best guess format, and I'll take it from there if I'm unsatisfied.

Also, the need to move really far through horizontal space to explore all the different views is ungood. Small multiples, if you want to call these that, should be placed in a grid, not a long single-file line.