Picking Google’s Security Boil
January 28, 2009
Johnny Doe (original name!), writing on Wiseperception.com here, takes a rough finger nail and digs into Google’s security scab. The core of the article is information gathered by an Austrian professor named Hermann Maurer. After my Google 2.0 study appeared, I received several queries from folks in Europe wanting me to provide information about Google that was negative. I refused. I read patent applications and technical papers. Not Herr Dr. Maurer. The academic is asserting that Google has data about users and can assemble those data into profiles. No kidding. The news, Herr Dr. Maurer, is old. The privacy and security boils on Googzilla’s snout are pretty obvious as well. For me the most interesting comment in this article was:
He [Herr Dr. Maurer] also speculates on the possibility of Governments paying Google for information on an opponent, or to block their citizens’ access to servers. “If Google did this they wouldn’t be doing anything illegal. They have this information, they are a company, why not sell it?” Maurer says.
Great idea. The only problem is that Google remains sufficiently disorganized that government officials have trouble getting a Googler to return their calls. My thought is that Europe is going to be a giant thorn in Googzilla’s paw with regard to privacy. Microsoft and other competitors have avoided tackling Google head on on this matter. Looks like the good Herr Doctor won’t be a shrinking violet. Herr Dr. Maurer may be the first of European Google watchers to poke Google’s security boil.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
Amazon and A9’s Limitations
January 28, 2009
I don’t think too much about Amazon. It’s A9 search engine remains an okay system, but it has morphed into an ecommerce search system. Search innovation seemed to stop when Udi Manber headed to the GOOG. Amazon took A9 down a very different path that includes stop overs in Clickriver and Open Search (yep, that iVillage and About.com content is exactly what I need). You can even find out about job openings at A9.com, which surprised me. Check out the jobs. One is for someone to tackle relevance. Good idea. Those Yahooligans are available. Some defecting Xooglers are available. Amazon could even tap the Powerset wizards. With companies nuking nerds, it’s a buyer’s market. I use structured information if I know the name of the author or a book. If I want books “about something”, the system is not too helpful in my opinion. In fact, the interface fights with the search box. For example, I wanted to look at Kindle titles which were new releases in a specific category–Greek history. No luck. The interface on the Kindle, as miserable as it is, is more informative than the one on the Amazon Web site. Let’s hope that the Kindle Web page gets some attention when version 2 of the Kindle becomes available. (Fewer weird buttons would help too.)
Amazon blipped my radar today when I read Eric Savitz’ “Amazon: The World’s Most Expensive Internet Stock?” here. The point of the article is that Amazon has a high price earnings ratio. Skipping the MBA double talk, this means that you pay a lot and may not get much back in the way of dividends.
When I scanned Mr. Savitz’s Wall Street story, I seemed to recall seeing references to investments by Bezos Expeditions. What’s interesting is that twice in the few days, I saw references to this investment outfit having taken stakes in search vendors: Mahalo.com and ChaCha.com. If my recollection is correct, this is suggestive that A9 can’t deliver the type of “social” search that seems to be some pundits’ entrant in the Google tug of war.
Forget these alleged investments. Let’s focus on A9:
- When will the system permit winnowing to be released new titles from real new titles on Kindle?
- How can I find bargains without recourse to a third party tool?
- When will the system support concept metadata so I can locate books “about” a topic without the trial and error fiddling I have to do now?
- Why not fix up A9 with some social features?
Maybe A9 is a bit of money pit? If anyone has information about the new features of A9 that I have overlooked, let me know.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
Internet: One Billion, GSM: Three Billion
January 28, 2009
ZDNet UK published “A Billion Internet Users Can Be Wrong” here. I have a tough time figuring out who writes what where. This important story appeared in “Leader”, I think. Anyway, the point of the story is that GSM has spread faster than the Internet. Here’s the passage:
In the history of the world, the only technology to spread faster is GSM, the digital mobile-phone standard. That’s another European invention — and another one that went live in the wonderyear of 1991. This one, however, is in the hands of 3.5 billion people. Between them, the web and wireless have democratized data: since 1991, you haven’t needed approval from anywhere to store or share data with the world, and the world hasn’t needed an appointment anywhere to retrieve it.
So what? I look at these data in terms of search. Looks to me that companies eager to leapfrog Google need to focus on mobile information access. Apple and Microsoft are lagging in this department. Yahoo is struggling. The start ups have to spend to get traction. Web search is over. Mobile looks like the next big search battleground. What do you think?
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
Another British Library Fear
January 28, 2009
Nick Farrell’s “British Library Fears Loss of History” reminded me that libraries are struggling for relevance in a Google-centric world. You can find his Register story here. For me the most interesting comment was:
The British Library has established a department dedicated to the collection of all these digital materials which are stored on your computer in the same way that it stores books, newspapers, documents, maps, personal letters.
I find categorical affirmatives quite amusing. The UK is collecting email and mobile data. Now the British Library wants “all” of a couple of types of digital information. Right now, the only outfit in a position to capture “all” information is Google, not a country, a company.
Libraries find themselves asked to provide shelter, job hunting, and coffee shop duties. One library expressed an interest in mobile furniture and off site book storage. The idea was that users of the library did not need some books right away.
The fear is well founded. Google will allay that fear in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
The Most Agile of the Dead Tree Outfits Trimming Digital Staff
January 28, 2009
A happy quack to the reader from Australia who alerted me to some News Corp. staff reductions. Greg Sandoval reported here that News Corp. chopped some staff. What caught my attention was that the trimming took place in digital units, including MySpace.com and Photobucket.com. What’s the problem? In my opinion, its a business model issue. Suck a start up into a giant outfit and there’s culture, technology, and financial shock. What’s the dead tree fix? Fire those who work in the digital units. Change the business model or dig into technology? Nope, dead tree outfits know best.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
Google Web Drive Silliness
January 27, 2009
What’s the big deal about the Google Web Drive. A couple of years ago a programmer developed the Gmail drive shell. The unauthorized application converted Gmail to a drive letter. I could drag a file to the GMail Drive shell icon and plonk my file as a message in my Gmail account. Google would break GMail Drive shell. The developer would fix GMail Drive shell. You can still find this unauthorized Google service here. I just got tired of this.
At the time in 2005 or 2006, it was quite clear to me that Google had storage plans. Otherwise, why hassle a person adding a useful function to Gmail? Google’s too busy to fiddle with this level of programming granularity. As you know, regular Gmail runs on top of other, far more sophisticated Google plumbing. Based on my research, the GOOG can deploy a number of nifty functions, applications, and services without much effort. I recall that it released Recommendations within 48 hours of the StumbleUpon.com change in ownership.
Rumors of a Google Web Drive have been appearing in my newsreader and I have ignored them. Old news. In fact, the rumor was not even in the category of “sort of interesting” until I read Scott Gilbertson’s “Why a Google Web Drive Won’t Kill Windows, the PC or Anything Else” here. Like much of the info in Wired’s publications, there’s some good information and some commentary with which I don’t agree. The point of the story is to use the term “GDrive” to refer to the service. Obviously the original GMail Drive shell developer has dropped off the radar at least for Wired. The person behind Viksoe.dk probably would prefer to be on Wired’s radar. But the Wired writers are indeed busy working in the midst of cutbacks and budget machinations.
In my opinion, the argument of the article is that I will have quite a few options for saving data to the cloud. Mr. Gilbertson reminded me that trust is one concern and
The other big issue with online storage is that, for most of us, documents like spreadsheets, word processor files and the other formats that Google Docs understands are not what’s taking up the majority of space on our drives.
My thought is that the significance of a GDrive is that it is one more service that makes life easy for the Google centric. Google doesn’t have to do much work to provide a GDrive. It is timing. I think Google has decided that it is tactically advisable to add another convenience to the Google service. Whether this GDrive becomes part of Google Apps or finds its way into any function is not clear. What is clear is that incremental step by incremental step, Google is put honey in the pot. With Google’s market share and viral marketing expertise, those wanting this convenience will find their way to Google. Once at Google, it’s one more hook to keep the customer in the Google fold. For competitors, Google’s incremental approach to capturing markets is a pain in the backside. Google doesn’t give competitors a big target at which to shoot. Google doesn’t really move very quickly. Google is a pretty savvy outfit.
For me, the big question is when, not if. Then I want to know, “What will the competitors do to keep Google from poaching their customers?” My first reaction is, “Not much.” It takes money and technology to ace the GOOG. Technology may not be the problem. Money may be the “great decider”.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
Gartner Pulls Plug on Conferences
January 27, 2009
A happy quack who provide me with this link. The headline said it clearly: “Gartner Cancels Its Main Spring Conferences.” In a downturn, consulting firms often thrive. There’s executive RIF-ing. There’s organizational rationalization. There’s advice that makes those with jobs feel great. When an azure chip consulting firm chops its Spring Symposium ITxpos, I see financial challenges for the mid tier consulting firms looming. The article ended with this statement: “Earlier this month, Gartner made almost 120 staff redundant in the US.” I wonder if the author was rounding off or if Gartner fired one third of a wizard. If you want some color about conferences, click here. Since search and content processing plays a part in the programs of these events, some vendors will be stewing. I know that one search company has focused its marketing exclusively on the Gartner activities. Ouch. The question is, “What’s next in the search conference realignment?’ I just received an invitation to attend a free US government conference on “cyberinfrastructure capabilities for high performing distributed communities” and the “Fourth International Conference on Plats & Environmental Pollution”. Neither of these is in my sweet spot, but the conference spam keeps on coming. Yesterday I received three hardcopy invitations to a conference that pulled 60 people last year. Spam email is cheap. The dead tree promotions are expensive and inefficient methinks.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
SurfRay: More Change
January 27, 2009
According to a reader in Scandinavia, the president of SurfRay has resigned. I don’t have any details. I received the information on January 26, 2008. Stay tuned. The last information I received was that the company had been declared something in Swedish that seemed to mean insolvent. If you see any information, send it along.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
More Pay for Traffic Plays
January 27, 2009
Mahalo.com is a social search system. The idea is that humans get involved. Humans, although more expensive than software, can handle certain tasks with greater understanding. Software still makes mistakes. Humans make some doozies as well. In search, I am on the fence about the efficacy of humans versus algorithms. More precisely, I am on the fence about the specific role of humans. In the good old days of commercial databases, humans were the way to go. The costs of people are high. Once software is locked and loaded ongoing operations can be budgeted and, in my experience, certain costs stabilized. I trade off software for humans now, but I don’t agonize over the decision. Costs control is a big deal to me.
Jeff Meiser’s “Mahalo Spices Up Information Sharing with Cash Incentives” here adds a new spin to the human intermediated Mahalo.com search service. Like Microsoft’s pay plans for Live.com search, Mahalo.com is urging searchers to “pay a few bucks” for the answer. The for fee question and answer model is what Find SVP (Paris and New York) was been doing for a long time. I’ve lost track of that company, but I recall that the sales effort to line up “gold accounts” was significant. Find SVP was a good idea in the early 1980s but the cost of sales and the cost of human researchers was brutal.
The whole pay for information sector has been under siege for many years. Dialog made people pay to ask a question and look at abstractions (Type 5 outputs). The problem was that the answer may not have been in the output. There was no easy way to run down some information in 1980 so people paid. As soon as free options became available on the Internet, the bottom fell out of some commercial information services. You can see some of the financial burden if you look at the 10 Ks for traditional information companies in the commercial database business. Certain sectors are flat. Thomson has exited some of its information businesses. A wise move. Reed Elsevier is trying to increase revenues and hold down costs of information operations that involve humans. Tough job. Blue chip consulting firms run pay to ask question services as well. To make this work, the client has to be convinced that the answers come with a pedigree. So humans can improve certain information operations but humans cost a great deal. Add sales and subject matter experts together and you get a Bermuda Triangle of costs.
Mr. Meiser’s article doesn’t dig into the past with pay for answers. That’s fine. He does include information about finding answers on Facebook and Twitter. He provides some color about the smart money that is behind Mahalo.com. For me, the most interesting comment in the article was:
Since no single player has emerged as dominant using the question-and-answer search model in the U.S., Mahalo sees a unique opportunity to become the industry leader.
I am all for optimism. I recall reading some open source information from Googzilla on this function. My hunch is that Mahalo.com may find itself under pressure if the GOOG makes available some of its nifty automated question answering methods. At that point, question and answer services that charge and have humans in the mix will face a long, tough road to success.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
A Shadow Falls on Search Related Conferences
January 27, 2009
I had a couple of conversations yesterday with conference organizers telling me that I was completely wrong in my opinion piece “Conference Spam or Conference Prime Rib” here. I enjoy a lively debate. I like intense discussions even more when I have no interest whatsoever in the trials and tribulations of conference organizers. My point remains valid; that is, in a lousy economy conferences that don’t deliver value will be big losers. Forget the monetary side of the show.
With conferences struggling to survive and some big outfits allegedly cutting back in fuzzy-wuzzy business sectors like content management, the caption “When your best just isn’t good enough” is apt in my opinion. Image source: http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/21/failure.gif
I received this thoughtful post as well:
I’m also curious how my own touting of the SIGIR Industry Track fares vis a vis your spam filter. I’m personally excited to be involved with an event that is not beholden to any vendor or analyst, but rather to the world’s most reputable organization in the area of information retrieval: the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
More details about the event are forthcoming, but let me share an important one: none of the speakers or their employers are paying to be on the agenda. Rather, the agenda consists of invited talks and panels, vetted by the SIGIR Organizing Committee (http://www.sigir2009.org/about/organizers). The model for the event is last year’s CIKM Industry Event (http://www.cikm2008.org/industry_event.php), but I’ll be so bold as to say we’re stepping it up a notch.
This isn’t a vendor user conference like Endeca Discover or FASTForward, nor is it a “vendor-neutral” conference in name only where vendors, analysts, and consultants are paying for air time. And, while it won’t be free, it is being run by a non-profit organization whose goal is to serve the community, not to line its pockets.I hope that you and others will support this welcome change.
When people run conferences that don’t have magnetism, the real losers are the attendees who spend money and invest time to hear lousy speakers or sales pitches advertised as original, substantive talks. The other losers are exhibitors who can spend $10,000 on a minimal exhibit and get zero sales leads. In fact, there are negatives to lousy shows; to wit:
- Attendees don’t learn anything useful or attendees hear speakers who simply don’t know of what they speak. That’s okay when the presenter is a luminary like Steve Ballmer or Werner Vogels. But for a session on “Tips to Reduce the Cost of Enterprise Search” and the solution is a rehash of how “easy” and “economical” a Google Search Appliance is, I leave the session. It’s baloney. Attendees don’t learn anything from these talks, but there is often desperation among the organizing committee to find someone who will show up and do a basic talk. The notion of “quality” is often secondary to thoughts about the speaker’s turning up on the podium.
- Exhibitors don’t make sales. Enough said.
- Exhibitors find themselves either [a] talking to competitors because there’s no traffic in the exhibit hall or [b] watching their employees talk with other companies’ senior management and maybe landing a new job. Either of these situations is one that will make a vendor pull out of a trade show.
- Media who actually show up and attend a session don’t find a story. The trade show is, therefore, a media non event. I can name one big, confused show in Boston that suffers this ignominy. What began as a show about microfilm now tries to embrace everything from photocopying to enterprise content management to business intelligence. Crazy. No one knows what the show is about so the media avoid it. Heck, I avoid it.
What must conferences do to avoid this problem?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
