Another Whack at Social Media and Search Experts
January 22, 2009
Michael Pinto’s “Social Media Experts Are the Cancer of Twitter (and Must Be Stopped)” here made us quack merrily. The service that social media experts have discovered is Twitter. Our Beyond Search geese have Twittered and find that it works for our cousins defacing automobiles and the occassional hairdo in the area between San Jose, California, and San Francisco, California. The Twitterholics are an “in” crowd, and the Kentucky geese can’t take full advantage of Twitter’s micro-micro blogging functions. When we sit at lunch using Twinkle on an iPhone, a full 30 minutes can go by without one substantive Harrod’s Creek tweets. Sad. So sad. Mr. Pinto’s article goes into considerable detail about the woes the outsiders–in this case, self appointed social media and social search wizards–inflict on the more wired Twitterific users. For me, the most interesting point in his write up was:
Like drugs, social media can be a good thing in the right hands. But there are too many people out there who don’t know what they’re doing and just get carried away. Sadly most people just lack the good old fashioned discipline to keep their worse instincts in check. On a related note there’s also a related clan of zombies which are the SEO “experts” — these creatures are a blue collar variation of the social media experts and usually have the term “web master” in their bio. Sometimes the social media and SEO zombies can mate to produce a marketing strategy monster, but most of these are harmless as they don’t use the auto-follow technique.
Now shift the thinking to a large company, maybe a Toyota or Unilever. What happens when a technically adept employee decides to have some “fun” with the social media and social search system at one of these companies? This aspect of the next big thing in social media and social search needs a bit of thought… just not by the self appointed experts. Write on, Mr. Pinto.
You may find this social media push back interesting as well. Caroline McCarthy’s “New FriendFeed Feature Gives My Inbox a Headache” here.
Stephen Arnold, January 22, 2009
WebMynd: DVR Function for Web History
January 22, 2009
WebMynd just released OneRiot Search, an extension for the Firefox browser that displays results from social media right along with Google results. See a picture here. The OneRiot list is down the right side, inserted above the Sponsored Links. It’s customizable: You have the ability to turn off the search, and you can block sites from being searched. WebMynd also works “like a ‘DVR for the web’ by setting it to record and search your browsing history.” You can keep track of sites or have OneRiot take and store snapshots of where you’ve been. But this part is interesting to some of the Beyond Search brood: The WebMynd extension also comes packaged with individual sites (social and otherwise) so you can narrow your results. The list includes Amazon, Twitter, Digg, YouTube, and about twenty more. More information about the service is here.
Jessica W. Bratcher, January 21, 2009
YouTube: Squeezing More Money
January 21, 2009
Peter Kafka’s “Google Tries Squeezing More Money Out of YouTube” here is a good example of looking at YouTube.com through glasses provided by Google. The story explains that Google wants to “get serious” and make YouTube.com more than a money pit. The story runs down the various Google actions and points out that a “$99 box set” offer that is an ad variant “looks like a pretty good deal, actually”. You get some links and then the paragraph that I found most interesting:
You can argue that the company needs to do that because its core business is slowing or because the economy is pummeling the company just as it is everyone else. But expect to see many more tweaks like this in the future: Perhaps we’ll hear more about them tomorrow afternoon, when the company announces its fourth-quarter results.
There’s only one thing missing in this story. A run down of the monetization options that Google has been working on for more than a year. What are these options? Well, the money making tricks for YouTube.com and some other Google services are somewhat more far reaching than those referenced in this write up. To get the details, you can plough through Google’s open source documents or you can snag a copy of my new Google study in a couple of months.
YouTube.com is no money pit if some of Google’s revenue generating methods kick in before the economy slumps even more than the mighty Google can withstand.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Google Video Tweak
January 21, 2009
Network World reported that “Google Finds Way to Better Clue You in about YouTube Video” here. The source of the story is a Google Web log. You can get live updates on the Google blog network here. The enhancement makes more relevant thumbnails available for certain videos. The idea is that a still image provides a hint about the content of the video in a results list. For me the most important comment in the write up was:
The researchers point out that plowing through all the submitted YouTube video is a huge challenge: as much as 13 hours of video comes in per hour and of course the content is quite diverse.
Keep in mind that YouTube.com is in the top three or four search systems in terms of traffic. That means that Microsoft and Yahoo have their work cut out for them when it comes to closing the gap with Googzilla. Our tests show that it is possible to create a complete course on a topic like physics or math using only Google’s YouTube.com content. I wonder if the textbook publishers see what’s happened to YouTube.com. Probably not.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
New Google Study Announced
January 21, 2009
In July 2007, I vowed, “No more Google studies.” I was tired. Now I am just about finished with my third analysis of Google’s technology and business strategy. The two are intertwined. My publisher (Harry Collier, Infonortics Ltd.) has posted some preliminary information here about the forthcoming monograph, Google: The Digital Gutenberg. If you are curious how a Web search engine can be a digital Gutenberg, you will find this analysis of Google’s newest information technology useful. None of the information in this monograph has appeared in the more than 1,200 posts on this Web log, in my two previous Google studies, nor in my more than 200 publicly available articles, columns, and talks.
In short, the monograph will contain new information.
If you are involved in traditional media as a distributor, producer, content creator, aggregator, reseller, indexer, or user–you will find the monograph useful. You may get a business idea or two. If you are the nervous type, the monograph will give some ideas on which to chew. This study represents more than one year of research and analysis. I don’t pay much attention to the received wisdom about Google. I do focus almost exclusively on the open source information about Google’s technology using journal articles, presentations, and patent documents. The result is a look at Google that is quite different from the Google is an advertising agency approach that continues to dominate discourse. Even the recent chatter about Google’s semantic technology is old hat if you read my previous Google monographs. In short, I think this third study provides a solid look at what Google will be unveiling in the period between mid 2009 and the end of 2010. Here are the links to my two earlier studies.
- The Google Legacy. Describes how Google’s search system became an application platform. You know this today, but my analysis appeared in early 2005.
- Google Version 2.0. Explores Google’s semantic technology and the company’s innovations that greased the skids for applications, enterprise solutions, and disintermediation of commercial database publishers. A recent podcast broke the old news just a few days ago. Suffice it to say that most pundits were unaware of the scope and scale of Google’s semantic innovations. Cluelessness is reassuring, just not helpful when trying to assess a competitive threat in my opinion.
I don’t have the energy to think about a fourth Google study, but this trilogy does provide a reasonably comprehensive view of Google’s technical infrastructure. I know from feedback from Googlers that the information about some of Google’s advanced technology is not widely known among Google’s rank and file employees. Google’s top wizards know, but these folks are generally not too descriptive about Google’s competitive strengths. Most pundits are happy to get a Google mouse pad or maybe a Google baseball hat. Not me. I track the nitty gritty and look past the glow of the lava lamps. I don’t even like Odwalla strawberry banana juice.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Conference Spam or Conference Prime Rib
January 21, 2009
I winnowed email over the weekend. I noticed what seemed to be an increasing amount of conference spam. I don’t want to name the offending conference organizers, but I think that traditional conference organizers must be feeling the pinch of the economic downturn. For example, I just learned that one conference outfit that asked me to give a talk wants me to pay several hundred dollars to publish my presentation. I ignored the request. Another outfit sent me a list of 10 reasons to attend a mobile conference in Barcelona. Hey, Barcelona is a great city, but in today’s economic environment, I am not buying my own ticket to Spain so I can learn about mobile phones. I can read some Web log posts and interact with people on this Web log. Another outfit has told me that I can learn about the future of enterprise search. Sorry. Enterprise search doesn’t have much of a future. The most successful companies are providing systems that mesh with work processes and deliver actionable intelligence or some other buzzword just not “enterprise search”. The recent pull out from the IDG Apple conference sent shock waves through the conference world. If Apple jumps to the CES 2010 show, what happens to Macworld? What about information conferences that try to cover multiple disciplines in the unruly world of digital data? Those puppies confuse the attendees and anger the exhibitors. What’s network attached storage have to do with eDiscovery and licensing news from Factiva? Answer: not much from an exhibitors’ point of view I opine.
There are some promising new conferences coming along. I am not including the “in crowd” meet ups that occur routinely in the San Jose – San Francisco corridor. The go to search meeting for 2009 seems to be the Infonortics’ Boston meeting. You can find information about that program here. I have a vested interest in this conference for three reasons:
- I roll out the findings from my most recent analyses of Google’s patent documents and technical papers. The period from April 2008 to the present has been Google’s most productive. Few know about Google’s broader technology thrusts outside of the Googleplex.
- I fund and oversee the Evvie Award. Named in honor of one of the leading online innovators, Ev Brenner, the award recognizes the best presentation developed for the conference. The judging panel’s criterion is to answer the question “Would Ev have liked the presentation?” The people making the value judgment typically include Sue Feldman (IDC), Liz Liddy (Syracuse University), and David Evans (Justsystems), among others. The recipient receives a modest cash honorarium and an equally modest trophy. The value is peer recognition at this important conference.
- I learn from speakers who “do” search and content processing. I don’t endure presentations from the exhibitors or the best friends of the conference organizer.
Infonortics, unlike some of the near-death and deadly dull conferences, limits the number of attendees. Register early or find yourself waiting for next year.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Telegraph: Google Not Screwing the Music Industry
January 21, 2009
Upscale UK newspapers are better with words than the addled geese at Beyond Search. Here’s an example. The headline appeared on January 20, 2009, in my newsreader. The Telegraph.co.uk wrote: “Google Boss Denies Screwing Music Industry and Defends YouTube in Warner Row” here. A long time ago I wrote about Napster, pointing out that the peer to peer mechanism required change in traditional music distribution. I am proud to point out that no one paid any attention to my article in Online Magazine. When I write about something, I expect to be asked “What’s a Napster?” or “Where did you get that? I never heard about that before.” When I saw the news of the dust up between YouTube.com and Warner Music, I heard Yogi Berra (maybe Yogi Bear) say, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
Big surprise that Google is a threat to the music industry. Apple’s a threat. Most music industry managers’ kids are a threat to the music industry. Urmee Khan’s story is pretty interesting. Urmee Kahn wrote, allegedly quoting the Google executive, David Eun:
We don’t make money unless our partners make money, so the idea that we would screw a partner on whom we depend is not rational or logical. We’re not screwing the labels, and if anything, we need to partner more closely with them.
I love it when Google uses the words rational and logical. Mathematicians define tidy little worlds. In those worlds, the math just works. Pull the math out of a tidy little world (Newtonian physics) and drop it into the messy world of the nuclear weapons lab and the Newtonian math doesn’t work. Google likes to explain to people that their behavior or their understanding is not logical or rational.
In fact, the music industry is acting in a rational manner in its tidy little frame. Google, however, does not understand that frame and therefore whips reporters into a frenzy when the company’s wizards point out that entire business models are collapsing. Such collapses are logical.
And Google doesn’t understand why the music industry is upset.
The only problem is that it is now too late for the music industry. It’s too late for dead tree publishing companies. It’s too late for most organizations who have failed for the last decade to take the time to understand that Google’s power comes from consumers and advertisers. Oh, I almost forget the children of the publishing, movie, and music industries are helping Google.
Here’s how this works?
Music executive to his 12 year old child (female): What are you doing, Anna?
Anna, the 12 year old child to her father, the music executive: Nothing. Just getting some song links from Kaylee. You know her, dad.
Music executive to his 12 year old child: What music?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive: I’m into The Fray now.
Music executive to his 12 year old child: Are you using iTunes again?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive: No.
Music executive to his 12 year old child: Are you using YouTube then?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive: No.
Music executive to his 12 year old child: Where are you getting the music, Anna?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive: What.cd.
Music executive to his 12 year old child: What?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive. Evident exasperation: What.cd
Music executive to his 12 year old child: Who? What.tv?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive: No, what.cd?
Music executive to his 12 year old child: See the what?
Anna, the 12 year old child (female) to her father, the music executive: I really have to do homework now.
Google’s perception is closer to Anna’s in this humorous dialog. The gulf is wide. There are more young people than old music people.
The music industry has to do more than hitch a ride on its legal eagles. Innovation, new business models, and tech savvy are important first steps. Anna is growing up and will probably bring significant changes to her dad’s world, the formerly employed music industry executive.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Kazeon Chops eDiscovery Prices
January 21, 2009
You know that the white shoe world of legal eagles is preparing for a tough year when eDiscovery outfits cut their prices. Lawyers once spent like mad in the name of due diligence and maybe a little thought about billing. The clients would pay and pay and pay. After all, who wants to wear an orange jumpsuit on the TV news or be immortalized on a Web site marching off to court? Law firm customers — sorry, clients, a more upscale word — are pushing back. Big companies are taking some of the work back inside the company’s walls. The outputs go to law firms who will keeps costs within certain parameters (a fancy word to describe a budget). How do I know these changes are underway? Easy. I got a briefing from an eDiscovery vendor last week and that outfit told me that it was making headway against high end eDiscovery vendors. The issue was cost. Price seemed to be this company’s strategic weapon. Today (January 20, 2009) I read in Byte and Switch here that “Kazeon Cuts Costs of Entry Level eDiscovery”. Paul Travis reports that a company can jump into eDiscovery for as little as $10,000. Keep in mind that a perpetual license still costs $80,000 a year. For me, the most important comment in the article was:
…There are more than 100 e-discovery vendors and that more are expected to enter the market this year. The result has been customer confusion and “led to a customer demand for clarity around e-discovery products, and for full integration around the e-discovery workflow process.
With the LegalTech trade show looming, I expect more cost cutting announcements. I am assuming that the show takes place. Rumor has it that one Gartner content management show has been postponed (a big word for shut down). Cost is on a number of professionals’ radar and the pricing for eDiscovery systems will be one indicator of the robustness of the content processing services sector.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Google: Betting on Demographics
January 21, 2009
A reader groused about my poking fun at the British Library research reports. You can read these Swiftian essays here and here. Libraries are in a tough spot. With the financial crisis expanding, libraries are now the go to place to get warm and look for a job. Most libraries depend on a funding authority for money. As those authorities find themselves short of cash, libraries find themselves fighting for enough dough to keep staff and pay the heating and electricity bills. Book and journal acquisitions are lower on the list. Therefore, libraries have to justify the monetary needs. The British Library and the other national libraries are leading a charge for the relevance and importance of buildings stuffed with people looking for work. Oh, yes, these libraries want to collect dead tree outputs of publishers, pictures so these can be placed on Yahoo’s Flickr service, and electronic information so a user can access these data. The problem with this picture is that the Google has become the global library. National libraries are becoming more like branch offices of Google. Now librarians get annoyed when I point out that:
- Google is indexing books, magazines, Web sites, and Web logs
- Google is indexing government information
- Google is offering a job service that few know anything about but you can read about this in my forthcoming study of Google due in April 2009 from Infonortics (I’m sure an entitlement generation blogger will jump on this item and write about it before my study comes out. Imitation is a form of flattery I suppose, but it is more of a character trait of the trophy children in my opinion)
- Google is gathering videos.
What are libraries doing? Well, I don’t think libraries are in step with what users’ information needs are. I think college professors, mayors, and government officials have their views of libraries. Street people hanging out in the Louisville Free Public Library probably have a different view, however.
I thought of this problem when I read the ZDNet article by Zack Whittaker, “Can We Rely Entirely on Google and Wikipedia?” here. The core of the write up is that Mr. Whittaker doesn’t need the library. He’s of the opinion that Google and Wikipedia provide enough information to write “essays and research”. He does a very good job of comparing what’s available fro free and what’s available from a library. To be fair, he does point out that his university library has some utility. But the online services are able to deliver “more than the full library”. The best combination is Internet access and access to a university library.
Now what’s this mean? Mr. Whittaker looks to be about 22 or 23 years old. But what about the kids who are 11 or 12 years old. I think the individuals in this younger demographic chunk will be more comfortable with iPhone and netbook form factors. Libraries may be a very foreign experience. But libraries have to shift into gear or their budgets will continue to shrink. That solves the problem for the 11 to 12 year old. The library will be like a lounge no fungible information artifacts required. A connection to the network and access are sufficient.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Killing Google: PR and Legal Eagles Shoot Puff Balls
January 20, 2009
If you are worried about Google, you are a bit like the person standing at the elevated stop in Chicago’s Loop when it is cold and snowing. The person missed the train. You know another train will be coming, but in the winter, who knows when? The person could be mugged that fine snowy morn. The person says sub voce, “If only I had left earlier.”The person vows to avoid missing the next train. The person falls back on the “if only” approach to being late to the party.
If this example resonates, you will enjoy the Wired Magazine article “The Plot to Kill Google” here. Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein recount the exciting tale of Google versus lawyers. We know how the story turns out. Google alters its approach. The lawyers send hefty bills to their clients. And the competitors congratulate themselves on slowing the what the authors call the “may not be evil” Google.
After reading the Wired narrative, I thought about arriving late and missing the train. “Killing Google” is an activity in which some companies are actively engaged. There’s Microsoft, Verizon, Viacom, and assorted search engines. There are online ad systems. There are annoyed integrators rejected by the GOOG for no apparent reason.
I think it is almost too late to “kill Google”. The Google has been building its system for a decade. Now after years of dismissals, inattention, and pooh poohing Google’s technology, competitors is using lawyers to hobble Googzilla.
What are the weapons of choice? New business models? No. Leap frog technology? No. Consortia with a better bundle of services? No. Marketing campaigns that snag middle school kids? No.
The weapon of choice?
Lawyers!
In my opinion, I don’t think legal eagles have what it takes to distract Google. As for killing Google? Not likely in the near to mid term. I suggest taking some of the money pumped into legal fees and investing in research to find ways to leap frog Googzilla. But time is definitely running out for some outfits which have now realized that the GOOG is a serious challenge to certain incumbents’ revenue. Unless these outfits get organized, the “if only” rationalization will be little comfort in 2009.
Stephen Arnold, January 20, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
