Google Latitude: Warrant Needed
March 6, 2009
eWeek’s “Google Promises Memory Loss for Latitude” here asserted that Google will respond to concerns about privacy with its Latitude service. Latitude, as you may know, shows your “friends” where you are in almost real time. Google’s service, like Loopt, will require a warrant before providing location based data to law enforcement agency. That is good news because it means that Google will cooperate when appropriate documents are in place. Law enforcement officials are overwhelmed, understaffed, and asked to do more with fewer resources. The hassle that some online services make when legitimate requests for information are thwarted does not, in my opinion, do much more than clog an already overburdened system. This addled goose is perfectly okay with rapid innovation in geospatial services. The addled goose is quite happy that a warrant will provide data that can be used by law enforcement.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Facebook in Flux
March 6, 2009
The Financial Times’ Chris Nuttall wrote “Facebook’s Identify Crisis” here. I agree in general that Facebook is reacting to Twitter and other rivals. I think Facebook is a walled garden; that is, a proprietary space. Most software and online service companies are walled gardens or want to be. The principal difference among these different organizations is how many gates there are to the walled garden and what one has to do get inside. The article missed an important point; namely, Facebook is a sector leader, but it has to deal with the likes of Google and Twitter. This is a tough competitive sandwich to choke down. Google is not a Facebook, but Google wants to be Facebooky enough to snag the ad revenue, the eyeballs, the clicks, and the data. Twitter, on the other hand, is the leader in real time search and it can morph in several directions serially or just do a number of things in parallel. Facebook, therefore, has an increasingly traditional competitor that wants to move in to the Facebook market space. And Facebook has to figure out how to deal with the real time, microblogging content catnip that sets Twitter apart. I don’t think one can fault Facebook for looking confused. Compare its efforts to innovate with those of the Financial Times. Facebook looks innovative and much more aware of where the information and financial action is than most traditional information companies in general and the newspapers like the Financial Times more particularly.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Vyre: Software, Services, Search, and More
March 6, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Vyre, whose catchphrase is “dissolving complexity.” The last time I looked at the company, I had pigeon holed it as a consulting and content management firm. The news release my reader sent me pointed out that the company has a mid market enterprise search solution that is now at version 4.x. I am getting old, or at least too sluggish to keep pace with content management companies that offer search solutions. My recollection is that Crown Point moved in this direction. I have a rather grim view of CMS because software cannot help organizations create high quality content or at least what I think is high quality content.
The Wikipedia description of Vyre matches up with the information in my archive:
VYRE, now based in the UK, is a software development company. The firm uses the catchphrase “Enterprise 2.0” to describe its enterprise solutions for business.The firm’s core product is Unify. The Web based services allows users to build applications and content management. The company has technology that manages digital assets. The firm’s clients in 2006 included Diageo, Sony, Virgin, and Lowe and Partners. The company has reinvented itself several times since the late 1990s doing business as NCD (Northern Communication and Design), Salt, and then Vyre.
You can read Wikipedia summary here. You can read a 2006 Butler Group analysis here. My old link worked this evening (March 5, 2009), but click quickly. In my files I had a link to a Vyre presentation but it was not about search. Dated 2008, you may find the information useful. The Vyre presentations are here. The link worked for me on March 5, 2009. The only name I have in my archive is Dragan Jotic. Other names of people linked to the company are here. Basic information about the company’s Web site is here. Traffic, if these data are correct, seem to be trending down. I don’t have current interface examples. The wiki for the CMS service is here. (Note: the company does not use its own CMS for the wiki. The wiki system is from MediaWiki. No problem for me, but I was curious about this decision because the company offers its own CMS system. You can get a taste of the system here.
Administrative Vyre screen.
After a bit of poking around, it appears that Vyre has turned up the heat on its public relations activities. The Seybold Report here presented a news story / news release about the search system here. I scanned the release and noted this passage as interesting for my work:
…version 4.4 introduces powerful new capabilities for performing facetted and federated searching across the enterprise. Facetted search provides immediate feedback on the breakdown of search results and allows users to quickly and accurately drill down within search results. Federated search enables users to eradicate content silos by allowing users to search multiple content repositories.
Vyre includes a taxonomy management function with its search system, if I read the Seybold article correctly. I gravitate to the taxonomy solution available from Access Innovations, a company run by my friend and colleagues Marje Hlava and Jay Ven Eman. Their system generates ANSI standard thesauri and word lists, which is the sort of stuff that revs my engine.
Endeca has been the pioneer in the enterprise sector for “guided navigation” which is a synonym in my mind for faceted search. Federated search gets into the functions that I associated with Bright Planet, Deep Web Technologies, and Vivisimo, among others. I know that shoving large volumes of data through systems that both facetize content and federated it are computationally intensive. Consequently, some organizations are not able to put the plumbing in place to make these computationally intensive systems hum like my grandmother’s sewing machine.
If you are in the market for a CMS and asset management company’s enterprise search solution, give the company’s product a test drive. You can buy a report from UK Data about this company here. I don’t have solid pricing data. My notes to myself record the phrase, “Sensible pricing.” I noted that the typical cost for the system begins at about $25,000. Check with the company for current license fees.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
SEO Means Google
March 6, 2009
Microsoft and Yahoo may surge forward and roll over Google in Web search. According to Lee Gomes, Google is disrupting Web design and content. In “Google Disrupts–Again” here, Mr. Gomes wrote:
But because of search engines, users end up never encountering that home page or availing themselves of the careful arrangement of the site’s material. Instead, they’re taken directly to the inside page that has the specific material they are looking for. And once they find what they’re looking for, they’re off somewhere else.
The key point is that users find a link and go there. With Google controlling a large chunk of the Internet referral traffic, site design and hence SEO (search engine optimization) means that being in the Google index is essential.
The thought I had after reading Mr. Gomes’s interesting take on disruption is that he’s focusing on the present, not the issues now building for tomorrow; specifically:
- Real time search does not necessarily point to a Web page; the result is the answer in many cases
- Users want results available to them without having to run a query; this means that traditional search will disappear behind some smart software, giving the search service even more control over content
- Some of the innovations allow an indexing service to build larger fact repositories. When a user’s mobile device requests information predicted by the search service, then the search service displays information. There is neither a traditional query nor a traditional Web page. Google’s programmable search engine may seem like a fantasy to some people, but a number of companies are moving in this direction, not just Google.
In short, the disruption is less about Google tomorrow and more about the changing nature of how information will find its way to those who want or need it.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Yidio: Video Search
March 6, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Yidio, a video search system that indexes 200 million videos. The search system is powered by Truveo. Here’s what Yidio said about itself:
Yidio is owned and operated by 2ten Media LLC, based in San Diego, California which also owns Sportsnipe.com, a sports news aggregator that combines sports news from thousands of sources around the world. It is 2ten Media’s mission to provide an Internet experience to users that is not only simple and efficient, but employs the highest technology available while adding value to every user. We are constantly expanding our Internet properties, so be on the look out for good thing’s in the near future from 2ten Media.
Here’s what Truveo said about itself:
Today, Truveo is one of the largest video search engines on the Web. Truveo is the search engine that powers many of the Web’s most popular video destinations. Truveo currently powers video search for AOL, Microsoft Corporation, CNET’s Search.com, Brightcove, Qwest, Kosmix, CSTV, Infospace, Excite, and hundreds of other applications worldwide. Across the network of websites it powers, Truveo reaches an audience of over 40 million users every month. The Truveo video search engine is widely recognized as being the most comprehensive and up-to-date video search service on the Web.
I am not a video consumer. If you can help me understand these two services, let me know. I am also trying to map these services to Blinkx, which bills itself as a big video search system. And YouTube.com? Check out Yidio.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Got a Spare Mainframe… Run Windows
March 6, 2009
Most trophy generation computer wizards don’t have empathy for the double rows of function keys on keyboard for your basic IBM or IBM compatible mainframe. For the lucky mainframer who wants to make the jump to Windows, Mantissa will introduce software that allows a mainframe running IBM’s z/VM to run Windows. You can read the Network World story “Microsoft Windows on a Mainframe” here. Once you have several thousand instances of Windows Vista running, maintenance and support will be: [a] easier, [b] more economical, [c] unchanged, [d] unknown. One answer only, please. From my point of view, let’s assume that each Vista instance is running the Google desktop search system and indexing shared folders. I wonder about the potential bottlenecks. Trivial or monumental? As an old mainframer, the bottlenecks can be addressed. Just bring money. Lots of money. My hunch is that if this made economic and technical sense, the Googlers would have embraced this approach. What’s your view, you old mainframers, you?
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
FAT32: Search May Be in the Line of Fire
March 6, 2009
A very important article by Jason Perlow here should be read by those looking at various types of search systems. No cause for alarm at this point, but I think it is useful to understand how a low profile legal matter could gain some huff and puff. “Microsoft: Litigate on FAT and You’ll Be the Next Unisys” does an excellent job of explaining some of the issues associated with software patents. From the GIF wars to the present day, Mr. Perlow makes it clear that in the legal system, a decision can have unexpected consequences. FAT32 support is ubiquitous which means a legal decision in favor of Microsoft could ripple through a number of software sectors, including search. The Unisys reference is a reminder that once excellent companies can make questionable decisions.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Google Twitter: Miscommunication
March 5, 2009
Henry Blodget’s “Google’s Schmidt: I Didn’t Diss Twitter” made me laugh. When I saw the blogosphere lightning strikes about an alleged remark by Google’s top wizard, I wondered if the reporters heard correctly. I don’t do hard news. I point to stories I find interesting. Mr. Blodget wrote on March 4, 2009, a story that allegedly set the record straight. You can read it here.
Which interstellar object is growing? Which is dying? Which is the winner? Which will become a charcoal briquette in a manner of speaking?
Please, navigate to Silicon Valley Insider because the good stuff is in capital letters with some words tinted red in anger. For me, the most interesting comment was:
In context if you read what I said, I was talking about the fact that communication systems are not going to be separate. They’re all going to become intermixed in various ways.
Several comments:
- The quote sounds like something I heard George Gilder say years ago. (For the record, the fellow who paid Mr. Gilder and me for advice sided with me about convergence. I prefer the term “blended”, and I still do.) Think a digital Jamba cooler.
- Google’s top Googler comes across as more politically sensitive. In Washington, DC, saying nothing whilst saying something that seems coherent is an art form. Mr. Schmidt is carrying a tinge of Potomac fever in my opinion.,
- The Twitter “thing” is clearly on Mr. Schmidt’s mind. My conclusion after reading the capital letters and red type is that Twitter has become a wisdom tooth ache. The pain is deep and it is getting worse.
No one is more interested in real time search than sentiment miners, intelligence professionals, and some judicially oriented researchers. The more the Twitter and real time search gains traction, the older and slower Google looks. In case you missed my post here, is this another sign of a generation gap between Google’s “old style” indexing and Twitter’s here and now flow? Note: Facebook.com is getting with the program too. eWeek has an interesting article here.
In my opinion we have a fuzzy line taking shape like those areas between galaxies that NASA distributes to show the wonders of the universe.
Metadata Perp Walk
March 5, 2009
I mentioned the problems of eDiscovery in a briefing I did last year for a content processing company. I have not published that information. Maybe some day. The point that drew a chuckle from the client was my mentioning the legal risk associated with metadata. I was reporting what I learned in one of my expert witness projects. Short take: bad metadata could mean a perp walk. Mike Fernandes’ “Think You’re Compliant? Corrupt Metadata Could Land You in Jail” here tackled this subject in a more informed way than my anecdote. He does a good job of explaining why metadata are important. Then he hits the marrow of this info bone:
Data recovery cannot be treated as the ugly stepsister of enterprise backup, and the special needs that ECM systems place on backup must not be ignored. Regulatory authorities and industry experts are beginning to demand more ECM- and compliance-savvy recovery management strategies, thereby setting new industry-wide legal precedents. One misstep can lead to disaster; however, there are approaches and ECM solutions that help avoid noncompliance, downtime and other incidents.
If you are floating through life assuming that your metadata are shipshape, you will want to make a copy of Mr. Fernandes’ excellent write up. Oh, and why the perp walk? Bad metadata can annoy a judge. More to the point, bad metadata in the hands of the attorney from the other side can land you in jail. You might not have an Enron problem, but from the inside of a cell, the view is the same.
Stephen Arnold, March 5, 2009
Storage Rages
March 5, 2009
ComputerWorld’s “Virtualization the Top Trend over the Next 5 Years” here underscores a potential opportunity that most traditional search and content processing vendors won’t be able to handle with their here-and-now solutions.
“Storage technology is similar to insurance in the financial services industry. In times of a recession, you have to manage your risk. Storage protects what you have and reduces risk,” said Steve Ingledew, managing director of Millward Brown Research’s Technology Practice.
What is interesting about this quote from the ComputerWorld article is that storage itself becomes a risk. Are most search and content processing systems up to task of managing massive repositories of digital information? The answer, in my opinion, is, “Sort of.” Autonomy moved to buy Interwoven to bolster its enterprise information and eDiscovery footprint. Specialists such as Clearwell Systems and Stratify (Iron Mountain) are farther along than most search and content processing companies. But when the volume of data gets into the tera and peta range, the here-and-now systems may not be up to the task.
With storage booming, there are some major opportunities for companies such as Aster Data, InfoBright, and Perfect Search. Unfamiliar with these companies? One may become the next big thing in data management. Google was on my short list, but the company seems to have lost some zip in the last 12 months. Amazon? At its core it is still an ecommerce vendor and not set up to handle the rigors of spoliation. Storage rages forward.
Stephen Arnold, March 5, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
