Google Secure Data Connector
April 13, 2009
My Overflight service spit out a link to Google’s Secure Data Connector last week. I don’t do news; I do a weird mix of marketing, commentary and explication. You can read about the SDC on TMCNet.com here. The story “Google Secure Data Tool ties Apps to Company Data” is a good summary of what the GOOG is doing to encroach upon the enterprise market’s billions in spending, slowly, and incrementally. The SDC, said TMCNet.com:
allows data from behind-the-firewall sources and applications to be securely accessed via Google Gadgets, Google spreadsheets or its App Engine development platform. Google’s announcement gained initial backing from none other than Oracle, which said that its Siebel CRM (customer relationship management) software will support the SDC. Oracle also announced Oracle Gadget Wizard for Google Apps, with which users can create gadgets for Google Sites.
Google has some clever systems and methods for “hooking” the enterprise infrastructure to the Googleplex. I won’t repeat the information on these inventions here. You can find the details in my Google Version 2.0, published in 2007. Yep, the GOOG has been on this track for couple of years. Competitors should not be surprised nor should one ignore the importance of Oracle’s jumping on this bandwagon.
More coming too.
Stephen Arnold, April 13, 2009
SharePoint Round Up
April 13, 2009
Here in Harrod’s Creek, the annual spring festival includes bunny hunting. I am floating in the pond, listening to the rat tat tat of small arms fire. Nothing beats a rabbit hunt in the spring. I am not into pumping lead in fuzzy bunnies so I am engaging in what is now a Sunday ritual: A romp through the SharePoint information that clogs my newsreader. I prefer to write about search in SharePoint, but a number of interesting, content related items caught my attention.
The Budget Black Hole
SharePoint Reviews ran a story called “How Long Is a SharePoint Project.” You can read it here. The author said: “Of course, a SharePoint Project is never complete as it keeps growing and changing…” Ah, a never ending project. But in today’s lousy economic climate I wonder what the appetite of the CFO will be for a techie who sucks money with no end point in sight. Sort of a problem, perhaps? The author includes the 14 stages in a SharePoint project. I would insert a 15th. Seek a new job.
Azure Portal
Gunnar Peipman wrote “Azure Developer Portal: Some Screenshots” here. I find much about the Azure project confusing, but the screenshots shows two application instances which then become one application instance. This is not an error. Azure allowed Mr. Peipman was allowed one instance. Bug? Feature? Conservation of energy? The screenshots are a bit confusing and I don’t know if Azure caused the problem. I appreciated his comment: “Sorry for the mess.” I can’t wait to see how search runs from Azure in a high demand environment. Will that one instance haul the water?
Third Party Tools in SharePoint
Quite a few SharePoint clients use third party tools to find information in SharePoint. The solutions I find work pretty well include but are not limited to Coveo, Exalead, and ISYS Search Software, among others. There are some useful facts that can make life with these third party systems happier for the SharePoint administrator who wants to leave early and have free weekends. First, click here and read “Using Third Party Tools in SharePoint”. Second, save the file and keep in handy for future reference. Among the useful tips is this one: “Understand in detail what it will take to provide an evaluation & test of the third party tool(s) assuming you will set up an separate environment to do it.” Good round up of what most system pros learn in training.
Product Wackiness
Finally, I want to call your attention to “SharePoint Designer and Expression Web – Separated at Birth” here. I have seen copies of Expression Web in the local Office Depot. The SharePoint designer is a freebie. This article takes a run at explaining the “difference” between the two products. These bastard spawn of the aging FrontPage have one big difference when it comes to SharePoint. Expression Web can’t edit SharePoint sites. Pretty wacky to me. Oh, don’t forget VisualStudio. We have needed that tool to go where the SharePoint Designer fears to tread. Nice.
Microsoft Fast
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to a news item here pointing out that Microsoft Fast Norway wants to hire some “Live Search” type people. Must be the same manager who cooked up Expression and Designer.
Stephen Arnold, April 13, 2009
Google: A Static Filled Channel
April 13, 2009
Mine That Data has an interesting take on Google. Click here to read “Role of a Channel: Google.” The article left me with the impression that Google has not been an ideal channel for some of its partners, users, and customers. You will want to read the original analysis by Kevin Hillstrom and make up your own mind. Mr. Hillstrom raised some interesting questions. When I tried to answer them, I noted that Google seems to have some areas in which to improve. For example, Mr. Hillstrom asked, “Does the channel aid in customer service?” I must admit Google won’t talk with me. He also asked, “Does the channel feed other channels?” I answered, “No.” Mr. Hillstrom said:
And we consistently find that Google customers have lower lifetime value estimates than customers from other channels. Too often, Google is in isolation mode, yielding low value customers.
I found that I began to perceive Google differently after reading this thought provoking article.
Stephen Arnold, April 13, 2009
Search Results a Cesspool
April 13, 2009
The addled goose is at the end of the trail so I don’t pay much attention to link farms, traffic scams, and online advertising. I was shocked when I read Frank Watson’s “Extortion SEO Sanctioned by Google” here. If true, I have been misunderstanding how the Google operated. Mr. Watson wrote:
There’s a much more successful way to play Google these days — just build a site that can rank for companies or individuals and write crap about them. Once the posts start appearing in the search results, these entities will get in touch with you to remove them and you can charge them for it.
Mr. Watson then asserted:
The king of these programs is Ripoff Report — the darling of Google. Matt Cutts has defended them and their right to publish defaming information — and he has two reports in there himself. Inclusion of information like this makes me agree that the search engine results are “cesspools” — though Yahoo, Microsoft, and the other engines seem to be wise to Ed Magedson, the site’s founder.
Take a look at a site called Ripoff Report. You will have to make your own decision about Mr. Watson’s allegations. Post your views.
Stephen Arnold, April 13, 2009
Google and News Irrigation
April 13, 2009
The Washington Post’s Erick Schonfeld asked a question to which I knew the answer. The question here was: “Does Google Really Control the News?” Mr. Schonfeld answers the question by walking down the road, sometimes veering left and sometimes right. He wrote:
The bigger question is whether Google as a search engine is controlling access to news sites. That really seems to be Carr’s main concern, although it is not clear because he uses a Google News search as his main example. Nevertheless, Google’s main search engine is certainly a major source of traffic to information sites of all stripes. At TechCrunch, for instance, it is the single largest source of traffic, accounting for about a third of the total. I have no idea whether this is representative of other news sites, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Google search is a very important middleman indeed.
Mr. Schonfeld’s hook for this story is the Nick Carr posting about Google as middleman here. I want to steer clear of this discussion. My views appear in my forthcoming study Google: The Digital Gutenberg. I do want to ask several questions:
- What if Google embodies creating, intermediating, distributing, and monetizing functions in one system?
- With users clicking on services, are not the users making a decision, which may, of course, be limited by the function of the natural monopoly?
- If one outfit is in charge, is this going to leave much doubt about who steers the automobile?
Stephen Arnold, April 12, 2009
Hakia: Taking on Google
April 12, 2009
I find these stories about search systems that will challenge Google fascinating. One of the more recent ones I saw was an April 6, 2009, article “Is Hakia.com the Search Engine That Is Going to Challenge Google?” which appeared in My Questions, a South African Web log here. The story provides a useful summary of the features of the Hakia semantic system. I ran an interview with one of the Hakia founders, Riza Berkan, in August 2008. You can read that exclusive interview here. The point that jumped out at me in the My Questions’ write up was this comment:
The results are ranked according to the relevant site and the categories that they belong to.
There is a growing interest in the authority of a source. The role that a subject matter expert, a Ph.D. committee, or a reference librarian once played has to make its ways to software. The present financial climate and the inefficiency of finding a reliable way to validate a source make human methods highly variable. Software, with its machine like consistency, seems to offer a solution. Hakia has probed this issue and includes this component in its search results ranking.
Another comment that caught my attention was:
Hakia is a very good search engine but it still has a lot of ground to cover before it can take over much of the market the Google has. We will only have to see with time how the market receives it.
I think Hakia has much to commend it. My recollection is that the company’s processing of health and medical information was quite useful. In my experience, semantic processes often work more quickly and reliably when processing content that is about a specific subject area. But technology continues to improve and some vendors, like Autonomy, emphasize that their systems can adapt to a changing flow of content. I have been around a long time, and I think that “drift” remains a challenge for many search and content processing vendors.
The effort of carpetbaggers and azure chip consultants to sell taxonomy as a silver bullet is pragmatic. With a managed list of terms or categories, the content can be put in a pigeonhole. There may be drift, but the categories act as a red herring for other indexing flaws.
With the deteriorating financial climate, many search vendors will be forced to retrench or exit the business. Each week I hear rumors about companies that are either for sale, seeking investors, or preparing to close their doors. I will have to follow up with Hakia to see if the company still wants to challenge Google.
Stephen Arnold, April 12, 2009
Ferris Research Content Processing Gossip
April 12, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to this thread about Autonomy. I did some url shaving and located a pointer page here that presents comments about eDiscovery vendors. I have no opinion about the validity of the comments, but I find the tone and themes interesting. Autonomy gets dinged for management. Clearwell merits a post that points out that license fees rose 25 percent in January 2009. Interesting service provided by Ferris Research here.
Stephen Arnold, April 12, 2009
SharePoint Success Now Ensured
April 12, 2009
his headline grabbed my attention: “Information Architected Inc. Releases New Methodology to Ensure SharePoint Success” here. The item is a news release from Information Architected Inc., a “consultancy focused on the intelligent use of content, knowledge and processes to drive innovation and thrive in a digital world.” Here’s what the news release said about the methodology:
The methodology is executed in three stages. It begins with an assessment of overall business goals and objectives. It identifies and ranks the business issues associated with the SharePoint implementation, expected outcomes and benefits targeted. The assessment includes a rationalization of the needs for collaboration and knowledge sharing versus the needs for compliance and security. It also examines user work habits, the need to collaborate, search and navigation habits and needs, related processes and overall business goals and objectives.
The second step looks at current and planned technology strategies. This includes everything from network capacity, to existing and planned tools and techniques for collaboration. This can include existing portals, document and content management systems, enterprise 2.0 technologies, and any existing SharePoint sites.
The third step aligns the findings of the first two steps, resulting in an implementation strategy that balances technology capabilities with business requirements. Alternatives are presented that highlight alternative cost and change management issues associated with the SharePoint implementation. For each targeted goal or benefit, alternatives regarding deployment in SharePoint “out of the box integration of SharePoint with existing systems, customization of SharePoint and/or simple tweaks of SharePoint are compared. The solution is positioned within an information architecture, ensuring easier and wider scale adoption and alignment with corporate governance. The result is a well thought out business-technology strategy that maximizes the value derived from SharePoint and minimizes any risks of shortcomings in the short and long-term.
That’s fine but the buzzword density is a bit high for this addled goose’s taste.
What stopped me was the implication that whatever methodology existed prior to the release of Information Architected’s method must be flawed. I pondered the implications of 100 million SharePoint installations less successful than their users originally anticipated. I have been baffled by SharePoint, which is a snowball type of server from Microsoft. Each year SharePoint picks up more functions which are often mashed into the server product, but not fully integrated. What began life as a content management system, now operates like a Universal home gym. One big, heavy structure that can be used like a gymful of exercise equipment. I hope the new method that “ensures” success gets traction. Mud wrestling with SharePoint can be hazardous to one’s standing in the eyes of colleagues. And search? Make friends with the chief financial officer too.
Stephen Arnold, April 12, 2009
Composite Software
April 12, 2009
I was asked about data virtualization last week. As I worked on a short report for the client, I reminded myself about Composite Software, a company with “data virtualization” as a tagline on on its Web site. You can read about the company here. Quick take: the firm’s technology performs federation. Instead of duplicating data in a repository, Composite Software “uses data where it lives.” If you are a Cognos or BMS customer, you may have some Composite technology chugging away within those business intelligence systems. The company opened for business in 2002 and has found a customer base in financial services, military systems, and pharmaceuticals.
The angle that Composite Software takes is “four times faster and one quarter the cost.” The “faster” refers to getting data where it resides and as those data are refreshed. Repository approaches introduce latency. Keep in mind that no system is latency free, but Composite’s approach minimizes latency associated with more traditional approaches. The “cost” refers to the money saved by eliminating the administrative and storage costs of a replication approach.
The technology makes use of a server that handles querying and federating. The user interacts with the Composite server and sees a single-view of the available data. The system can operate as an enabling process for other enterprise applications, or it can be used as a business intelligence system. In my files, I located this diagram that shows a high level view of Composite’s technology acting as a data services layer:
A more detailed system schematic appears in the companies datasheet “Composite Information Server 4.6” The here. A 2009 explanation of the Composite virtualization process is also available from the same page as the information server document.
The system includes a visual programming tool. The interface makes it easy to point and click through SQL query build up. I found the graphic touch for joins useful but a bit small for my aging eyeballs.
If you are a fan of mashups, Composite makes it possible to juxtapose analyzed data from diverse sources. The company makes available a white paper, written by Bloor Research, that provides a useful round up of some of the key players in the data discovery and data federation sector. You have to register before you can download the document. Start the registration process here.
Keep in mind that this sector does not include search and content processing companies. Nevertheless, Composite offers a proven method for pulling scattered, structured data together into one view.
Stephen Arnold, April 12, 2009
YAGG: Google Japan Scrambled Results
April 12, 2009
Network World reported the Google Blogoscoped story about “Google Japan Bug Showed Gibberish Results” here. For me, the key sentence in the news story was:
According to sources cited by Asiajin.com, the garbled pages sent to Japanese users (and some users of other languages) did not have a correct UTF8 character encoding…
Is this Yet Another Google Glitch? Hard to say but apparently some of the Google users in Japan thought the results were in Turkish.
Stephen Arnold, April 12, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
