Digg Search Changes
April 10, 2009
I don’t pay much attention to Digg.com. I checked the site last week, found an annoying toolbar, and exited the site. The Digg.com Web log here reported that Digg.com has a new search system. I can’t determine whether this is a home grown system, a home grown system plus Microsoft, or a Microsoft based system. If you know the ingredients, let me know. The new system, according the the Digg.com Web log, “99.987% Less Suck“. Among the enhancements is support for bound phrases, facets, Boolean NOT, and better performance. I ran a couple of queries and observed:
- For my query “Google patents”, the results relevance ranking was odd. My Google patent index was listed fourth. What troubled me was that the top ranked results dated from 2006. I could not see a one click method to sort by date. Google Products offers this feature as does my Exalead index of Google Web logs.
- I ran a query for the blog tool du jour, Squarespace. There were results, but the top ranked result dated from 2005. Inspection revealed that there were meatier and potentially more relevant results deep in the results list.
- I ran a query for a story from 48 hours ago–Eric Schmidt and the speech before the newspaper association. I ran this as a free text query: eric schmidt newspaper association. Bingo. Happiness.
My conclusions are that this search implementation is okay. I will probably stick with free text queries and skip the Boolean. With tweaking, Digg.com’s “less suck” search solution strikes me as pretty good. I will check it out in four or five months. Now about that toolbar?
Stephen Arnold, April 10, 2009
Microsoft: Focusing on Search
April 10, 2009
Every few months I learn that Microsoft is focusing on search. The story today (March 9, 2009) appeared on the Industry Standard’s Web site here. Paul Boutin’s “Microsoft Cuts Live Labs Staff by Half, Refocuses on Search” explained that Live Labs (I am not sure what that unit does) will work with fewer wizards. These wizards will focus on search. Mr. Boutin’s include a segment that I found interesting:
At least for now, you can browse the names and headshots of most of the Live Labs team, pre-reassignment. A separate page Live Labs projects. The group, formally announced in January 2006, even posted a rambling Manifesto.
I took a look at the manifesto and noted that it was written in 2006 before Google had rolled out its Apps and App Engine. In 2006, the GOOG had only about 45 percent of the Web search market. (Today Googzilla is in the 75 percent range.) This passage from the Manifesto caught my eye:
We intend for and anticipate that other parts of Microsoft will join Live Labs by either directly funding new positions within its formal structure, or by aligning the mission of existing teams to Live Labs’ larger mission.
The change reported by the Industry Standard suggests that these intentions and anticipated actions did not come to pass.
Stephen Arnold, April 10, 2009
Mixed Digital Arts Show Down: Google vs Photographer
April 10, 2009
The Telegraph’s story “Google Street View Cameraman in Row with Photographer” is a classic in my opinion. You can read the dead tree full text version here. The nub of the story is that allegedly a Googler was driving one of those Googley, camera vehicles. The idea was to take pictures for Google’s Street View. The Googler allegedly saw a person with a camera photographing the Googzilla-mobile. The Googler driving the car spoke with the individual who was taking pictures. The Telegraph reported:
The Google driver then proceeded to shout at the photographer and said: “Don’t you take pictures of me, mate.” He then asked the photographer to blur his face out of the pictures as Google does in its Street View images. The photographer managed to get about six to eight photographers of the car which had a pole-mounted revolving camera protruding from the top.
Wow. I wonder if I will need a bodyguard when I give a talk that describes what I have learned about Google from open source information. Perhaps I can wear my bunny rabbit ears? No one picks on a bunny.
Stephen Arnold, April 10, 2009
Bob Boiko, Exclusive Interview
April 9, 2009
The J Boye Conference will be held in Philadelphia, May 5 to May 7, 2009. Attendees can choose from a number of special interest tracks. These include strategy and governance, Intranet, Web content management, SharePoint, user experience, and eHealth. You can get more information about this conference here.
One of the featured speakers, is Bob Boiko, author of Laughing at the CIO and a senior lecturer at the University of Washington iSchool. Peter Sejersen spoke with Mr. Boiko about the upcoming conference and information management today.
Why is it better to talk about “Information Management” than “Content Management”?
Content is just one kind of information. Document management, records management, asset management and a host of other “managements” including data management all deal with other worthy forms of information. While the objects differ between managements (CM has content items, DM has file, and so on) the principles are the same. So why not unite as a discipline around information rather than fracture because you call them records and I call them assets?
Who should be responsible for the information management in the organization?
That’s a hard question to answer outside of a particular organizational context. I can’t tell you who should manage information in *your* organization. But it seems to me in general that we already have *Information* Technology groups and Chief *Information* Officers, so they would be a good place to start. The real question is are the people with the titles ready to really embrace the full spectrum of activities that their titles imply
What is your best advice to people working with information management?
Again, advice has to vary with the context. I’ve never found two organizations that needed the same specific advice. However, we can all benefit from this simple idea. If, as we all seem to believe, information has value, then our first requirement must be to find that value and figure out how to quantify it in terms of both user information needs and organizational goals. Only then should we go on to building systems that move information from source to destination because only then will we know what the right sources and destinations are.
Your book “Laughing at the CIO” has a catchy title, but have you ever laughed at you CIO yourself?
I don’t actually. But it is always amazing to me how many nervous (and not so nervous) snickers I hear when I say the title. The sad fact is that a lot of the people I interact with don’t see their leadership as relevant. Many (but definitely not all) IT leaders forget or never knew that there is an I to be lead as well as a T. It’s not malicious, it has just never been their focus. I gave the book that title in an attempt to make it less ignorable to IT leaders. Once a leader (or would be leader) picks the book up, I hope it helps them build a base of strength and power based on the strategic use of information as well as technology.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a company based in Denmark?
Janus and his crew are dynamite organizers. They know how to make a conference much more than a series of speeches. They have been connecting professionals and leaders with each other and with global talent for a long time. Those Danes get it and they know how to get you to get it too.
Peter Sejersen, J Boye. April 9, 2009
Why Traditional Media Companies Cannot Innovate
April 9, 2009
Eric Schmidt suggested that newspapers innovate to generate revenue. A reader sent me a link to an essay called “Startup #119: Why Startup Innovation Kicks Corporate Booty” by Joseph Ansanelli here. I found this write up quite good. I downloaded it and printed it out. I think I will be able to reference it in my upcoming iBreakfast talk about Google’s newspaper “issue” in New York on April 23, 2009.
Mr. Ansanelli hits the nail on the head. Technology is not the problem. What is? Mr. Ansanelli identifies three factors: People, freedom, and failure. In my opinion, a large media company is a political animal fueled by soft skills. Instead of figuring out technology, the media wizards talk about color. Color is important as is design. The problem is that innovation in a media company is different from the type of innovation one finds in a engineering centric start up.
Mr. Ansanelli wrote:
You need to invest money in lots of projects and only a few will succeed. Corporations cannot typically afford to do this. Which is why the most common route for successful innovation for large corporations is through acquisition of these companies. It is far less expensive and risky to acquire an ongoing business that has proven itself then to invest in the 50 different ideas to try and find one that works.
With newspapers starved for cash, in my opinion, innovation is going to find itself starving for cash. No money, innovation will die from a lack of oxygen.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Microsoft Search: A Brand Problem
April 9, 2009
I love trophy generation simplifications. I don’t think most of these folks know why Google continues to widen its lead in Web search. Sure, the trophy generation perceives itself as expert online searchers and savvy in the ways of electronic information. The confidence, in my opinion, is not based on substance in most cases.
Consider this article: “Microsoft Faces Branding Problem In Effort to Top Google.” This is from the Wall Street Journal Web log machine, and you must read it here. I hope it is online when you click the link. The WSJ is in the forefront of online information success, well, semi-success. The author (Nick Wingfield) simplifies the problem of disabling Googzilla as a “branding problem.” Mr. Wingfield wrote:
Even though Microsoft still finds itself in a distant third-place position in its share of the online search market behind Google and Yahoo, with just over 8% of searches by U.S. users, Mr. Mehdi says the mood in the search group is upbeat. “It’s a very visceral feeling in the hallways,” he says.
I like the “visceral” image. My stomach would be churning too if my search service was losing ground to Google as every newspaper person in the universe is attacking Googzilla for its pillaging of the traditional media.
Let’s think about this:
- Who uses Google? The children of the people who work in traditional companies finding themselves marginalized because their technology and product appeal doesn’t have much magnetism. Google is a lot of things, but it lets users discover Google. In fact, Google’s sales and marketing are pretty terrible, but it makes no difference. The difference is not brand. The difference is that users perceive Google as a problem solver when it comes to electronic information. The brand and the market share are a consequence, not a cause.
- What gives the GOOG an advantage over companies with people as smart or smarter than Google? In my experience, when a Microsoft executive or a Yahoo engineers joins Google, the GOOG keeps on rolling. The company makes the difference. Employees fit in or leave. After a decade, there are plenty of Xooglers working at competitive firms, but as yet, none of these outfits have been able to hobble the Google. What’s the difference? My thought is management and management methods such as they are at Google.
- Whose technology is better? There are some companies who are better at certain technical functions than the GOOG. I think Relegence.com does a better job with mashups. But overall, the GOOG is good at plumbing, automated processes, smart software and programming tools. I think it is tough to be the Google without the Google infrastructure. Most people don’t know what to make of Google’s cost and performance advantages. My research suggests that these factors are important because without a way to scale, the Google can’t keep up with the load. While not perfect, the GOOG is darn good.
The positive spin on Microsoft search is interesting, but it is not going to close the gap between Microsoft and Google any time soon in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Outwit: An Information Access Assistant
April 9, 2009
OutWit Technologies, http://www.outwit.com/ offers a suite of products through a Firefox 3 extension designed to help streamline your online searches. Its goal is to provide simple, one-function applications: OutWit Docs beta, http://www.outwit.com/products/docs/license.php, finds and collects documents, spreadsheets and presentations and allows you to work with them; With OutWit Images, you can automatically explore Web pages or search engine results for pictures and easily create, save, and share your collections or view them as full-screen slide shows. There’s also OutWit Hub, http://www.outwit.com/products/hub/, an all-purpose Web collection engine. With it you can find, grab and organize all kinds of data and media from online sources. They aim for simple, but I found all these programs a little overwhelming. If you’re in the market for looking at a web page and seeing every link, document and graphic listed on it, OutWit seems comprehensive. Check it out.
Jessica W. Bratcher, April 9, 2009
Oracle: More Google Goodness
April 9, 2009
The disappearance of Oracle’s Secure Enterprise Search 10g behind Oracle’s Gadget Wizard for Google Apps continued. Forbes.com reported in its news release service “Oracle Introduces Oracle Gadget Wizard for Google Apps and Support for Google’s Secure Data Connector” made zero reference to Oracle’s own search solution. I might be missing something, but Oracle–a Google partner–seems to be getting more Googley. You can read the news release / story here. One statement in the news release / story caught my attention:
Now corporations connect selected data elements from within their enterprise with Oracle’s gadgets on their Google Sites. — With the Oracle Gadget Wizard for Google Apps, users can easily build gadgets without any prior programming knowledge. This promotes the development of gadgets that leverage Oracle CRM and will foster the development of gadgets leveraging Oracle CRM, providing customers and partners an opportunity to build new mobile or gadget applications and quickly get new features out to customers.
As I read this, Oracle customers can use various Google functions to boost Oracle’s utility. I suppose that includes the Google Search Appliance as well. I wonder where SES10g fits into this picture.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Google: A Helpful Critique UK Style
April 9, 2009
I enjoy poking fun at the GOOG, but I recognize the important shift it represents. Not surprisingly those who want to keep the Newtonian universe intact are not too thrilled with Googzilla. One of my two or three readers sent me a link to “Google is Just an Amoral Menace” by the wordsmith Henry Porter. You can read this essay here. The write up does a good job of hooking verbal electrodes to various parts of the Google and cranking the voltage. I don’t feel comfortable capturing the verbal pyrotechnics but I would like to call attention to one that I found amusing:
Despite the aura of heroic young enterprise that still miraculously attaches to the web, what we are seeing is a much older and toxic capitalist model – the classic monopoly that destroys industries and individual enterprise in its bid for ever greater profits. Despite its diversification, Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing, merely offering little aggregation, lists and the ordering of information generated by people who have invested their capital, skill and time. On the back of the labour of others it makes vast advertising revenues – in the final quarter of last year its revenues were $5.7bn, and it currently sits on a cash pile of $8.6bn. Its monopolistic tendencies took an extra twist this weekend with rumours that it may buy the micro-blogging site Twitter and its plans – contested by academics – to scan a vast library of books that are out of print but still in copyright.
I recall Mr. Porter turning down an invitation to review my Google studies. These make clear that the GOOG has been chugging away for a decade. Over the past 360 plus months, Google engineers have applied math and technology to information processes. The result is a new type of information system. Google has not done a particularly good job of explaining how MapReduce works, what a container is, or providing a coherent explanation of its semantic methods. I don’t think the GOOG is a secret outfit. I think it is a haven for mathematicians and technologists who are more comfortable with equations and birds of a feather than journalist, public relations, or marketing types.
The world of Newton.
Even more interesting is that my research revealed that Google has not been an innovator in the sense of the guy who ran naked shouting Eureka! centuries ago. Nope. The GOOG amalgamates chunks of tech that deliver results. Because Google focused on scale (necessary to index the dross on the Internet), Google ended up with a machine built to do Web search that quite surprisingly had other uses. My mom did this trick all the time. A milk carton was converted to a flower pot or a clothes pin to a child’s doll. Math folks are clever. Google has lots of math folks. So what’s the big surprise that Google is clever. Remember how most students hated the kid who said, “Train A arrives five minutes before Train B” and then can’t explain how she got the answer. Not only that, the girl of whom I am thinking never worked any steps in any math problem and I was in an advanced class in high school. The teachers were forgiving and let her work on physics while the rest of the class laboriously followed the rules. She’s now a doctor in Colorado and still can’t explain how she “knows” answers. Live with it. That’s what I did. I got an A, but she was in another league.
The world of Google.
I think it is interesting to read the howls against the wind. The problem is that the GOOG is more than a decade old and has become the 21st century equivalent of Stanford-Morgan-Rockefeller-Carnegie. My suggestion. Learn how to surf on Google.
Where were these critics for the last eight or nine years? I wonder if they were using Google Web search and ignoring the company’s surround and seep strategy in publishing and six other business sectors. My research revealed that the GOOG has been running straight and true for a long time in the online world.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Oparla: Pay You to Use Its Search System
April 9, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Oparla. This is a pay you to use it search system. I ran some of my standard queries and found the results useful. The results page is simple, and “beyond search” appears at the top of the results list. I liked this, of course. I don’t know much about the system, and I could not spot a way to sign up and start getting paid. You can read a brief review of the system here. There is some basic information about the service here.
The founder is a British entrepreneur Daniel Jupp. The Web site quoted Mr. Jupp as saying:
Users will also be able to message each other to advise and help each other with searches, something previously used by chat rooms, forums and blogs, but avoided by the search engine creators.
I don’t fully understand the variable payment model, but that does not mean it will not work. The search system launches later this year. I have added it to my watch list.
Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
