Unusual Customers for Microsoft Hotmail
May 3, 2009
Short honk: The Washington Post reported an interesting use and even more intriguing users found Hotmail email reliable and reasonably secure. You must read “Al-Qaida Used Hotmail, Simple Codes in Planning” by Pamela Hess here. The notion of monitoring email appeals to me, and it is clear that a lack of monitoring seems to have come to light. It is also possible that monitoring was in place and did not work.
Ms. Hess wrote:
Al-Marri sent e-mails to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s hotmail account _ HOR70@hotmail.com _ addressed to “Muk” and signed “Abdo.” The details of that code were included in an address book found in an al-Qaida safehouse in Pakistan.
Ms. Hess reported that the Hotmail users tried to get Yahoo to work but were not able to achieve the desired function:
Al-Marri initially tried to use a Yahoo e-mail account to contact Mohammed, but it failed to go through. So he switched to Hotmail as well. When al-Marri arrived in the United States, he created five new e-mail accounts to communicate with Mohammed, using the 10-code to send him his cell phone number in Peoria.
The Post included a photo of one of the individuals who used Hotmail for “secret” messages. Interesting. I am thinking about what Ms. Hess reported. The idea that Microsoft worked is fascinating as is the issue with Yahoo Mail.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Data Managers as Search Engine Experts
May 3, 2009
An unhappy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Information Management’s article “When Data Becomes [sic] Metadata” here. Right off the mark, the word “data” is a plural, so the headline contains a subject verb agreement editor. My thought is that the editors at Information Management were rushing to meet a deadline. Okay. The deeper issue in the story attributed to Steve Hoberman was this passage:
Data managers will be relied upon as experts in search engine technology. We will be asked how search engines work and will be held accountable for analyzing and modeling Web 2.0 components such as tags and ontologies. Users will expect similar results and response times as their search engines for all of their reports and queries. Therefore, there will be an increased focus for us on the physical data model to ensure rapid query response time to match search engine response time.
Yikes. I am not sure what a data manager is. I know for certain that there are not too many search “experts” running around who can deploy a system that works, conforms to the requirements, and remains on time and in budget. I can name five people, and I don’t think any one of those individuals would describe himself or herself as a “data manager”.
More troublesome is the leap from competence in data management to expertise in search. Hogwash. The reason organizations are struggling with information retrieval is often rooted in miserable data management methods. The write up means well but is, in my opinion, likely to set the stage for yet another search and content processing train wreck. This time the engineer is not a consultant from a second or third tier advisory firm in New York. The hands on the controls is a person who is a “data architect” or a “business intelligence professional”.
Who next will receive the title of “search expert”? Perhaps the person who sets up a trade show exhibit at a conference that includes vendors of photocopy equipment?
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
Ray Ozzie of Microsoft on Newspapers
May 2, 2009
PaidContent.org ran a story based on Ray Ozzie statements. You can read Joseph Tartakoff’s “Microsoft’s Ozzie on His Company’s Web Strategy” here. What I found interesting was this statement attributed to Mr. Ozzie who was commenting about the future of newspapers:
There is a new business model with anything that can be delivered digitally,” Ozzie said. “Look what’s happening with news. I’m not certain what the new business model really is but certainly the old business model is impacted … It’s not clear that as these new models come into play whether revenue or profit pool in a given industry is equivalent in the new world as in the old world. Could very well be that the business model is sound in that there is a business but not the size of the business. If journalism is something we care about we’re going to have to find new ways to subsidize that.”
Is Microsoft advocating the newspapers, like GM and Chrysler, be supported by the government via subsidies? Is he underscoring the hopelessness of the present newspaper companies?
The reference to business models interests me because Microsoft’s own business models seem to be sputtering. I wonder if Microsoft will jump into the news business and provide the much-needed cash infusion needed to keep traditional news operations heated in the winter and air conditioned in the summer.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Google Microsoft and a Thickening Plot
May 2, 2009
I don’t know if this Web log post on Wired.com is accurate. First, click here to read “Who’s Messing with the Google Book Settlement? Hint: They’re in Redmond, Washington”. Second, think about these issues:
- A $65 billion company using its clout to stir up animosity toward a $20 billion company. This is almost like the Wild West movies that feature a rancher against a sheep herder.
- Are those in publishing pawns or thought leaders in a struggle for their intellectual property and, of course, money?
- Are lawyers willing to take action as long as they are compensated? (I think I know the answer to this question.)
For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was:
It may be a good investment on Microsoft’s part, but doesn’t the Microsoft money taint New York Law School’s efforts? “I’m sure there’s a danger in being perceived as compromised,” says Grimmelmann. “But I know it’s not affecting our work. Microsoft is willing to send us money to do good work with our students and we’re happy to take it.” (Grimmelmann’s own stance on the Google Settlement, first expressed in a blog posting last November, is rather nuanced. He thinks it’s a positive development, but wants significant change — generally, ones that restrain Google. He also says that at various times, his positions on issues have been anti-Microsoft as well as anti-Google.)
More to come whether this story is spot on or off center.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Answering Questions: Three Semantic Hot Rods
May 2, 2009
Short honk: ReadWriteWeb.com published “The Robot Made Me Do It: Comparing Three new Cyborg Q&A Services” is a useful write up here. Marshall Kirkpatrick provides descriptions of Aardvark, Hunch, and Swingly. Each of these services uses sophisticated content processing methods to answer a question typed in a search box. My question: “How many users are able to type a suitable question in a search box?” Q&A technology has a great deal to contribute to search but, in my opinions, as plumbing. Worth downloading and tucking away.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Lousy Sales, Trust Your Search Engine Marketing Consultant
May 2, 2009
Short honk: Remarkable assumptions make this short article quite interesting. The title sets the stage: “Why It’s Important to Trust Your SEM Company in a Down Economy” here. The author Scott Buresh is a search engine marketing consultant, and he addresses an issue that struck me as counter intuitive – trust a marketer. Hmm. Not only is it important to trust a marketer in a lousy economy. You need leads. Do you use your network? Do you make phone calls? Nope, you trust your search engine marketing consultant. Mr. Buresh wrote:
It’s probably true for most businesses that there are fewer people actively searching for their products and services due to the economic climate. Companies reasonably approach this situation thinking, “Why should we pay the same amount in marketing that we’ve traditionally been paying when our current target market has shrunk?”
The points seems reasonable to me, but Mr Buresh has a different viewpoint:
Although the budget you allocate for a search engine marketing company and its services may be fixed, it’s likely that many of your competitors have lost their budgets, opening up the playing field and potentially allowing you to garner more of the business that’s still out there.
You get the idea. I don’t trust search engine marketers in a good economy. In a down economy, I put my billfold in my AMSEC safe and hide the key.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
AP Google Spat
May 2, 2009
Forbes.com’s Dirk Smillie wrote “AP’s Curley Has Fighting Words for Google” at a time when dead tree outfits (my way of describing traditional publishing companies) experience a surge in blood pressure. The GOOG and the AP had a deal for content. Money changed hands. According to Mr. Smillie, presumably in the know with regard to discussions between the information giant of the past (AP) and the information giant of the future (Google), the two are having difficulty communication. Mr. Smillie wrote:
The AP and Google ( GOOG – news – people ) have been debating content and compensation issues for months. In an interview with Forbes on Wednesday, Curley warned that if Google doesn’t strike the right deal with the AP soon, “They will not get our copy going forward.” The threat follows Rupert Murdoch’s accusation earlier this month that Google is committing copyright thievery when it borrows material from news stories to assemble search rankings. A few days later, the AP weighed in with a similar charge–though it did not mention Google–announcing a content protection initiative and threatening legal and legislative action against news aggregators.
I am thrilled to be an addled goose paddling on a pond filled with mine draining run off in rural Kentucky. This battle could be Dickensian. The ghost of information past rails at the ghost of information yet to come. We know the outcome, don’t we?
Google wins.
Now let’s think about why this is, in my opinion, the trajectory of this dispute.
First, the financial ground on which the AP (Associated Press) stands is crumbling. The erosion is not caused by Google. The erosion is a consequence of the flow of bits that are tunneling worm holes in the once solid foundations of the newspaper business. Whatever actions AP takes will be similar to the hapless home owners who use sand to shore up shaky foundations. Wrong material. Wrong action.
Second, the Google is an information platform. If the folks with news want to get their information in front of people, Google is a major distribution channel. But, as described in my new monograph Google: The Digital Gutenberg, the GOOG can make it easy for those with content to monetize that information. One of Google’s disclosed inventions allows a partner to use the Google platform to perform many information functions, including monetization. Should Google wish, in a blink (I wanted to use the word nonce but a reader said it carried negative connotations), Google becomes a Swiss Army knife of news. If Google doesn’t take this step, another online upstart will. AP can’t be that upstart. AP can’t stop the trajectory of online information.
Third, it is too late. The AP inked a deal, thought it knew the ropes, realized it didn’t know the ropes were located in a Costco, and now is trying to advantage itself. In my opinion, Google is not too fond of second chances. As a result, the AP is negotiating from a position of weakness. Maybe the copyright lawyers will have an answer, but I think the children of the AP executives and the copyright attorneys will be the generation that decides in favor of the GOOG or a similar service. Let me repeat: Too late. No more flights to Cleveland today.
Do I agree with Mr. Smillie? He’s an objective reporter. I am writing a Web log, and I think that it’s game over for the AP.
Google and Libraries
May 1, 2009
The USPTO must be clearing backlogs. A flurry of Google patent documents became available. Several were uninteresting (floating data centers, query expansion), but one struck me as having some disruptive potential. I refer to Library Citation Integration, US7526475. You can get the document from the USPTO at http://www.uspto.gov. The abstract stated:
An online search system generates an index of documents using index information received from a library. Some documents have restricted access; some documents may not be available online. The search system provides links to documents in the library as well as other sites based on a search, and may include link resolvers received from the library. The search system provides access links to the link resolvers if an identifier, such as a user identification or IP address, matches an affiliation list from the library.
Why? Think for a moment about the commercial database vendors, the online public access catalog vendors, and the companies building content for institutional use. I thought the pointing function to items in the OCLC system was interesting. This invention gives the Google some an opportunity to stomp, should it choose to do so, in some other vineyards. Who will be squashed into fine wine? I don’t drink, so I might not be affected. Those in the library ecosystem might have a different view.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
Twitter Bashing
May 1, 2009
Short honk: If you hate Twitter, you will love this criticism of Twitter. It appeared on the MadAtoms.com Web log here. The author of “The Devolution of the Internet” by Farley Elliott is entertaining and insightful. Among the weaknesses of Twitter, Mr. Elliott highlighted:
… perhaps the most disgusting part of Twitter is it’s most basic: it is a chatroom. A quick check of the calendar reveals that it’s not 1995. Yet twitter allows in the same riffraff that early chatrooms attracted, but without any of the moderation, or the ability to spend more than 140 characters wording up trolls and goons.
A keeper for sure.
Stephen Arnold, April 30, 2009
Microsoft Has a Top Search Term. Google.
May 1, 2009
The Guardian dropped its Google voodoo doll and pins and picked up a story about Microsoft’s Live.com and the service’s most popular search term. The story ran in the dead tree outfit’s Web log, called PDA The Digital Blog, which is quite trendy and quite a mouthful. The title of the story is “Most Search Term on Microsoft’s Live Search is … Google”. You can read it here. The story, which I found somewhat hard to follow with odd comments such as “More after the jump” inserted in paragraphs in the middle of the text, provides a smattering of statistics and a reference to “a Live Search overhaul” later this spring also puzzled me. I found the write up interesting for two reasons:
First, many people use a default search engine as a portal. It is easier I have been told to type the name of the service in a search box than keying the full location in the browser’s address bar. With lots of Internet Explorers in front of people, it makes sense that a widely used search service like Google would be one of the top terms in any browser.
Second, the data displayed in the write up show (if indeed they are accurate) that only Microsoft is not a top destination on either Google or Yahoo top search listings. I would conclude that people will use Microsoft to go run their queries on other services. Not good news for Microsoft in my part of the goose pond.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
