Documenting the Demise of Newspapers
June 2, 2009
The write up carries the name “Harvard.” Bow down. It is also branded Nieman. Another genuflection, please. And, to top it off, there is a reference to the Washington Post. I had to read this essay by Dan Froomkin, whose name is not a household word in the goose pond. You can find “Why “Playing It Safe” Is Killing American Newspapers” here. For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was this passage:
If we were to start an online newspaper from scratch today, we’d recognize that toneless, small-bore news stories are not the way to build a large audience — not even with “interactive” bells and whistles cobbled on top. One option might be to imitate cable TV, and engage in a furious volume of he-said/she-said reporting, voyeurism, contrarianism, gossip, triviality and gotcha journalism. But that would come at the cost of our souls. The right way to reinvent ourselves online would be to do precisely what journalists were put on this green earth to do: Seek the truth, hold the powerful accountable, expose the B.S., explain how things really work, introduce people to each other, and tell compelling stories. And we should do all those things passionately and courageously — not hiding who we are, but rather engaging in a very public expression of our journalistic values.
A couple of thoughts:
- Aggregation methods are the newspapers for the Web set
- Big publishing companies have experimented their hearts out for decades. Anyone remember the original Wall Street Journal Online service with BRS search? Didn’t work then, and the system doesn’t work now. The business model is the little crippler I think.
- Check out Google Wave. That’s a publishing platform in my opinion.
In short, good essay. Hose off the tumbrels.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
Bartz Reveals the Truth about Bing to Microsoft
June 2, 2009
In the oh-so-in group that comprises the All Things Digital conference, many interesting side stories unfold. You have to be there to get the real scoop. But the hot fudge, whip cream, and cherry on top go to those who get to fiddle with the detritus of a conference. I read “Bartz’s (S)mash Note to Ballmer: The Photographic Proof” here and realized that sometimes in the leave behinds are factoids of hard truth. First you need to read Kara Swisher’s article. Then look closely at the pink sticky note and look at the accompanying transcription. Set up: Carol Bartz, cruise directory of the SS Yahoo wrote to Steve Ballmer, captain of the $65 billion Redmond class war ship:
Steve, Forget it. Won’t Help. Ha. Carol
Addled geese are not at All Things Digital. Guests must leave dogs and other no hip creatures outside. I wasn’t there. But I can from my pond filled with Beargrass Creek pollutants offer Jacques Derrida like observations:
- The pronoun “it” lacks an antecedent. Because Mr. Ballmer spoke and demonstrated the Bing Kumo search system, I must assume that “it” is that search system.
- If the “it” is Bing Kumo, the statement “Forget it” introduces another ambiguity. Is the second “it” a reference to Bing Kumo. If so, Ms. Bartz is suggesting that Microsoft forget Bing Kumo. More colloquially, the phrase “forget it” said to me, “Dude, Bing Kumo cannot close the gap between Microsoft and Google in the Web search sector.
- The “ha” is also ambiguous. One can interpret this “ha” as an inside joke, discounting or disclaiming the implication that Bing Kumo is a loser. On the other hand, perhaps the “ha” means a Jay Leno Jaywalker “ha” where people laugh at others’ weaknesses.
In short, lots of ambiguity, but possibly a grain of truth. Here in Harrod’s Creek, the sticky note, the ambiguity, and the reference to getting one’s make up done underscores how far away the addled goose is from the real action in the world of Web search. Thank goodness there are neither make up artists nor pink sticky notes in these here parts. We don’t even have an in crowd unless you include the bikers who hit the River Creek Inn on Sunday morning before the church goers show up for brunch and a whistle wetting drink.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
A Wave Wipe Out
June 1, 2009
I tracked down “A Curmudgeonly Look at Google Wave” on DaniWeb here after a person mentioned it on a phone call this afternoon. I must admit. I have not given Google Wave too much thought. It struck me as a container for integrated communication services. I will be going into this metaphor at my talk on Thursday morning at the Gilbane Conference in San Francisco. I am neutral about Wave because it is a response to Twitter, SharePoint, and Microsoft. The DaniWeb author is also on the fence even though the word “curmudgeonly” suggests a slight negative slant. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
After watching the presentation, I wondered about the complexity of the interface and the number of adjustments you could make, and if this could have an impact on mass adoption (say on the scale of Gmail). Twitter is about as simple as you can get, 140 character limit and click Send and some people still have trouble understanding the nuances. Wave is a magnitude more complex and I wonder if this will hold back adoption beyond the technical elite.
Yep, complexity. Googlers sprint from sales lead to sales lead insisting that search is simple. Wave isn’t, at least not now. Very Microsofty in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 5, 2009
Francois Schiettecatte, FS Consulting
June 1, 2009
Through a mutual contact, I reconnected with François Schiettecatte, a search engine expert with other computer wizard skills in his toolbox. Mr. Schiettecatte worked on a natural language processing project in the late 1990s. He shifted focus and was a co-founder of Feedster.com. He told that he had contributed to a number of interesting projects and revealed that he was working on a new search and content processing system.
Mr. Schiettecatte consented to an interview. I spoke with him on May 29, and I put the full text of our discussion in the ArnoldIT.com Search Wizards Speak collection. You can find that series of interviews with influential figures in search and content processing here.
Mr. Schiettecatte and I had a lively discussion and he offered some interesting insights into the trajectory of search and retrieval. Let me highlight two of his comments and invite you to read the full text of the discussion here.
In response to a question about the new start ups entering the search and retrieval sector, Mr. Schiettecatte said:
You can apply different search approaches to different data sets, for example traditional search as well as NLP search to the same set of documents. And certain data set will lend themselves more naturally to one type of search as opposed to another. Of course user needs are key here in deciding what approaches work best for what data. I would also add that we have only begun to tackle search and that there is much more to be done, and new companies are usually the ones willing to bring new approaches to the market.
We then discussed the continuing interest in semantic technology. On this matter, Mr. Schiettecatte offered:
More data to search usually means more possible answers to a search, which means that I have to scan more to arrive at the answer, improved precision will go a long way to address that issue. A more pedestrian way to put this is: “I don’t care if there are about a million result, I just want the one result”. Also, having the search engine take the extra step in extracting data out of the search results and synthesizing that data into a meaningful table/report. This is more complicated but I has the potential to really save time in the long run.
For more information about Mr. Schiettecatte’s most recent project, read the full text of the interview here.
Stephen Arnold, June 2, 2009
Google: Reading the Books Saga
June 1, 2009
You can flit from post to post about Google’s decision to sell books. Sigh. The New York Times presented the story as one of those summer blockbusters. You know. A single information product that floats the motion picture industry. If you missed Motoko Rich’s write up, you may be able to find it here. I will leave it to you to decide if this is the end of the studied indifference to Amazon or a stepping stone for “the digital Gutenberg”.
My views are set forth in the final installment of my Google trilogy: The Google Legacy (everyone will do what Google did to reduce the cost of online services), Google Version 2.0 (the shift from human and human centric methods of delivering information to mathematical precepts), and Google: The Digital Gutenberg (Google is the new River Rouge of electronic information). If you want to look at these studies which date from 2005, you can find more information here.
My take is that the Amazon-Google dust up is a David and Goliath skirmish. The Google Books affair is one step in a broader undertaking. The real action will be monitoring the dataspace of Google Wave. Wave is “new”, fuzzy, and interesting to nerds.
My suggestion is that publishers, journalists, pundits, and mavens will want to shift from shock and awe to the main theater. One needs to know at what to look and then prioritize Google’s activities. Sue Feldman and I prepared a report in September 2008 that provides additional insight. If you have access to IDC research reports, you may want to review Report Number 213562.
I used an illustration in Google Version 2.0 showing Sergey Brin as a magician, holding fire in his hand. In my opinion, folks are watching the fire, not the play itself.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
