Associated Press and Facebook
June 22, 2009
Ryan Tate’s “AP Tells Reporters to Muzzle Facebook Friends” may be an indication that the Bozeman Syndrome is spreading. Bozeman, as you may recall wanted job applicants to provide user names and passwords for social networking site. I have a short item about this that will run in the future. Bozeman’s officials changed their minds, but the idea, in my opinion, may have meme power. (For information on the Bozeman request KTVQ, a Montana news outlet, offered up “Bozeman City Job Requirement Raises Privacy Concerns”.)
Mr. Tate’s story is not directly connected with Montana. But I perceive thin shoots of reaching toward the idea that an employee may not have tight control over social network memberships or participation. Mr. Tate wrote:
Someone sent us the Associated Press‘ guidelines for staff social networking and, in keeping with company tradition, they’re on the paranoid side. You should probably read them, since basically everyone in the world must now follow them. The AP’s Facebook and Twitter policies are less draconian than, say, Bloomberg’s, but that’s not saying much. They do sound, on the whole, reasonable, until you stop and ponder a few of the specifics.
My hunch is that this idea will find a quick uptake because some senior managers see social networking participation as falling within their span of interest. One of the goslings manages my social network participation, and I wonder if such control is possible. I delegate it, and I can think of several work arounds. When I squeeze a tube of super glue too firmly, the substance gets out of the tube. The metaphor may apply to social network controls.
The information can be “out there” and real time search tools allows me to find it. What’s missing is the “real” name of the person or software pumping out the content. So, what’s more important: finding the person who sent out the info or the info itself? Maybe both. Will stopping one ensure stopping the other?
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Social Networks, Mobile Operators and Telcos Dust Up Coming
June 21, 2009
Short honk: “Head of Mobile Bebo on Why We Don’t Need Mobile Operators” seemed to be just another complaint about telcos. But after you read the article, do you think another seismic wave may be building in the datasphere? Sean Kane (Head of Mobile from social networking service Bebo) asserted, according to the GoMoNews writer Bena Roberts:
He [Sean Kane] said that apart from messaging, Bebo didn’t need mobile operators. He said that the most important asset an operator had was mobile messaging and the SMSC was vital for bebo. But that was about it. Bebo was already a leader in social networking. It was already a leader in mobile messaging boasting the largest youth exchange of messages already that it was an asset. He said that mobile was great but that the mobile operator were only one obese side of the equation and bebo was like an application that by-passed the operator.
But the killer was Ms. Roberts statement:
Now, everything that Sean said made a lot of sense. Making money is vital and any one that thinks there is something more or else than money out there – is just wrong. On top of that anyone with a business model that depends on operators and is not D2C at this stage – is flawed.
My thought was the economic pressure will spark the type of warfare that made European History so tough for me when I had to take the class. Strange names, continual squabbling, and deep rooted animosity. Is this the future for social networks, mobile operators, and telcos? Finding messages within these services is already tough, and I think search in the mobile space may become even more fractured. Who can ride to the rescue? Maybe Wave?
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
Overflight Adds Coveo
June 21, 2009
Short honk: If you want to see what’s new with Coveo, you can navigate to the ArnoldIT.com Overflight service. There’s no charge for this auto-generated page that provides a brief description of the company, contact information, and highlights from public information sources about the company. Twitter Tweets about this company are now included.
Stuart Schram IV, June 21, 2009
Microsoft Search Interface
June 21, 2009
Softpedia ran a story that caught my eye. “Bing Has Its Own Ribbon UI” reported that the Bing interface (shown below) has a ribbon. The story quoted Martin Stoddart, a Bing manager, as saying:
“The Explore Pane is one of the ways we are bringing more order to the page. It allows us to provide a set of helpful tools in a consistent location across the Bing experience that enable you to more easily navigate various categories of results relevant to your query, including web, video, image, news, local, shopping, and more… We conducted extensive research in planning Bing. One of the things people told us was that search results pages could be organized more effectively. We found that 66% of people are using search more frequently to help them make decisions. However, they are spending much more time on those decision-oriented sessions – averaging around 9 minutes per session. With that insight, we realized improving page organization to help get users to what they are looking for faster could have a big impact.
The Bing interface consists of several parts. Do you see the ribbon? A “ribbon” to me is:
a woven strip or band of fine material, as silk or rayon, varying in width and finished off at the edges, used for ornament, tying, etc. 2. material in such strips.
Here’s the Bing interface:
The “ribbon” in Office 2007 appears in Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. I don’t recall seeing the ribbon in Outlook 2007 or Visio 2007. I also recall the ribbon in the Office applications as changing (sometimes unexpectedly) depending upon the operation I am trying to perform.
The ribbon in the Bing interface looks different from the ribbon in the Office 2007 applications that have a “ribbon”.
Softpedia said:
Stoddart claims that the Explore Pane is always present in the left hand pane on the page. But this is not true. Or it is true, but only if the user is located in the US, or if the search engine has been set to the US, and not to another part of the world (the UK also gets the Explore Pane). By default, Bing will deliver a localized experience and results to end users based on their location. “The contents of the Explore Pane are highly dynamic. The presence or content of Quick Tabs and Related Searches vary for every different query that you type, while the Search History tool is unique to you as a user,” Stoddart stated.
Here’s my take. Microsoft has different interfaces in Office 2007. The emphasis on user experience or what Microsoft called UX in the presentation I heard on June 4, 2009, is interface design. The goal is to make certain functions and actions obvious. Several comments:
- The notion of a ribbon is okay I suppose, but if you are going to use a “ribbon”, make them consistent. Right now, there is little consistency within and across Microsoft products.
- A ribbon can run across or down. The problem is that when something runs down, I see it as a list of hot links. The use of the term “ribbon” doesn’t make much sense to me. When the icons run horizontally across the top of the screen, I see these as icons or to use the Apple word, “dock”. Ribbon is not resonating with my understanding of the word.
- Microsoft is trying to differentiate its search system using visual techniques. That’s good, but the problem is that the options get in the way of finding answers. Presenting me with a mix of visual elements, different file types, text, and other access features takes me time to figure out what’s what. For me, it is easier to read a list of titles and scan snippets.
In short, marketing says one thing and the Microsoft implementation is inconsistent. That’s a problem for an addled goose like me who wants consistency. Google is not perfect, but at this time, the company’s interfaces are more consistent and, hence, more predictable for me. Design for its own sake and inconsistently applied gets in the way sort of like my Web feet.
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
Free Not Free
June 21, 2009
Techradar’s “Why Free Web Services Aren’t Really Free” surprised me. I have been chugging along with the idea that when I navigated to Google’s search page, ran a query, and reviewed results I was using a free service. I have a free Yahoo email account, and I assumed that because I don’t pay Yahoo money, that email service was free. I learned that if I navigate to a freeware site and download a free application, that download service is not providing me with a free service.
I just learned that these services are not free. I needed to shift my thinking because I am not paying money, providing a PayPal cash transfer, or spitting out my credit card number.
Techradar’s point is that “free” does not mean that usage is without a cost. I was thinking about my Econ class in my freshman year at university. The use of certain words separates an econ major from the lowly math or science wonk. Econ revels in notions of “cost” and “value”.
Techradar asserted:
But from a free software perspective, we’re fighting a dangerous battle. Trading one closed-source app for another gets us nowhere, even if the new app happens to come from Google. Yes, the company does appear to have a bottomless source of storage and bandwidth, but would you feel happy recommending Google Docs to your friends if it were run by Microsoft? It’d be just as free and just as featureful – but somehow people have been fooled into thinking that Google can be as proprietary as it wants and we ought not to care. Tim O’Reilly’s classic speech, “The Open Source Paradigm Shift”, makes it clear that the commoditization of operating systems is imminent, with the next war being fought in the web app space. In 10 years’ time your desktop computer will almost certainly run nearly all your programs over the internet, with your OS being a relatively thin shell that fires up a web browser and points you towards the net. If, in that time, all we’ve done is trade offline closed-source apps for online closed-source apps, then everything we’re fighting for will be worthless. I don’t think anyone wants to see that happen.
Ah, I get it. “Lock in”, “rip and replace cost”, and “value of service”.
And why is lock in bad? It seems to be working in a number of business sectors. If I want to fix my Honda, I have to buy my part from Honda because it will in my experience fit, be less of a hassle if it fails, and can be installed by a Honda technician. The benefit of lock in may be utility or a greater good or a perceived value.
Should software and services be different? Customize an open source system using a third party and you have lock in. Tough to get away from this “value” notion and some other economic forces. Maybe “free” is bad for me because I want to pay so I have one throat to choke or at least a number to call when there is a problem.
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
Another Knock against Amazon and Google
June 20, 2009
Cory Doctorow’s “Internet Crapshoot: How Internet Gatekeepers Stifle Progress” opens a new front in the copyright, objectivity, and intellectual property war. The article appeared in Internet Evolution. Mr. Doctorow has a high profile and will elicit significant discussion in the blogosphere. He said:
That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer’s market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold. And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, through malice or negligence, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself, carrying on its cultural discourse — a discourse that ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject.
The article contains five additional sections that lays out clearly Mr. Doctorow’s argument that Amazon and Google represent a challenge to innovation. I found the hooking of the market driven economy to a stifling of innovation refreshing. His conclusion comes right from Speech 101 with a call to action: “Stop working for gatekeepers.” The idea is that individuals can exercise considerable influence over the Amazons and Googles of our market driven world. He asserted:
For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they’re doomed to work for their gatekeepers, rather than the other way around.
Interesting. There are several thoughts flapping through my mind. I will mention one. The short term thinking is going to be tough to shake. There’s the old hierarchy of needs notion. Then there’s the stock market and the imperative to make a buck. And there’s a human’s less than stellar skill in dealing with uncertainty.
In short, gatekeepers have an advantage. Game’s not over, but time is not on the side of anyone except Amazon and Google. Both continue to expand and pretty soon the “space” will be exhausted. A new paradigm will emerge if our pal Hegel is correct. But can those short sighted folks “see” that and make here and now decisions that will exert sufficient influence before monopolies take hold. Maybe? Maybe not? Great for lawyers, though.
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
Collecta Real Time Search
June 20, 2009
Scoopler, OneRiot, ITPints, and others in the real time search space have more competition. I received information directly from a PR firm, but the message pitched OneRiot, using Collecta in the subject line to grab my attention. Sigh. I checked out Collecta, and it seems to use XMPP, a protocol enlisted by the Google for its Wave demo. (Anthony Ha’s “Collecta Says It’s the Fastest Contender in the Real-Time Search Race” for Venture Beat is a useful overview.) The system asserts that it indexes Web sites along with Twitter and RSS feeds. You can set up a “river” of hits on a topic which I found useful. Worth taking a closer look.
Stephen Arnold, June 20, 2009
YouTube Searching
June 20, 2009
Web Pro News published “New Ways to Search on YouTube” on June 19, 2009. The Google seems to be making an effort to introduce mild search tweaks. Chris Crum has a good run down of changes to YouTube.com search. Among the more interesting features is the introduction of an advanced search function. Advanced search features are used by a small percentage of Web search users. Google offers a range of parametric options, including when a video was pumped into the Google and its duration.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2009
FastForward Covers Exalead
June 20, 2009
Short honk: I was delighted to read “Expanding the Role and Capabilities of Search for the Enterprise” in the FastForward Web log. The author, Bill Ives, does a good job of covering what sets Exalead apart in the enterprise sector. I would have liked a bit more meat on the bone with regard to Exalead’s architecture because that is one of the key distinguishing features of the Exalead system. Without plumbing that is scalable and extensible, organizations cannot cope with the increasing flows of electronic information. Applications rest on a solid foundation. That’s what Exalead has because the engineering vision was cohesive, quite like the approach of the Google. Exalead is the real deal and operates without baggage, apologies, and work arounds in my experience.
Stephen Arnold, June 20, 2009
IBM and Getting Traffic
June 19, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Bill Hunt, who is on the Board of Directors of the Search Engine Marketing Professionals Organization or SEMPO. The case study is about IBM. I have written about the frustration I encountered when using the IBM Web search system. This case study makes it clear that IBM’s focus is on traffic to its Web site, not making the Web site coherent to a human looking for information about a FRU or replacement power supply for an i series machine.
Mr. Hunt’s presentation can be obtained via Slideshare.net. You will be able to view the presentation in Slideshare’s microscopic font. To download the presentation, you will need to register, log in, and navigate to this page: http://www.slideshare.net/OMShare/enterprise-search-ibm-case-study-by-bill-hunt?nocache=8495.
Several comments:
- IBM, according to Mr. Hunt, has “many cooks”. The site is dense, complex, and focuses not on providing information to customers, but upon selling new ideas and products in my opinion. Frankly, I don’t know where to look on the page. If you don’t know the official, current product nomenclature, it can be really tough to locate technical information.
- Because the focus is on, according to the presentation, “driving increased visits and qualified traffic to IBM.com from external search engines,” I think the lousy search system shows where the Web site manager’s emphasis is: traffic to IBM from referrers. The idea that a person would navigate to IBM to look for something is not on the Web site manager’s radar. For that reason, I just don’t agree with this statement in Mr. Hunt’s presentation: Search is integrated throughout our programs as part of an end-to-end approach supported by back end systems. Web site search doesn’t work very well. SEO experts’ definitions of “search” are usually based on assumed understanding. Best to un-assume when the addled goose thinks about search.
- Mr. Hunt provides data that shows how muddled the meaning of search is. A chart called “Building the Case” asserts that if your site does not appear high in a search engine result list, money goes elsewhere. IBM has to get “search” right – search means appearing in a results list, remember – or the $100 billion company loses some money. The chart on slide 5 uses a figure of $1,470,620. I am not sure how Mr. Hunt gets from 180,808 searches to $1,470,620, but the number looks precise, I suppose.
- Mr. Hunt suggested on slide 7 that a “Site Wide Algorithm Compliance Audit” is a useful step. Sounds like a consulting gig to me. Slide 8 shows how templates can be twiddled to make them search engine friendly. I think the idea is that concrete nouns make content processing useful in handling user queries, but this type of stuff reminds me of English 101 injunctions.
- Slide 11 shows a mind numbing amount of data. I have to confess, I have zero idea what a PLP is, what a Brand page is, and what is means to be right 17 percent of the time. This sounds like the surgery success rate of a doctor in the US in 1820.
If you are interested in what appears the steps IBM went through to rank high in Google results lists, this is the presentation for you. For me, I would be happy if IBM put a decent search engine on its Web site (maybe Exalead or Google Custom Search), standardized reference to product names, and refresh the side index so stuff the PR department pumps out is findable on the IBM.com Web site.
I went through the SEMPO SEO case with an open mind, but I am fearful that a quest for spoofing the Google has gotten in the way of making the site useful to humans who are or were IBM customers. Oh, FRU is field replaceable unit. If you can’t do it yourself, IBM tech support will roll for nearly $800 not including on site time to plug the FRU into a slot. You have to get to $100 billion any way you can.
Stephen Arnold, June 19
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
