Facets for Everyone: SharePoint and Metadata
December 5, 2009
SharePoint 2010 allows controlled term indexing and user-assigned index terms (uncontrolled indexing). You can find part done of a discussion of SharePoint 2010’s metadata support in “Managed Metadata in SharePoint 2010 – A Key ECM”. The method contains a number of different steps. That’s par for SharePoint, a software system designed to keep Microsoft
Certified Professionals busy billing. The more important points emerging from the write up are:
- The facility to make controlled terms part of SharePoint can be useful. I wonder, however, however nested taxonomies can be imported via comma separated files. In my experience, correctly presenting categories and subcategories can be tricky. The sample taxonomy, according to the Web log post, was entered manually, and I will have to run some tests to determine if the CSV approach preserves relationships in the hierarchy of terms.
- The procedure for supporting metadata strikes me as less sophisticated than what is available in commercial solutions and certainly far less robust than the professional tool available from Access Innovations
- The mixing of user assigned terms and controlled terms selected from a list can lead to an indexing mess. Most people work from a small set of terms. Over time, documents are tagged with the limited selection of terms so that the result set is too broad. User selected terms fall prey to a similar problem. Users become habituated to a particular set of index terms. When working under time pressure, terms may be assigned by rote, not as a result of careful thinking about retrieval.
I am not a fan of mixing controlled vocabularies with user assigned terms. Machine indexing has some problems as well. The Microsoft approach, if I understand this write up correctly, is to make any type of term indexing available. That type of promiscuous indexing creates big problems as the corpus grows. How are old terms replaced with more current terms? Not referenced, and this common problem is a deal breaker for some types of enterprise information access. Could this approach be amateurish?
Stephen Arnold, December 5, 2009
Oyez, oyez, African Development Foundation, I was not paid to point out the flaws of indexing without a plan.
.”
Cloud Performance
December 5, 2009
After the endnote session at the International Online Show, Charlie Hull, Lemur Consulting, and I were talking about various aspects of open source technology. Mr. Hull has a positive view of open source, and I try to be disputatious whenever possible. Since Mr. Hull purchased my hot chocolate (small hot chocolate, in point of fact), I pushed back a bit. I focused on the issue of performance of certain open source software. Committee built gizmos may lack the trim tummies found in some commercial software solutions. I recalled seeing a performance comparison of some open source and commercial cloud solutions, and I said that I would dig up the article and post a comment.
The write up was “VPS Performance Comparison” in the Journal of Eivind Uggedal. You can see what fun it is to have a hot chocolate with a Lemur and a goose! The guts of this quite interesting piece of research are spilled in several charts. The systems put through their paces via scripts and some test data included:
The results, thoughtfully accompanies by some useful fee metrics, were interesting. The data revealed that both Mr. Hull (the modest lemur) and I (the addled goose) were both correct. He and I also like Banksy, the street artist, and we have several other areas of agreement in common as well. Quite depressing I might add.
I want to urge you to read Mr. Uggedal’s essay, so I will point out one chart that I found illuminating:
I know the lines are difficult to see but the point is that Amazon is predictable if pokey. Several vendors consistently lag others and the top performers in this test which is close to a Web application’s load are zipping right along. The speediest, are summed up by Mr. Uggedal this way:
Linode. 32-bit gave the best results on the Unixbench runs while 64-bit was fastest on the Django and database tests.
Quite a nice piece of work. Lemurs and geese agree that analyses like Mr. Uggedal can shed light on certain technical issues. Nevertheless, I assert that a wet goose is more sleek than the average dry lemur.
Stephen Arnold, December 5, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I wish to disclose that I wrote this essay and referenced Lemur Consulting because I was paid off with a cup of hot chocolate. Small cup, mind you. To whom do I report this commercial transaction. I think the US Federal Aviation Administration has jurisdiction over addled geese. Must comply, of course.
AdWords Gets New Features
December 4, 2009
AdWords has been beefed up. New features include:
- Asynchronous bulk job support: Use BulkMutateJobService to build, schedule, and retrieve jobs that can operate on thousands of campaign objects.
- Location extension support: Use CampaignAdExtensionService to augment the advertiser’s text ads with information about the business’s physical location. An advertiser can also override location extensions on a per-ad basis using AdExtensionOverrideService
- Keyword and placement ideas: Use TargetingIdeaService to generate new keyword and placement ideas for a campaign’s ads.
- API usage retrieval: Use InfoService to get information about use of the AdWords’s API. For instance, you can get the amount spent on an operation in the past month or the number of API units available
- Ad parameters: Use AdParamService to perform on-the-fly updates to parameterized snippets of ad text.
Want more? Navigate to the Google and read ”What’s New”. The key question is, “Why is Google making these changes?” The first reason is that Google wants to provide more fine-grained control to advertisers. The second is to allow advertisers who use programmatic tools to automate certain functions. The notion of rich search and ad applications is one that appeals to the Google.
Stephen Arnold, December 4, 2009
Oyez, oyez, This is a freebie. Quick alert the Bureau of the Census. I want to count.
Fast Blast in Rocket Software
December 4, 2009
I am confused. About 18 months ago, Microsoft acquired Fast Search & Transfer SA for about $1.23 billion. Since that time, there has been a Web part, a change in presidents, the shipment of a version of Fast for SharePoint for trial purposes, some grousing about support for the legacy licensees of Fast ESP, and some mixed signals about who within Microsoft is in charge of enterprise search.
Tuesday I thought I heard that a fellow from the UK had the controls of the search Cape Canaveral. Today (December 3, 2009) I learned that Microsoft has sold some of the Fast Search components to Rocket Software. The properties were the long-in-the-tooth Folio content management system and something called NXT, which is no longer on my radar.
Rocket Software says:
Rocket Software (www.rocketsoftware.com), a global developer of Enterprise Infrastructure products, today announced that it has acquired the Folio and NXT business from Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT). Folio and NXT customers will obtain support and new product releases directly from Rocket Software.
Folio Corporation was founded in 1987 and was subsequently owned by Mead Data Central (LEXIS-NEXIS), Open Market and NextPage before its technology was acquired by Fast Search & Transfer (FAST) in 2004; in 2008 FAST was acquired by Microsoft. The Folio and NXT products facilitate the management of online content.
According to Rocket Software CEO Andy Youniss, “We are pleased that Microsoft selected us to take over the development, service, and support for all Folio and NXT customers. This is a great fit for Rocket, and we look forward to working with the customers to provide the features and functions they need to be successful with their investment in the products.”
We are very excited that Rocket has acquired the Folio and NXT products. Rocket is well-positioned to offer top notch service and support to the Folio and NXT customers and partners,” said FAST CEO and Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Bjørn Olstad.
Rocket will be hosting a webinar on December 9, 2009 for existing and previous Folio and NXT customers. To sign up for this webinar, go to www.rocketsoftware.com/category/publishing. Also, go to www.rocketsoftware.com/category/publishing to sign up for a Rocket Software Customer Portal account.
I was not familiar with Rocket Software. The company describes itself this way:
Rocket Software (www.rocketsoftware.com) is a global software development firm that builds and services Enterprise Infrastructure products for the world’s leading OEMs, networks and software companies and enterprises. The company’s current lines of business complement and extend strategic OEM offerings in the areas of database, business intelligence, storage, networks and telecom, terminal emulation and FTP, integration, modernization and SOA, and security. Rocket is engaged in business and technology partnerships with IBM, EMC/RSA, HP/EDS, Nortel, Motorola, and many others. Rocket Software is based in Newton, Massachusetts.
Folio in my recollection is an early CMS system. The company has had a number of owners, including LexisNexis. The company said here:
Folio 4 is a proven and widely adopted product suite for authoring, managing, securing and publishing professional electronic information on CD/DVD with a Windows client. Commercial publishers and professionals around the world rely on Folio’s unmatched information access and personalization capabilities to realize the full value of their business-critical reference information. For more than a decade, the world’s top publishers of professional reference information and the majority of Fortune 500 companies have come to depend on Folio software to author, manage and publish professional information on CD/DVD.
Fast Search, as I reported in the three editions of the Enterprise Search Report that I wrote. consists of a number of loosely integrated components. The sale of components raises this question, “What else will be cut out of the Fast Enterprise Search Platform?” Maybe the Folio, which was getting on in years, was chopped because it was too old to rehab. On the other hand, is the resulting Fast ESP stub being decomplexified so that a fast blast off is possible?
These “rocket”, “blast off”, and “launch” metaphors remind me that rockets come to earth. Sometime fast, sometimes slow.
Stephen Arnold, December 4, 2009
Qyez, oyez, NASA! I was not paid to write about “rockets” or their coming down to earth via parachute or otherwise.
MarkLogic and Its XML Briefing Draw Crowds at London Online
December 4, 2009
Usually I ignore the exhibit areas at trade shows. I don’t know anyone any longer, and the average age of most of the people in the booths is about one third of my 65 years. I did make a sweep through the Incisive International Online Show but I had my progress impeded yesterday. The reason was that the MarkLogic briefings given every hour or so created a mini-traffic jam.
Overflow crowds participated in the MarkLogic technical briefings at the International Online Show, December 1 to 3, 2009, in London, UK.
The briefings drew crowds that overflowed the space allocated for attendees. I asked one of the XML wizards, “What’s with the big crowd?” The MarkLogic wizard replied, “Our MarkLogic server briefing is selling like cold drinks at a football match.” MarkLogic knows its XML and its metaphors. The interest in XML MarkLogic style makes clear that where there is technical magnetism, there is a crowd.
Stephen Arnold, December 4, 2009
I want to disclose to the Food & Drug Administration that I was not paid by MarkLogic to write this article. I was not able to get a booth giveaway when I stopped to ask about the reason for the interest in the XML server lectures. I have to find a way to get some cash for my photographic expertise.
Is Bing Better than Google in Only Three Ways?
December 4, 2009
VenturedBeat caught my attention with its story “3 ways Bing is ahead of Google.” Whoa, Nelly! I thought Bing.com had to be ahead of Google in just one way: online revenue. Not the pay to use, not the faux UX, and not the me-too approach to Web search. Yep, revenue. The Google has revenue because it has traffic, and it has advertisers and partners who want to tap into that traffic to make sales, get leads, or build brand. VentureBeat does not agree; to wit:
Google is groping its way toward this same change in what its audience wants, but you can almost feel the intellectual hesitation. I have to admit, I’m not sure I want Google to become more like Bing. I’d rather have my choice. But Bing hasn’t grabbed one-tenth of the world’s search engine traffic in just a few months by luck, or by advertising. They did it by figuring out correctly what people actually want.
I am no VC and not an MBA. Heck, I am an addled goose. But even I can see that Microsoft needs to beat Google in just one way—online revenue. Of course, that requires traffic, the ability to scale quickly and economically, and infrastructure that can handle various fancy math operations.
So Microsoft’s three better components have to add up to one real metric—revenue. The other stuff does not matter.
Stephen Arnold, December 4, 2009
I wish to disclose to the National Institute of Standards and Technology that I was not paid to simplify three small components into one big factored element. This earned me zero, which is darn close to the eight percent market share of a certain Web search system. Metrics are good.
Google Cuts Endeca from the Search Herd
December 4, 2009
I saw Dan Tunkelang’s post in the Noisy Channel on November 6, 2009, about his leaving Endeca. Keep in mind that Dan Tunkelang was the firm’s chief technology officer and a critic of Google.
This is my last week at Endeca. The decision to leave has been a heart-wrenching one: not only have the past ten years been the best of my life, but my experiences at Endeca have defined me professionally. Moreover, Endeca is riding a wave of success with recent advances in our products, new relationships with key partners, and fascinating new deployments
The comments in Fierce Content Management in “Daniel Tunkelang Leaving Endeca for Google” seemed to lack context; for example:
It was more than a bit surprising to me that [Dan] Tunkelang would be moving to the consumer side of search, given his background, but it sounds like it was an opportunity that was too good to let pass. I’m sure Endeca is sad to see someone with his level of understanding of its products leave the company.
Read more: http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/danel-tunkelang-leaving-endeca-google/2009-11-11#ixzz0Yc34unSH
When I saw Endeca’s search evangelist on Tuesday, December 1, 2009, I sat quietly and let the Endeca professional lead the conversation. No comment about Dan Tunkelang, so I assumed that the company did not consider the departure material.
Yesterday I had a conversation with a search vendor who asked me what I thought. I replied that the Google is where the action is and anyone wanting to keep the search career chugging along would be crazy to ignore Googzilla’s blandishments.
i think there are several angles that I want to watch in the weeks and months ahead:
First, the Google is into commerce search and Dan Tunkelang knows about the use of search and facets in helping merchants make sales. I wonder if there is a connection between Endeca’s success in ecommerce and Dan Tunkelang’s joining the Google. Maybe it is a coincidence?
Second, Endeca without Dan Tunkelang is a bit like a wagon without a wheel. With care, the wagon works reasonably well. Get the load off balance and the wagon tips over. Is Endeca now vulnerable in a way that it has not been since its founding?
Third, where is Endeca going to go? The company’s push for partners and its shifting of security functions to some of the partners who provide such features and content connectors is interesting to me. The information I have is inconclusive, but unless Endeca can respond to some of the challenges that I see surfacing from a number of interesting companies such as Exalead to name just one example, I ask, “Can Endeca get on the growth track and generate the sort of revenues that make companies like the much loved Autonomy the talk of the investment crowd?
My thought this morning is that Google may be using surgical precision to isolate certain vendors from their core capabilities. Once isolated like a lion’s prey in the wild, then it is a matter of time. Am I seeing an example of a “cutting off from the herd” tactic?
Stephen Arnold, December 3, 2009
Important disclaimer: I want to alert the Fish & Wildlife Department that I was not paid to write about the behavior of predators in such countries as South Africa. A freebie for sure.
Oracle Feels Heat, Tries to Redefine Kitchen
December 3, 2009
I know when there is trouble on the off ramp that once ran directly to Sea World south of San Francisco. There is the deterioration of the road bed, a reminder of the problems aging infrastructure pose to drivers. In a way, cracked pavement and poorly marked off ramps are indicative of some enterprise technology solutions as well. You make a choice, expecting a smooth ride to Sea World, and what do you get? A jarring ride down a highway filled with bumps and pot holes. Why no improvements? Good question. I asked this when I was doing one of my periodic brush ups for the companies I track in the search, information management, and content processing sector that is my particular interest.
My research suggests that the giant database vendor Oracle faces a number of challenges. The company’s headquarters can be reached on the old Sea World highway, now named Oracle Way, I think.
First, the company cannot land its corporate jet or its founder’s jet fighter at the same airport as Google. Googlers can walk to their expensive toys. Oracle executives have to fight traffic on 101. Second, there are growing problems from data management upstarts like InfoBright and Aster Data. Third, there are the pesky French search based application vendors like Exalead. Fourth, the geriatric Codd database is getting left in the performance dust by the speedy Perfect Search vortex technology. Fifth, the Oracle Secure Enterprise Search remains an undercard opponent in the enterprise search wrestling matches that entertain me on a daily basis.
But Oracle asserts that it has not only addressed some of its weaknesses but the company has taken a leadership position in next generation data management.
For example, in November 2009, I read an interesting Oracle blog post called “Next Generation Data Warehouse Platforms”. The post made a number of assertions that suggested Oracle had overcome the problems of scaling, performance, and affordability that continue to plague the world’s largest database vendor. For example, that blog post pointed out these breakthroughs for Oracle 11 and I quote from the Oracle blog:
- “Performance => Sun Oracle Database Machine. Yes, it really is fast!
- In-memory processing => Oracle now has (11gR2) In-Memory Parallel Execution. More about this can be read in Maria’s excellent post here.
- In-Database Analytics => As the report says in Exadata V2 and Oracle 11gR2 we are now offloading data mining model scoring to the storage side of the house, which allows us to embed mining models into more and more operational systems and get online (direct) feedback on transactions. We also have for years moved more and more OLAP and Stats functionality into the engine
- Real-time data warehousing => First and foremost the read consistency model introduced in Oracle 4 (this is not a typo…) allowing readers to see consistent data during writes, secondly, the just completed acquisition of Golden Gate and the ETL capabilities (like streams) in Oracle allow for very nice real time data feeds. Oracle’s MAA architecture allows us to be up and running 24*7 on commodity hardware and deliver an online experience to all customers…
- Cloud computing => see the in-database MapReduce post here.
- Appliances => Sun Oracle Database Machine.”
If these statements are spot on, Oracle has cracked some technical and business challenges it has faced for many years. From Oracle’s position of strength, Oracle can crush its rivals by winning head to head competitions. Strength is manifested in client wins and revenues in my book. White papers nuking another tech vendor are not demonstrations of strength in my opinion.
Apparently companies in a position of strength find it appropriate to use rhetoric and disinformation to discipline an upstart. Let me give you an example.
I stumbled upon an Oracle white paper “Mark Logic XML Server 4.1”. You must download your own copy from this link. This paper which shows a November 2009 date here is a fascinating window into Oracle. If I were teaching rhetoric, I would use this Oracle white paper as an example of disinformation. Your mileage may vary.
I asked myself, “Why would a multi-billion dollar outfit invest the time, money, and effort in a direct attack on a specialist company chugging quietly along, pretty much minding its own business?” The Oracle white paper purports to discuss technology of a company that “continues to rely on venture funding”. The white paper explores five alleged weaknesses of the Mark Logic XML Server 4.1. The implications of the Oracle analysis range from cost to complexity to proprietary technology to financial weakness. Mark Logic, according to the white paper “Mark Logic XML Server 4.1” essentially cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
My own experience with the Mark Logic technology is that Mark Logic can walk, chew gum, and compete in data gymnastics. Keep in mind that I have been fed cold tacos and compensated with a Mark Logic goodie bag at a recent Mark Logic meet up in Washington, DC.
I sat in the crowded meeting room with 225 other people and listened to my former colleagues at Booz, Allen & Hamilton explain their use of the Mark Logic technology. I trust blue chip consultants because the risk of screw ups is too great to deploy a solution that makes a very large client unhappy. I heard speakers representing the US government explain their use of the Mark Logic technology in war fighting, pointing out the benefits of Mark Logic technology in war fighting. I heard whiz kids explain that slicing and dicing information permitted clever mash ups of data without humans fiddling to deliver on the fly, low latency solutions for decision makers. The assertions and evidence in the Oracle anti-Mark Logic white paper were not in line with what I learned directly from Mark Logic users.
This begs the question, “So what’s with the direct attack on Mark Logic?” In my opinion, there are three factors operating:
First, Oracle finds itself in a position of playing catch up in next generation data management. For whatever reason, the Oracle sales engineers have found that organizations in a number of business sectors want a non Oracle solution.
Second, customers are struggling with a mushy economy. The notion of paying more money for Oracle licenses, more money for Oracle service, and more money for more hardware to get acceptable performance continues to lose appeal. Like SAP, Oracle finds itself facing customer resistance to the traditional enterprise software approach. Cost alone is not the only deal breaker. The perceived benefits of an Oracle RDBMS are losing magnetism.
Third, the petascale flows of data in some organizations are forcing a fundamental rethink of traditional data management and repurposing approaches in use since the late 1970s. Last generation technology is not appropriate for next generation data management problems. Not even the entrenched Oracle database administrator can get an aging RDBMS elephant to do the tricks it could in the good old days. A different data animal is needed in my opinion.
I suggest that you read the Oracle write ups yourself and draw your own conclusions. The analysis of Mark Logic underscores Oracle’s own technical Werner’s syndrome.
Stephen Arnold, December 4, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I wish to disclose to the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service that I have been fed tacos and given a goodie bag by Mark Logic’s official chief technology officer. He was nervous around the addled goose, and he watched where he stepped after I waddled away. Prudence is a positive.
Online Paranoia and Context
December 3, 2009
Years ago, I met the president of a company in Houston, Texas. I recall hearing that person recounting some of his management insights in the construction business. One catchphrase he used to make a point had to do with paranoia and knowing that everyone was out to get you. Years later I read Andy Grove’s Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis Points That Challenge Every Company. Similar idea: some awareness of what the competition is doing is essential to focus an organization’s energies. Over the years, I have worked on a couple of jobs in which paranoia was a useful ingredient like basil on a Food Channel’s winning pizza recipe. In certain work situations, a dash of paranoia is what separates those who survive from those who become the concrete in a skyscraper or the dough in a calzone.
I read “8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight”, and you may want to scan the article as well. The main point in my opinion is:
My point is this: The vast majority of the government’s access to individuals’ private data is not reported, either due to a failure on DOJ’s part to supply the legally required statistics, or due to the fact that information regarding law enforcement requests for third party stored records (such as email, photos and other data located in the cloud) is not currently required to be collected or reported. As for the millions of government requests for geo-location data, it is simply disgraceful that these are not currently being reported…but they should be.
If you want a catalog of examples of surveillance activities, the article provides a useful starting point.
Let me conclude with several observations:
- Depending on one’s job, these activities may have a different context. For example, if one is working on a project when there are other factors in play, then the need to use available resources to address a matter is a responsible and necessary activity. I think of information has an instrument, and the use of that instrument depends on context. Without context, I find it difficult to make an informed judgment about “shoulds,” “woulds” and “coulds”.
- Some engaged in law enforcement have experienced significant increases in the amount and type of work that must be done on the “job”. As a result, like any process oriented professional, when software can perform certain work more efficiently, it makes perfect sense to me to use new methods to manage a task. I find it typical of public companies, start ups, and government organizations to try different techniques and determine which work and which don’t. Adaptation takes place. In my experience, those experiences are an essential part of professional behavior.
- The budget data for law enforcement and intelligence professionals, when compared to the volume of work that must be performed is not included in the article. One quick example: a major city’s law enforcement group needs twice the number of uniforms presently available to handle existing criminal activity. There is neither budget nor political support to expand the number of officers. Use of new methods is one way to extend the thin membrane of law enforcement over the present work load.
- The volume of data available is impossible to capture, manage, and process with traditional methods. Not even the most sophisticated computer systems are able to deliver the type of information that may be needed to address a certain situation. In my experience, more investment and effort are needed to tame and channel the raging floods of data.
In short, paranoia is a useful motivational and creative force. However, paranoia without context can create an impression that certain situations look like a duck but may be a very different animal. Forget trade shows. Forget public announcements about data sets being made available. Remember that context is needed to understand the who, what, why, and how of an action. These nuances are tough to get even when one is working on a project that requires certain types of data. Outside of those projects, context may be impossible to obtain. Without context, I find it difficult to speak with confidence about a specific action or a group of unrelated actions.
I do know what can happen if certain data are ignored. You do too if you do some historical thinking.
Stephen Arnold, December 3, 2009
Oyez, oyex, I wish to report to the Department of Justice that I was not paid by anyone to point out that context is a useful concept when writing about specific actions taken in order to complete a mission.
Google Becomes Talk Show Fodder
December 3, 2009
Google has emerged from the computer lab to the world of talk shows. It only took 11 years. Maybe Google will become the next big thing like 50 Cent or Dancing with the Stars? I found “Huffington To Murdoch: Stop ‘Pointing Fingers’” a blend of pop culture, business analysis, and mud slinging. I thought about the good old days of newspaper wars and the original Queen for a Day. What Hollywood needs is not a Facebook movie but a Star Wars treatment of Googzilla versus the Murdoch.
The core of the story is that one of the world’s most powerful media moguls has made Google the poster child of improper use of content. Google, on the other hand, asserts that it is working in an algorithmic way and staying within the boundaries for proper behavior. Another media mogulette has suggested that the Murdoch take a deep breath, which is tantamount to defending the way of the algorithm. I am waiting for a Yoda type to chime in as well.
I particularly liked the use of the word “whine”. Drama-charged, semantic excitement will ensue.
The addled goose’s view on the great Googzilla versus the Murdoch is simple: The Google has been chugging along for almost 12 years. Now those who were asleep at the switch have found the chain of events predictable, easily understood. The outcome is to a certain extent known by those who are watching the drama unfold.
In short, these outfits have missed the train. Instead of investing in a hovercraft, a helicopter, or a Red Bull type airplane, the folks who missed the train are blaming the train.
If find the entire situation like a well honed Shakespeare tragedy. The protagonist and antagonist go through their paces. We watch with fascination and horror as the hero goes blind and rages against the wind.
As long at the Murdoch relies on traditional technology, old business models, and the assumptions of the 19th century tycoon, the comedic trajectory is going to work.
Google is one manifestation of a deeper change in the information world. Sure, it is a poster child, but there is nothing traditional media to alter the new environment. In The Google Legacy, I raised the question, “What happens if Google were to disappear tomorrow?” My answer, which two or three people have read, is that another series of Google-like entities would emerge. Google’s legacy is that it has provided a road map to others to follow.
The Murdoch is a bit like a Civil War reenactment buff. Some parts of the play acting look realistic. Other parts are irrelevant to today’s world. To sum up, take away the Google and the Murdoch faces new Googles. Lots of them. Those Googles will be more troublesome than the Google that gave rise to the next generation.
Like a good comedy skit, the outcome can be anticipated in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, December 3, 2009
I wish to reveal to the Board of Directors of the Kennedy Center that my critical analysis of the new play “Googzilla versus the Murdoch” was undertaken without subsidy or compensation. Like any work of fiction, any connection to real events is purely accidental.
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
