Search Engine Death Watch: WikiaSearch
December 25, 2009
Short honk: I forgot about this search service. I used it once. CNet’s “15 Sites that Went Kaput in 2009” reminded me of this service that would challenge established Web search leaders via a crowdsourcing play. CNET said: “Wikia Search launched in January of 2008 with an oddball idea: let users control the rankings of search results.” It’s a goner.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 25, 2009
No one paid me to write this golden prose. I wish to disclose poverty to the Bureau of Land Management. Digging for information can make a mess.
Usage Trends for Late 2009
December 25, 2009
I receive an email from ClickZ every week. On December 21, 2009, the email pointed me to the “Most visited Web Site and Most Search Term in 2009?” I assumed that the terms were the sanitized lists that proliferate at year’s end. I did focus on the following table from the Web page with the helpful name 3635954:
Several observations came to my addled goose brain.
First, MySpace.com under the stewardship of ace monetizer Rupert Murdoch seems to have lost the map to King Midas’ treasure room. The site dropped a couple of spots in the midst of a boom in social network usage. Facebook.com, like a field runner with stamina for the long race, moved to the number three spot. MySpace.com, if these data are accurate, may have to rethink its approach or the service will follow in the footsteps of Web sites that had oomph once and then lost when challenged.
Second, the Google is number one. No big surprise to me. What is interesting is that YouTube.com has moved from the tenth spot to number six. When combined, Mr. Google seems to be doing quite well in the traffic department. That’s in sharp contrast to both Microsoft and Yahoo. Despite the hype, Microsoft and Yahoo have not made significant inroads in the all-important Web search sector. It is encouraging that Yahoo Mail holds down the number two spot, but more is going to be needed in 2010.
Finally. Poor eBay.com. Looks like the company continues to flounder. Has Amazon figured out how to hobble eBay or is eBay just a victim of digital arteriosclerosis?
Interesting table at lunch with the goslings today (December 24, 2009). We don’t do holidays. Honk.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 25, 2009
Oyez, oyez, a freebie. I have to report this to the Legal Services Corporation. Those legal types don’t take holidays when there are billable hours to be had. Oops. This is a quasi-governmental outfit. Holiday! Sorry. I will report after the 25th of December. Silly goose that I am. I thought humans worked on the 25th of December.
Algorithms Get Their Own Patent SAT
December 25, 2009
“New Patent Test for Machines using Mathematical Algorithms” is worth a read if you are interested in patent applications. I am no attorney, but when I take a gander at patent applications created by and for outfits like Google, there are quite a few numerical recipes in these publications. Erik Sherman’s write up explains:
there’s a newly published decision from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that establishes a new test to determine whether a machine or manufactured article that depends on a mathematical algorithm is patentable. The ruling is a big deal because it’s one of the few precedential decisions that the BPAI issues in a given year, and it will have a direct impact on patents involving computers and software.
There is some legal jargon in the write up, but for me the bottom-line is that an already interesting process is probably to become more interesting in 2010.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 25, 2009
This is an easy one. The write up was done without anyone giving me so much as a piece of finsk broed. I will report this sad circumstance to the Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department), an outfit with jurisdiction over Web log posts with a nourishing item of information within their letters and words.
Missing the Main Point about Google Microsoft Face Off
December 25, 2009
I think the pundits, mavens, and poobahs have been drinking egg nog at the office party. The explanations of why Google is ahead of Microsoft range from Microsoft’s being like IBM are accurate—up to a point. You can get a run down of the received wisdom by reading “This is Why Microsoft Is So Far behind Google on the Web.” The reason is that Microsoft is focusing on something different from Google. Google is hip, with it, and buying now companies. For me, here’s the salient passage:
And that’s the problem: Microsoft is buying startups to boost its core IT infrastructure and management product lines when it could be fortifying its online arsenal, which loses something like $1 billion a year for the company.
My view is different. My research indicates that Google has had a cohesive vision of what its plumbing would enable. I think the germ of the idea was present in 1998, but by 2002, Messrs Brin and Page had figured it out. The duo had help from some wizards, but since 2002, Google has been relying on its plumbing and trial and error. When something worked, Google did more of it. By 2006, the plumbing had been upgraded and some significant features of the Google plumbing were proven to be able to perform multiple tricks. Since 2006, the Google has been using trial and error to carry the company forward by baby steps. When a service gets too hot, the Google backs off and lets the pot simmer.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been moving into markets from the top down. Google does not do this. Over time, the differences become more pronounced and pundits generate received wisdom. The problem is that Google is building momentum, just like a tsunami. Google does not have one wave; Google has an ocean of waves.
That’s the difference. Microsoft has separate fish bowls. Google has an ocean.
Stephen Arnold, December 25, 2009
Oyez, oyez, a free post designed to publicize my Google studies. I suppose I should report this shameless marketing ploy to the Geological Survey, an outfit who pays attention to reshaping of certain land masses.
Cha Cha Dances Cheek to Cheek with Investors
December 25, 2009
Short honk: TechCrunch reported in “ChaCha Raises Another $7 Million” that Cha Cha raised more money. The story reported that the mobile search company has raised lots of money. The company said:
ChaCha is like having a smart friend you can call or text for answers on your cell phone anytime for free! ChaCha works with virtually every provider and allows people with any mobile phone device – from basic flip phones to advanced smart phones – to ask any question in conversational English and receive an accurate answer as a text message in just a few minutes.
The idea is that a human can answer a question more effectively than a search system. Delivering human powered search results to a mobile device is the unique selling proposition for the Indiana company. Big bet. Maybe a big payoff?
Stephen E. Arnold, December 25, 2009
A freebie. I drove around Indianapolis today (December 23, 2009). No one paid me to do this. I would have paid to leave the state. Too flat. I will report this to the Carmel (Indiana) Police Department.
Google Nails Patent for Query Synonyms in Query Context
December 24, 2009
If you want to know how smart Steven Baker is, you won’t find the information in the Google index. His patent 7,409,383 is also a slippery fish. Where did he go? I have an email for him, a blog post about search quality, and some odd references to programming. Not much online as of December 22, 2009 at 9 pm Eastern. In fact, I have noticed in my addled goose way that some Google wizards are easy to find; for example, Jeff Dean. Others, like Steven Baker, are tough to find. Steven Baker and John Lamping (also a wizard) invented the system and method disclosed in “Determining Query Term Synonyms with Query Context.” This type of process is significant, and at Google’s scale, the invention is quite interesting. The crystal clear prose of Google’s full time and rental legal eagles says:
A method is applied to search terms for determining synonyms or other replacement terms used in an information retrieval system. User queries are first sorted by user identity and session. For each user query, a plurality of pseudo-queries is determined, each pseudo-query derived from a user query by replacing a phrase of the user query with a token. For each phrase, at least one candidate synonym is determined. The candidate synonym is a term that was used within a user query in place of the phrase, and in the context of a pseudo-query. The strength or quality of candidate synonyms is evaluated. Validated synonyms may be either suggested to the user or automatically added to user search strings.
You can breeze over to the USPTO and download this open source document. I recommend checking out the cross references to other Google patents, the method of organizing user queries over time, the numerical recipes disclosed, and the 19 claims. Another piece of the semantic puzzle nailed in my opinion. This invention at Google scale is darned nifty.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 23, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I wish to disclose that I was not paid to highlight this patent document nor to point out that Google engineer Steve Baker has become a tough lad to whom to link. I wonder why. Do you? He has had some interesting computing pals. Think Jon Kleinberg of Clever fame. Maybe I should write the Bureau of Missing Googlers?
Windows Hotmail Factoids
December 24, 2009
Navigate to “A Peek behind the Scenes at Hotmail.” You can learn quite a bit about how Microsoft supports 350 million mail users. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
For every developer on our staff we have a test engineer who works hand in hand with him or her to give input on the design and specs, set up a test infrastructure, write and automate test cases for new features, and measure quality.
I like redundancy, but I wonder about the cost of this approach.
Other factoids are:
- over 1.3 billion inboxes (some users have multiple inboxes)
- over 3 billion messages a day and filter out over 1 billion spam messages
- storage grows at over 2 petabytes a month
- over 155 petabytes of storage deployed (70% of storage is taken up with attachments, typically photos)
- the largest SQL Server 2008 deployment in the world. (I thought MySpace.com was, but I guess that info was flawed.)
Hotmail used to run on Unix or Linux. Interesting stuff.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 24, 2009
Oyez, oyez. I wish to report to the US Postal Service that this write up was a freebie. Email may be one of the reasons that the USPS is struggling with cost control. Oh, the magazine and direct mail sectors are not exactly thriving either.
Social Search Degrades Productivity
December 24, 2009
The article “Social Networking Sites a Drag on Productivity” struck me as one of those obvious professional journalist write ups. I did find the data in the article potentially useful. I think most of the social network hype is the shock wave of the present economic crisis. Let’s face it. Social networking for professionals often means a job hunt or a search-and-capture campaign to land a contract for services. In the personal realm, most of the social networking is an extension of normal human interaction. I think I know what that means for an old timer like me: making it to the doctor without driving into a culvert. For the younger set, I think there may be more frisky goals.
For me the key passage in this write up was:
“Close to 12.5% of productivity of human resource in corporate sector is misappropriated each day since a vast majority of them while away their time accessing social networking sites during office hours,” industry body Assocham said in a survey. Almost each day, on an average, a corporate employee spends an hour, glued to various social networking sites such as Orkut, Facebook, Myspace “for romancing or otherwise driving some satisfaction out of it,” the chamber said.
The time spent on Facebook and similar sites may be fun or rewarding in some specific way. I pay someone to be me on Twitter and other social sites. I wonder who I am. I suppose I could look but that would not be particularly productive in my opinion.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 23, 2009
Oyez, oyez, Bureau of Labor Statistics, I was not paid to write this short item. I have to be productive; otherwise, this goose would not eat. In fact, another of those goose eating holidays is approaching. Scary. Post that on Facebook.
SQL Server Trends for 2010
December 24, 2009
You love SQL Server. You want to know what your significant other will offer next year. To learn, read “Staying Abreast of SQL Server Database Trends in 2010.” Two trends are easy to identify: cloud services and virtualization. The third trend surprised me. Here’s the passage that caught my attention:
The security game changer for Slavik is the variety of new tools, courtesy of the hackers, that enable automated random attacks on data. “Getting from a vulnerability to an exploit is going to be very easy for hackers, especially when you talk about databases and patching. Once a vendor releases a patch we might see worms that immediately try to exploit the patched vulnerability. Hackers know that enterprises out there just don’t patch as quickly as they should.”
Once again the customer shoulders the burden of code that is like catnip to kittens. In my opinion, the vendor has to do a better job.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 24, 2009
A freebie. Think of it as a present under the national Christmas tree in Washington, DC. I suppose something free is not news to the White House person responsible for decorations. I will tell that person any way.
It Is Marketing, Not Content?
December 23, 2009
I read with interest “Why Marketing Is Crucial for Publishers.” I have been under the impression that marketing supported sales. Sales produces revenue. Therefore, I thought, marketing has to make money. The publisher makes information too. I wonder what the relationship of marketing to information is. Probably money.
After reading the article, I am not sure. I keep coming back to the marketing – money hook up, but I think another angle lurks behind the words. Read the article. Verify my impression.
One idea that caught my attention was:
To best monetize a site, the ad sales team must harness the audience insight of the marketing team at a detailed level and align ad sales with generating more traffic.
The idea that sales and marketing are going to fall in love and get married strikes me as a Hatfield and McCoy problem. Sales makes sales, earn a commission, and head to the golf course. Marketing does “stuff” that is tough to tie to direct revenue. Sure, marketers can trot out traffic analysis, but the person who lands the sales is the hero. Apple had a brief marriage to a Pepsi marketer, and the company needed to bring the founder back to survive.
One passage that I noted was:
Here’s a simple example: The marketer knows his/her site has 20% of their visitors playing online games, where these visitors stay for between 15 and 30 minutes. Are the ad slots on those pages not worth more because the visitor watches the ad for so long? You bet! But the ad sales team can’t take advantage of it. Here’s another: The ad sales team knows it can sell its “health section” at a $20 cpm. What if the marketing team could buy search terms to generate traffic at less than $20? The marketer would reach its goal of more traffic and the ad sales would generate more revenue. From a technology perspective, the tracking of user behaviour already exists from both an ad perspective and a marketer perspective. Combining these two data sets is what will unlock significant value for both parties.
With automated ad systems, why have a sales person? The reason is that certain types of ads require a human to seal the deal. Inefficient and non-Googley for sure. But for most information companies, the notion of relying on semi autonomous agents is like a jigger of cod liver oil followed by a chunk of Limburger cheese. The idea of having a sales person and an AdWords program in order to “generate traffic at less than $20” strikes me as an expensive proposition.
Publishing, online or not, have some other tough math problems to solve. Online won’t do the job. The reality is that online cannot support the chubby overheads that were possible in the good old days of traditional publishing. Talking about getting sales and marketing to spend the rest of their lives together is far fetched in my opinion. One of the functions, maybe both, must be moved to software. Fire the humans. When that happens, the information companies may have a chance to generate sustainable income.
Tough love is needed for tough times. Fantasies of sales and marketing becoming soul mates is an idea that might have taken flight in the 1970s. A different approach is needed for publishers, online or traditional, in these uncertain times. I thought that information companies had to produce compelling, high value content to generate traffic and earn money. Guess I was wrong. I guess a great product and magnetic information are no longer important.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 23, 2009
Oyez, oyez, this is an uncompensated write up. No sales people or marketing pros involved. For that reason, I wish to report this miserable state of affairs to the National Drug Intelligence Center, which I hope is open during the snow storm in DC.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
