Useful List of Google Tools
January 4, 2010
Short honk: Most folks I meet don’t know that Google has a quiver of applications to shoot into markets. A useful summary of about 60 of these appears in “57 Useful Google Tools Scholars, Students, and Hobbyists.” I don’t agree with the categories, but you will find some gems. If you want to test your knowledge of Google search take a look at the list of Custom Search Tools in the article.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 2, 2010
Disclosure: another unpaid write up. What a way to start 2010. I will file a report with the Veterans Day National Committee.
Google Press, O Reilly, and a Possible Info Discontinuity
January 4, 2010
Google’s book on HTML5 is moving along. Soon it will be available for sale. At that moment, a seismic shock is triggered in the already Jello like world of traditional publishing. Oh, if you don’t know about the Google Press imprint, you can catch up on your reading by looking at:
- HTML5’s rel=”noreferrer”
- A version of the “book’s title page”
- Mr. Pilgrim’s own statement
For a more robust discussion of the tools Google will use as it solves the copyright problem for new, significant content, check out Google: The Digital Gutenberg, September 2009. Better yet, write me at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com and inquire about a 90 minute briefing on Google’s publishing technology and the disruptions these technologies are likely to let loose in 2010.
First, let me provide some context.
In Google: The Digital Gutenberg I pointed out that Google’s infrastructure works like a digital River Rouge. Put stuff in at one end and things come out the other. The steady progress of Google toward a clean, tidy solution to copyright hassles is for Google to become a publisher. What goes in at one end are content objects and what comes out the other can be just about anything Google can program its manufacturing system to produce.
Now I know that the publishers want Google to [a] quit being Google, which is tough since the Google is little more than a manifestation of technology anybody could have glued together 11 years ago, [b] subsidize publishers so the arbiters of what’s smart and what’s stupid can continue as museum curators of information, and [c] give publishers some of the profits from advertising so publishers can shop for white shoes and vintage motor yachts.
Google uses algorithms like a fishmonger to convert the beastie into tasty, easily sold fillets. Image source: http://www.fishingkites.co.nz/cleaning-fish/filleting_fish/fillet_2.jpg
The solution is simpler. When Google signs up an author, Google offers terms. The author takes the terms or leaves the terms. Now the Google does not go quickly into that good night. The Google takes baby steps. Google has a fondness for Tim O’Reilly, and it supports number of O’Reilly ventures, including the somewhat interesting Government 2.0 conference.
Nstein and Sentiment Analysis
January 3, 2010
I learned in late November 2009 that Nstein, a Canadian content processing company, offered a sentiment analysis component. Sentiment analysis means that software determines if customer support email or comments about a product are happy or sad, positive or negative, or green or red light. The idea is that a marketer can keep his or her finger on the pulse of popular opinion about a product, service, person, or some other entity. According to the Nstein news release:
Nstein’s Sentiment Analysis module allows evolve24 [a social marketing firm] to quickly determine the tone of an article, which offers a key insight into the firm’s representation through media. “We have estimated that a person at peak performance can ‘tone’ 200 articles a day – or 25 an hour,” Wheeler said. “With Nstein, we can literally score tens of thousands of pieces of content a day for each of our clients – all of them broken down by brand or topic – using a single person to manually test and verify results.” … “Thanks to the combination of our technologies and evolve24’s know-how, management has a unique means of measuring how various marketing activities positively or negatively impact a brand’s reputation.”
I was supposed to get a demonstration of the technology at the London online show. But a mix up in scheduling and a message that was supposed to arrive and did not ran the ship aground. As a result, I cannot offer any insight into the efficacy of the system. Due to other slip ups with communications, I decided not to include Nstein in my Gilbane report titled “Beyond Search”. Sounds good though and it is a crowded sector with offerings from big guns like Autonomy to smaller firms such as Lexalytics.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 2, 2010
Okay, full disclosure. I had a net loss in time when the Nstein meeting did not take place. I wish to disclose that I was not paid to offer no opinion about the Nstein product. To whom should I report this sad state of non pecuniary reward? Ah, I know. The Bureau of Reclamation.
Microsoft and Its Australian Play to Beat Google
January 3, 2010
Microsoft is going to beat Google by posting Australian centric images on the Australian version of Bing.com. You can read about this strategic thrust in “Bing Banks on Aussie Icons to Beat Google”. For me the key to the idea was this comment:
Australian technology blogger Long Zheng, who has archived all the images that have appeared on Bing since its launch in May, praised Microsoft for providing “an opportunity to explore and learn without searching at all”.
Yes, a search engine that obviates the need for searching. I know when I am looking up information about a weird skin cancer on my hand, I definitely care about a nifty picture of a sunset. Or, when I am trying to locate information about a specific piece of software to solve a major problem, I want to relax and check out a beach scene or a sports team in a moment of ritualistic physical interlocking.
Once Bing.com has torn off Google’s ear in the Austrian search rugby match, expect the same method elsewhere.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 3, 20010
Oyez, oyez, a freebie. I will report this to the Administration on Developmental Disabilities when Washington, DC again reopens sometime next week. In the meantime, keep in mind this is an uncompensated post.
A Tiny Bit of AltaVista.com History
January 3, 2010
I was skimming “The Twelve Most Tarnished Brands in Tech,” The points made resonated with me. I did want to point out this passage, which I think is one of those moments when AltaVista.com’s pivot point becomes visible. Technologizer writes:
When brands get sold, they usually get damaged in the process. AltaVista had five owners in five years: Digital (1995-1998), Compaq (1998-1999), CMGI (1999-2003), Overture (2003), and Yahoo (2003-present). It grew less relevant with each change of hands; if you weren’t aware it’s still with us today, I’m not surprised. But here it is.
Look at the fateful years, 1998 and 1999. In that 24 month period, Hewlett Packard muffed the bunny. Some key DEC engineers flew the coop and landed at Google. This talent infusion gave Google the raw material to begin its tech build out which was mostly in place by 2006. What if HP actually knew what AltaVista.com had devised?
Stephen E. Arnold, January 3, 2010
A freebie. I will report to the White House next time I get a jingle.
Real Canines and False Teeth
January 3, 2010
Read Staci Kramer’s “News Corp, Time Warner Cable Reach Deal Without Blackouts; Scripps Still On Bubble”. Rupert Murdoch’s threats succumbed to common sense and money, or was it money and common sense. Here, in my opinion, is the key point:
The deal announced some 19 hours after the New Year’s Eve midnight deadline covers the Fox television stations, Fox, Fox Cable Networks and Fox’s Regional Sports Networks for TWC’s 13 million households. It also applies to Bright House Networks’ 2.4 million subs; the operator has a heavy presence in Florida, which means a particular interest in avoiding black screens when Florida meets Cincinnati in the Allstate Sugar Bowl.
So what? I think it makes it clear that Mr. Murdoch may berate the Google, but when the money or the common sense clicks in, there will be a deal. Quite a negotiator that Mr. Murdoch. I really like his references to quality journalism and other bits of business confetti. Money and common sense or common sense and money.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 3, 2010
A freebie, gentle reader, a freebie. Maybe I should email spam Mr. Murdoch for mentioning his negotiating skills? He spammed me in 2009. I will report my work-for-free mode to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Mr. Murdoch wants to preserve the historic approach to information I think.
IT Consumerization and Search
January 2, 2010
“Consumerization of IT Unstoppable, Says European Telecom Giant” kick started my thinking about search, content processing, and information access in organizations. The premise of the article is that “consumerization [of information technology] is unstoppable. The comment was made in the context of a discussion about security. No matter. The point is that in order to deliver a system that works, the days of the wild and crazy complexity may have to give way to enterprise software that works like a refrigerator or an iPad.
Now this type of statement can whip computer wizards into a frenzy. I think I understand their concern. Since 2000, nerds have been the big winners. The big success stories have come from companies able to create products and services that almost anyone can use. If you can’t figure out an iPad or a Google search box, you are pretty much screwed in today’s world.
What’s happening is that the top tech people will just become more powerful. The outfits able to crack the consumer appliance code will do pretty well. The users, well, the users get products and services anyone can use without much effort. For those not in the top tier or inhabiting a job in the shrinking middle, turn on the TV and do whatever.
One interesting factoid in the write up was:
“At Check Point, we have been looking at application usage, and 75 percent of our bandwidth is for non office-based services – it was for consumer oriented apps. How do you control that?
If personal use is growing, those lucky few with jobs may want to think about how to cover their online tracks.
How long will consumerization take? A long time if IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and SAP have any part to play. These companies thrive on complex products, lots of support services revenue, and certified professionals who play the witting or unwitting role as friction on the wheels of change.
And search? My hunch is that hosted services will see an uptick in 2011. I don’t have too much enthusiasm for appliances. Each appliance is different and I don’t want to learn how to handle proprietary gizmos unless I absolutely have to. Will Microsoft consumerize search? Have you taken a look at SharePoint and Fast search server yet?
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2011
Freebie
Netflix Jumps to Amazon
January 2, 2010
Want to enrage a giant, Oracular bull?
Bad news for Oracle, IBM as reported by Computerworld.com: Netflix is transferring its datacenter from Oracle on IBM hardware to Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) in an effort to save capital. The switch comes as Netflix’s customer count is headed through the roof, and thus the cost and un-reliability of maintaining or expanding the existing data centers is becoming too great a burden.
Netflix was already patronizing AWS for other less critical applications like customer interfacing and even announced last May its intention to expand this relationship. They weren’t kidding around. The decision is prompted by three major cost points. First, Oracle on IBM is inherently “very expensive”. Second, it would have required long hours and great effort for Netflix to build their own data center when systems are added to AWS’s cloud with ease. And finally, “EC2’s pay-as-you-go model means costs are elastic,” so no more paying for unused resources stranded on service contract.
Besides those direct cost reductions, this transition will free up other engineering resources required to baby-sit the existing infrastructure to be re-tasked in other areas.
Netflix makes some compelling arguments here; it doesn’t take long for the dominoes to fall. Wonder if other companies will realize the same thing and follow suit. It would be prudent for Oracle, IBM to investigate what upgrade options exist to be more competitive with AWS and to prevent further customer turnover.
Sarah Rogers, January 2, 2011
Freebie
E Commerce Run Down
January 2, 2010
I don’t get asked too often about search for eCommerce systems. I have had questions about specific issues at certain companies, but I don’t pay that much attention to looking up matches for “jumpers” in product indexes. I took a long look at the little known Dieselpoint, an XML centric vendor that does some work in eCommerce, but I have to admit I don’t work overtime to keep pace with catalog searching.
For that reason, I found the article in eCommerce Guide quite useful. You may want to take a look at “Open Source E-Commerce: Winners and Losers in 2009”. There is a useful list of vendors plus helpful descriptions and links. For me the most important aspect of the listing was its focus on open source solutions.
There was some turmoil in the eCommerce commercial sector in 2009. Mercado and Endeca were both affected. A number of other vendors like EasyAsk.com dropped off my radar. In fact, I heard that Progress Software was falling in love with another vendor’s search system. I don’t have any details, but this may be worth watching in 2010. Progress is an interesting company, and it seems to be making its roll up strategy pay off despite the engineering challenges of integrating different components and services.
The eCommerce Guide round up solidified some of my unrelated thoughts with this comment:
Magento is far and away the winner in the page popularity contest, more than doubling the number of pages over the past year. This is a rate of nearly a half million pages added each month. Magento 1.0 was released in March, 2008.
Mageneto, an eCommerce platform for growth, seems to be an open source play that warrants observation. The company reports more than one million downloads, but does not provide a time span. Its customers include Lenovo, 3M, and Samsung, among others. Interesting indeed.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 2, 2010
A freebie. No one paid me to write this. I shall report this to the US Department of Agriculture when Washington wakes up on January 3, 2010 or perhaps a few days later.
Google and Its Approach to Strategic Action
January 2, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who lives in the sunny Mediterranean basin for a link to “What’s Strategic for Google?” I sure did not know, and I found the comments in Chris Dixon’s blog interesting. The main points are ones that the popular pundits track like a Kentucky hound after a squirrel: Google buys companies and Google makes most of its money from advertising. The key point in the write up is expressed in this statement:
A project is strategic for Google if it affects what sits between the person clicking on an ad and the company paying for the ad.
The article then goes through a “Google stack” which consists of the components of Google between a “human” (essentially a user) and money. Mr. Dixon then asserts:
At each layer, Google either wants to dominate it or commoditize it.
When I read this piece, several thoughts crossed my mind:
- The patent documents which I have reviewed do not support a tactical view of Google’s strategic actions. In fact, some of these documents and their related technical papers focus on technical innovations that are loosely coupled with the Google that generates most of its money from advertising. Today is one thing; tomorrow at Google is another. I think there is a significant risk to look at Google in terms of advertising, based on my research.
- The argument seems oddly disconnected from the prescient analysis of domain evolution expressed in “The Nature of Technology”. The fact that monetization via advertising or some other direct means is the way to analyze Google’s strategic moves ignores some of the other and more “meta” aspects of what Google’s imperatives are. In fact, some of these imperatives are beyond the control of Google’s management in certain cases.
- The Wall Street and journalistic approach to Google looks at one factor: money. That’s a useful perspective if one has a single tool like a hammer. Google operates more like the broad concept of Henry Ford for a single, integrated manufacturing operation exemplified in his River Rouge construct. What may be strategic to Google is a big idea like Henry Ford’s migrated into a digital construct.
As an addled goose, I will leave it to the reader to determine if one should view Google as a company that defines strategic solely to get money or if Google is breaking new ground and money is simply a side product.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 2, 2009
A freebie. My goodness with Europe and the US governments closed to celebrate the month of that two sided dude Janus, to whom do I report. I will officially alert the most amenable Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe).
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
