Another Google Black Eye
March 10, 2010
“Google’s Online Only Phone Selling Model Has Failed” makes it clear that the math club is not particularly good in the sales and marketing game. In the last few months, I have noted that some folks are taking a more critical look at the search company everyone loves to use. Here’s a representative passage from this right jab to Googzilla’s head:
Well, it’s been a while now since Google launched the Nexus One — and so far, it hasn’t lived up to their expectations. I guess it’s not as bad as the Google Buzz roll-out, but Google’s attempt at fundamentally changing the way we buy cell phones has yet to bear much fruit.
Interesting. But Google has a policy of not paying for ads itself nor hiring consultants. I wonder if ZDNet’s editors will become more frisky as 2010 unfolds? Not much risk I suppose.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2010
No one paid me to write this item. I will report non payment to the US Postal Service which may deliver some of the Google phones.
Thunderstone and Its Reseller Program
March 10, 2010
I read “Frederick A. Harmon, CSO of Thunderstone Software, Recognized as a 2010 Channel Chief by CRN” and was delighted to learn about Thunderstone’s juicy reseller program. The company has introduced a partner portal which you can visit at http://www.thunderstone.com/texis/site/users. In addition, the company has added some financial inducements. For me the most interesting passage in the story was:
Thunderstone has always delivered free and personalized online demos tailored to the customer’s particular needs, plus 30-day eval units shipped pre-configured to the unique requirements of each customer. For Channel Partners with one or more employees who become Thunderstone-Certified Professionals – Thunderstone now offers free virtual versions of Thunderstone search solutions that certified personnel can use themselves to provide demos and evaluations for their own customers and prospects. All Thunderstone products come with a one-time, perpetual license which often saves customers 40 percent or more on their initial purchase. Thunderstone customers also enjoy an Investment Protection Program that makes upgrading their search solutions easy, desirable and affordable.
I gave Thunderstone high marks when I wrote the first three editions of the out of print Enterprise Search Report, published by a firm which has repositioned itself. (Better than the publisher who is now in a far off land enjoying the sun.) You can get more information about Thunderstone from my interview with the CEO and by visiting the firm’s Web site, http://www.thunderstone.com.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2010
A freebie. Now I have to report non payment to the mayor of Cleveland. I haven’t been in Cleveland for a while. Lovely city. Lots of non payment going on, which is sad.
Real Time Search: Poor Layout or Lousy Content?
March 9, 2010
In my Information World Review column which I submitted last week, I talked about the “marshmallow wars” being waged among Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. The idea is that these three “big boys” are not doing a particularly meaty job with real time content. I was fascinated to read “Why Do We Ignore Real Time Results from Google Search” in the media-savvy Guardian. I focused on the substance of the real time results, the latency, and the method of displaying these results. Each company rows its real time boat differently, and that makes life difficult for geese like me.
The Guardian’s approach, which was quite interesting to me, focused on eye tracking. You can read the write up and decide whether user experience or the content itself is the problem. I am very skeptical of the razzle dazzle about eye candy and how eyes move. My recollection from my grade school and high school days is that some people are not very adept readers. In my class which underwent a speed reading test in Illinois in the 1950s, few students were able to absorb blocks of text at one glance. Obviously, if there are some slow readers, there may be some difficulty with certain types of layouts. On the other hand, if you are like me and can swallow paragraphs or even pages at a glance, then the eye movement stuff may not be as significant as the value of the information.
My column for Information World Review focuses on substance. I leave the wandering eyeballs of those who read a word or two at a time and may sub vocalize when they grind through information to the arts and crafts approach to information. My opinion is that Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are chasing real time content because it is has marketing value. There are useful data in real time results but not in the presentations of the big dogs of Web search. I identify some go-to services for real time search but you will have to wait until the IWR publishing cycle outputs the column.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I wonder if those reading the article glance, move their lips, or follow with their fingers. I suppose this type of non compensated writing and the attendant question means I must report to the FBI, an outfit skilled in dealing with impressions of fingers.
YouTube.com Market Share
March 9, 2010
Fast Company ran a snippet in its March 8, 2010 “Today in Most Innovative Companies” column that provides some information about YouTube.com’s market share. Here are the highlights that I marked:
- 40 percent market share (comScore data)
- 12.8 billion videos “compared with Hulu’s 903 million”. (I know this is ambiguous but the delta is interesting)
- Viewers watch 93 videos per month on YouTube.com. Hulu viewers was 23 videos per month.
What’s with Google and video? Is it another missed opportunity like Google’s social media efforts? a similar theme appears in “Nexus One’s Biggest challenge Isn’t iPhone; It’s Google’s Online Only Sales Model?” Frisky stuff.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2010
No one paid me to document these three items. Because I mention television, I think of Newton Minnow, so I will report this lack of payment to Fish & Wildlife. I wonder if Fish & Wildlife are responsible for “vast wastelands”?
Quote to Note: Complexity
March 9, 2010
Listen up, azure chip consultants, poobahs, mavens, and self appointed experts. What do you think of this quote to note?
It’s just so difficult for people to understand the complexity of the thing. They don’t have the background. They don’t have the time to do an investigation. They want to oversimplify a thing that can’t be oversimplified.
Who is the speaker? David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan and an engineer. The source? The Washington Post’s article “Frank Ahrens: Why It’s So Hard for Toyota to Find Out What’s Wrong.”
Germane to search, content processing, and taxonomy consistency (the next big train wreck for some folks)? Absolutely. When a tangible product with supporting software is tough to troubleshoot, what do you think about a hack-a-matic like many content management systems and some enterprise search systems.
Yep, the gurus are able to simplify. The details are irrelevant. Buzzwords do the “real” trick.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write this. But I did mention Toyota, so I suppose I have to report non payment to the Federal Highway Administration. I wonder why the roads in the US deteriorate more rapidly than the roads in France? Maybe it is the compound? Another troubleshooting job?
Real Journalists May Have Lost Touch with IT Reality
March 9, 2010
Keep in mind that the addled goose’s Web log, which you are now reading, is a marketing vehicle. It contains on good days old news. On bad days, the addled goose recycles his own talks which he delivers for tacos and Pepsis. I am not a journalist and I don’t pretend to be one. I am not even a public relations person. As I approach 66, I entertain myself capturing information that I otherwise would forget and documenting my thoughts, which are subject to change. When was the last time, a 65 year old could remember where he or she put the keys to the automobile? See what I mean.
When I read the Cnet write up about a post I saw last week, I thought, “CBS’s real journalists are now thinking about themselves in a meta-way.” Navigate to “Has Business Press Lost Touch with the Tech Industry?” CBS is a real company and it does real news. Cnet is a real news outfit, if I understand set theory. The point is that an azure chip outfit called ITDatabase figured out that the real journalists are writing about topics that are popular. I think this is using humans the way Google uses popularity algorithms. I am sure the “real” journalists would disagree. That’s okay.
For me, the most interesting passage in the write up in Cnet was:
Enterprise IT is woefully underrepresented, despite being the cash-cow in the industry. “In the overall editorial agenda,” the report says, “enterprise IT is treated like consumer tech’s snaggletoothed twin. It barely even makes the family photo.”
Let’s think about this statement.
First, publicly traded companies are covered with a bit of fancy geometry by the investment analysts tracking these companies. The information is usually able to deliver a couple of nuggets. The reason is that most of the analysts talk to people * other than public relations * and * business development officers *. Most of the real journalists recycle familiar contacts, preferring to quote names the writer assumes the readers will recognize. So when the word “search” appears in a story the same handful of “experts’ get quoted. The result is that the stories really don’t change too much from article to article. Google is an advertising company. Bing is gaining share. Autonomy is the leader in enterprise search. The statements in the article are true because they are in the article. Tautology meets routine.
Second, figuring out what is going on in a technology field is tough for three reasons. [a] The jargon is impenetrable. A “real” journalist may not have the time to figure out what the words mean. Example: faceted search or taxonomy. [b] The sources are often running the game plan. Take a look at the comments by tech leaders. There are buzzwords and a jab or two at a windmill. Not much substance because the focus is the sound bite. [c] A tech company sells products that a really complex. The wizards at the company cannot be trusted to answer a question because the wizard might point out that a specific feature is different from the function described by the marketing person. Guess who gets in trouble? The tech person so there folks are shuttled away from the lights and the cameras.
Third, I heard that publishing companies are getting rid of staff. The numbers quoted at a conference last week struck me as pretty high. The person pointed out that newspapers were shedding jobs at the rate of 1,000 per month. Wow. What will be left? What’s left, if this number is accurate, are people who have to write from news releases, contacts who are warm and familiar, and topics that are listed on Tweetmeme.
When the money goes away, algorithms will do this work and, of course, folks with time on their hands like this addled goose. Just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write about how I write this blog. Wait. If I buy myself lunch this afternoon, I will be getting paid. I will report the write-for-food angle to the FCC.
Google and Information
March 9, 2010
Media Maverick Greg Sansoval’s “Google Reluctant to Release Info in Viacom Case” presented some interesting information. The idea is that Google does not want to have certain information floating around. What information? The documents related to the $1.0 billion Viacom litigation. Ah, juicy information. For me, the most important comment in the write up was:
For three years now, Google and Viacom have exchanged hundreds of thousands of pages of deposition transcripts, e-mails, and other data during a lengthy discovery process. Most of the information has been kept under seal, thanks to a protective order, which was negotiated and agreed to by both sides. Now, Viacom wants to unseal all but the most sensitive of trade secrets within two weeks and Google wants to wait until June 4. Google says it would be a “logistical nightmare” to release information piecemeal before the sides finish arguing their cases. Courts typically prefer to keep records open to the public, but there are exceptions, most often in criminal or civil cases involving national security. In civil suits, some material can be kept under seal in order to protect trade secrets. What’s not clear is why the material in the Viacom vs. Google case is under seal.
My take on this is that the depositions include information that will provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Google’s digital fingerprints and other interesting aspects of the matter. My hunch is that if these materials become available, a number of useful nuggets will emerge.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write this news item. Since I mention a legal matter, I will report non payment to the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.
The Taxonomy Torpedo
March 9, 2010
Quite an interesting phone call today (March 8, 2010). Apparently the article “A Guide to Developing Taxonomies for Effective Data Management” caught this person’s attention. The write up boils down the taxonomy job to a couple of pages of tips and observations. Baloney in my opinion.
The caller wanted to have me and a gosling provide the green light to a taxonomy project. The method was to use a couple of subject matter experts from marketing and an information technology intern. The idea was to take a word list and use it to index content with the organization’s enterprise search system.
The called told me, “We let the staff add their own key words. There has been a lot of inconsistency. We will develop our controlled term list and that way we have date, time, and creator; the terms the users assign; and the words in our taxonomy. What do you think?”
What I think is that no one will be able to find some of the relevant data. I am surprised that so many vendors point out that their systems “discover” metadata and provide users with suggestions, lists of related content, and the ability to search by entities.
Doesn’t work.
Here’s why:
- Fancy interfaces (user experience in today’s lingo) requires consistent, appropriate, and known tags. Most organizations, fresh from doing taxonomy push ups for a day, have wildly inconsistent term lists. A user may know how to locate a document in an idiosyncratic way. If that method involves a controlled word, the user may not get the results she was expecting.
- Automatic processes work well when the information objects have enough substantive content to make key word indexing work. I have examined a number of organizations’ content and found inconsistencies in the way in which the organization referred to itself. The controlled terms were rarely used. When a query included a controlled term, the user was puzzled why the result set was not complete.
- Most organizations lack the expertise and resources to create a well-formed controlled term list. Ad hoc lists are useful sometimes to those who cooked them up. A comprehensive controlled term list is a great deal of work.
What’s this mean? The stampede to taxonomies will yield the same dissatisfaction that other, partially implemented search features. Talk is easy. Taxonomies and controlled term lists are tough to develop and even harder to keep current.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I mention indexing, so I will report non payment to the Librarian of Congress, or maybe the librarian for the House library, or maybe the librarian for the Senate library. I wonder why there are three libraries for Congress.
Possibly Unfair Criticism of Real Journalists
March 9, 2010
I heard about a frustrated programmer who found a livelihood as an azure chip consultant. The fellow tries hard. He writes a Web log that takes on software companies with a feather duster. When I read “UK Press: 21st Century Journalism hits an All Time Low”, I thought the author was writing about this blogger fellow and his simplifying gang of mavens. I was wrong. The article challenges the quality of journalism in the UK, and the author read old newspapers as part of his research. For me the most interesting passage was:
Some editors seem to have a funny idea of what’s newsworthy. They also seem to have an odd idea of what people find interesting to read and are bending over backwards to put press releases by celebrity agents instead as newsworthy stories, these are often recycled in other major newspapers. Round me, people are losing their jobs left right and centre and only today, I have had yet another person speak to me about regular elder abuse in care homes. Front page stories about celebrities are an insult to the British public.
I wonder how Google’s smart software would populate a newspaper with its snippet and segmenting technology mixed with a dash of its context server? Maybe some day.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write this short item. I will report the fact of non payment to the Department of State, an outfit on top of activities in the United Kingdom.
Endeca Files OfficeFurniture.com under Sold
March 8, 2010
I learned that OfficeFurniture.com has rolled out its Web site powered by the Endeca system. You can read the story in “OfficeFurniture.com Introduces Endeca Search and Navigation Technology with Newly Redesigned Website.”
The site features point and click refinement, recommended products, and sort options. My test queries rendered within a couple of seconds. When I selected “View all matching file cabinets”, the system generated a single long page with pictures and links to additional information. I had a Bing Image moment when I first encountered this feature. The long pages are a bit of a hassle on my netbook, which has a wimpy graphics card and minimal RAM. That’s not Endeca’s issue, however. Overall performance was good.
For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
“OfficeFurniture.com are experts in their market and have a deep understanding of the factors most important to each customer as they seek the right furniture for their specific office environment,” said Rob Swint, global lead, B2B eCommerce and distribution at Endeca. “By continuing their advancements in overall web presence, they are allowing customers unprecedented ability to search and evaluate their product lines, while improving sales effectiveness by better matching customers to the right product for their needs. The result is a better user experience for both customer and business.”
The positioning of Endeca struck me as squarely in the eCommerce sector. Congratulations to the Endeca team on this big win.
Stephen E Arnold, March 6, 2010
No one paid me to write this news item. I will report non payment to the Department of Commerce, an agency on top of all things commercial.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
