FileNet: An Agile CMS with Search and More?
October 4, 2010
We have been working on a new Web log. The reason I listened to the Floss podcast about the open source content management framework Plone was to get a sense of the threat open source content management systems (CMS) pose to big outfits like IBM. IBM and its ilk assert that their software is really a platform, a framework, an architecture. I am not 100 percent convinced.
What makes IBM interesting is that the company has already shifted from its raft of home grown and partner search solutions to open source search. The last time I poked around the innards of OmniFind 9.x, it looked like Lucene, walked like Lucene, and said open source like Lucene. I, canny goose that I am, concluded that OmniFind was open source.
Would it remain open source? Would IBM pull an Oracle Java “move”, allowing lawyers to be innovators? Would those folks who paid big bucks for the FileNet system that once snarfed down paper checks for at least one bank with which I worked be stuck with a big dinosaur?
I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I can summarize – before I forget them – the points that I captured in a short discussion I had with a client last week. Summer is sure over. Lots of 30 year olds seem to be coming to the goose pond for what I told the president of MarkLogic was a consultation with the goose-ru. I am not a guru, of course.
The points:
First, the current IBM description of FileNet says here that:
FileNet® P8 Platform is a next-generation, unified enterprise foundation for the integrated FileNet P8 products. It combines the enterprise content management reference architecture with comprehensive business process management and compliance capabilities. FileNet P8 addresses the most demanding compliance, content and process management needs for your entire organization. It is a key element in creating an agile, adaptable ECM environment necessary to support a dynamic organization that must respond quickly to change. Agile ECM solutions using IBM technologies bring together capabilities for process management, content management, regulatory compliance and legal discovery. [Emphasis added]
The summary is quite comprehensive. One point omitted from this Web page is the fact that FileNet dates from 1982. My math is not too good, but I think that is more than 20 years ago. As a result, I wondered about the reference to “agile.” At age 66, I am not agile, and I am not sure that two decade old software is as spry as the Plone team’s product. Just my preliminary opinion, gentle reader. Your opinion may differ.
From the Red Book. I suppose one could describe this as an agility engine. Notice the components and the dependence on the tough and expensive to scale traditional RDBMS. Copyright IBM 2010.
Second, FileNet was an early Brainware. The idea was to suck in paper, allow the trained FileNet specialists to monitor the system, and then output reports. My first exposure to FileNet was at a check clearing operation in Manhattan. Lots of people worked from sundown to sunrise processing paper checks. When the math no longer worked, that bank shipped the work first to Puerto Rico and then to Asia. I think the bank went south, sunk in part by financial managers’ acrobatics and the economic downturn. There is a lot of money to be made is manipulating paper documents. The Brainware twist, as well as other 21st century solutions, is to manipulate paper and digital content and make the results useful within a work flow. Brainware’s method relies on its trigram technology. I am not sure whether the heart of a 1982 architecture beats deep within the FileNet construct, but my hunch is that change comes slowly to large systems nurtured in the IBM $100 billion in revenue environment. My last check on Brainware revealed that Oracle, one of IBM’s competitors, has been relying on Brainware for some paper and data tricks. One rumor which I will try to substantiate when I meet with an informed source on October 12, 2010, is that Brainware and Oracle have been winning sales from IBM FileNet. If so, will Oracle put on the pressure? Will IBM be able to spiff up a 20 year old system? I don’t know.
Third, my recollection is that FileNet has become an umbrella product for IBM. The original FileNet is probably still remembered with some fondness, but today FileNet touches upon technologies rolled into FileNet before IBM paid $1.6 billion for the company in 2006. The various technologies within the FileNet wrapper include /.MS, search, and almost anything one would require to build a complete information platform. If you want to dig into the product, download the 300 page Redbook.
You can also sign on for services, which seems to be the reason agile FileNet exists in my opinion:
- Content Manager OnDemand Conversion Services
- Disaster Recovery Services
- FileNet P8 Conversion Services
- FileNet Report Manager Conversion Services
- Health Check Services
- Media Migration Services
- Mobius to Content Manager OnDemand Conversion Services
- Packaged Implementation Services
- Platform Conversion Services
- Remote System Administration
- System Management Services
- Transition Services.
Now some questions:
- With a system as “agile” and extensible, why did IBM sign on a bunch of CMS partners. One example was Documentum, which is now owned by rival EMC. i recall that there were some exciting deployment activities with an IBM Documentum system when I was poking around the US Senate. But why sign on for another super complex, aging CMS when FileNet was tan, ready, and rested, just like Nixon in one of his election bids?
- Why would IBM be sort of open source in search and proprietary in the core platform? There is a modern framework available; for example Plone? IBM dumped proprietary search, so won’t IBM dump FileNet? What’s good for the search goose should be good for the CMS gander.
- With the revenue for FileNet focused on services, particularly migration and conversion services, isn’t there more revenue to be had by swapping in a more modern system and then charging to move customers off the 20 year old FileNet platform and then selling more Web savvy, cloud centric, and flexible solutions?
I think this product will be interesting to watch for three reasons:
First, the Brainware success is going to inspire other companies to go after these hugely complex, expensive legacy systems. I think with CMS is not just disarray but full scale marginalization, the sector will undergo some additional change.
Second, I think that under the present financial pressure, IBM is going to turn up the heat on the lucky MBA who is supposed to grow the FileNet revenue. That will be a fun job and one that a 66 year old goose will find interesting to observe. Big information technology is a concept under scrutiny, and I think the IBM business unit with this product will be subject to some media attention, particularly in the banking and financial services trade press and blogs.
Third, the age of systems positioned as agile strikes me as the product of a marketing sensibility better tuned to writing about the troubles at Digg.com and Yahoo.com. But if IBM says, FileNet is agile, it has more than one billion reasons to tell that story.
To sum up, hello, Plume, Squiz, and the dozen other open source solutions. Maybe IBM should just buy Brainware and try again? Obviously there will be English majors, second and third tier consultants (the azurini), and probably journalist involved in FileNet’s battle against open source CMS. Today Plone looks good to me, however. And when I think of a framework for today’s information challenges, I am not sure that IBM or any of the other brand name enterprise vendors have what customers want: low cost, flexibility, and painless scaling.
Agile! Amazing.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2010
Freebie
Are Semantic Experts Losing It?
October 4, 2010
I read “USA Needs More Educated Workforce; Semantic Web Technologies May Help Higher Ed Spend IT Dollars More Wisely To Support Getting There” and wondered how this idea can get from A to B. Now I am a fan of semantic technologies, but I have said that semantic plumbing needs to be hidden behind nicely painted wallboard. I am baffled about the logic of the core argument in this semantic cheerleading write up. Here’s a passage that stumped me:
The latest development on this front is the public launch, set for later this month, at the EDUCAUSE conference of the EdUnify SOA Governance Framework Initiative. EdUnify is described as a shared, neutral, community-based Web services registry and suite of semantic web tools designed to reduce costs of integration and improve efficiency by providing a service-oriented architecture governance framework for education.
Conceptually I see that there are benefits from semantic technology applied to education. The reality is one that is going leave semantic technology marginalized.
First, the present system is not working with large numbers of high school students abandoning their education. This means that the semantic payoff will be for the students who stay in school. My recollection of student who stay in school is that plain old teaching works reasonably well. Chasing technology fairy dust is interesting but not germane to getting reading, writing, and arithmetic in place and providing an environment in which to learn. How will semantic technology help those who drop out or fail to keep up with the bright kids?
Second, the financial situation is pretty grim. The notion of a top down semantic solution is fun to discuss, but the situation in schools is that some basics are now shifted from the school to the teacher. For example, at the start of the school year in Kentucky, students were asked to bring supplies that the school once provided. Hey, no one asked me to bring a ream of copy paper to the first day of school.
Third, the big top down, technology fixes have not worked. I remember going to the middle school where my wife taught for many years and found only one working PC in the computer lab. Sure, the presence of computers is a great idea, but the infrastructure to keep these gizmos working, training teachers in what to have students do with the computers, and the battle of wits between computer savvy kids and lagging teachers makes many such technology fixes a joke.
Semantic technology is plumbing. Where it can be integrated to improve content processing and information retrieval, great. Positioning semantic technology as part of a giant, top down program leaves me baffled. Thank goodness I am 66 and too old to have to worry about this sort of thinking. The write up shows some connection with reality, but the core notion strikes me as something wild and crazy.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2010
Freebie
Floss Plone Information
October 4, 2010
I have been listening to podcasts when at the gym. New to the podcast world, I have been downloading programs to try and find out which ones have consistent, solid content. Yesterday I listened to Floss Weekly Number 137: Plone, produced by an outfit called Twit. You can get the show and information about Twit from the company’s Web site at http://twit.tv. I was surprised with the information revealed on this particular podcast, hosted by Randal Schwartz (aka merlyn), a Perl expert.
The guest on the program to which I listened was Alexander Limi, former Googler, employee at Mozilla, and user experience specialist for Plone. If you are not familiar with Plone, it is an open source content framework. You can use it to create content for industrial strength applications like the FBI and Discover Web sites. For more information about Plone, navigate to http://plone.org/.
I have no solid information about the accuracy of this particular podcast. I do want to highlight two points made in the podcast because I don’t want them to slip away.
The first point concerns Microsoft SharePoint. On the podcast I heard that Microsoft is not really selling or licensing SharePoint. Instead the model is shifting to providing the software and relying on services to generate revenue. I will have to poke around to find out if this is an early warning of a shift in the SharePoint business model or if there are only certain situations in which Microsoft is providing access to SharePoint in this way. The reason this is important is that SharePoint is, in my opinion, the fertile soil of an ecosystem that supports quite a few third-party vendors. These range from Microsoft Certified Partners who produce software that snaps in or overlays SharePoint. Example range from European vendors like Fabasoft to US firms like BA-Insight. In addition, there are many engineers who take some Microsoft classes and then support themselves making SharePoint work as the licensee requires. The notion of a “free” SharePoint or even a low cost SharePoint can explain why so many English majors, unemployed journalists, and third string business school MBAs are vociferously marketing their SharePoint expertise. This is a big ecosystem and it is going to get even bigger. I documented a study that suggested some SharePoint installations were challenges. The pricing implications are significant and the outlook for companies which can actually make SharePoint work are significant as well. I think most of the SharePoint snap in vendors could still be walking on a knife edge. The reason is that big accounts will be sucked up by Microsoft itself. Why let that revenue go to those who cultivated the cornfield? Just like big agriculture, the small farmer gets an opportunity to find a new future.
Yahoo and the Yahooligans
October 4, 2010
Five or six years ago, some addled outfit paid me to take a look at Yahoo, its search systems, and it plumbing. I did my thing, cooked up a report, and included a couple of PowerPoint slides to add levity to what was a quite grim report. As I recall, one of the PowerPoint foils featured a picture of the Titanic with Terry Semel as the captain of the ship. I got a chuckle, but the report had few highlights for stakeholders.
I have taken a casual interest in Yahoo since then. My own research indicated that it was a goner. I know that some of the folks who pay me for my opinions disagreed. I think the notion of a zooming Yahoo would yield some cash to my clients. Wrong. Nothing much flowed to these outfits, and with each organizational lurch, crazy decision like turning down real Microsoft money, and hiring a tough female executive to float the Yahooligans’ boat my original analysis was spot on.
Now I read “The Dream Is Collapsing: Another Massive Yahoo Re-Org Coming Next Tuesday.” I liked the write up, but my view is, “Tuesday. The collapse has taken place.” No amount of shuffling, puffing, and huffing will alter the fact that after a spectacular rise, Yahoo has become the poster child for the wind down of an online powerhouse.
There are three surprising aspects to Yahoo.
First, I am amazed at the fondness people have for the service. I still dump some old email into Yahoo Mail, but I find the system clunky. The search system often tells me I have no hits. I hate the multiple clicks it takes to see a list of what’s in the email queue. Nevertheless, there are people who like Yahoo. The news page is a stalwart for my father when he can manage to log on. Yahoo wants to kick him off the system and a 90 year old has a tough time logging in. Good thinking, Yahooligans. But he loves Yahoo.
Second, the search system has for a long, long time be worthless. I know that Yahoo has developed some experimental services. One feature little sliders which I found somewhat interesting. But the core search function has never been particularly helpful. The shopping service is a joke. I wanted to limit the search to only Yahoo Stores. I couldn’t figure out how to do it without turning cartwheels with a complex Google query. Yahoo shopping results remain deeply flawed despite efforts to change the service.
Third, I can’t find stuff available from Yahoo. The company does a lousy job of exposing its services. Now Google and Microsoft have similar problems, but of the three, Yahoo is in my opinion, unable to let me find specific Yahoo services. I created some links in a Yahoo bookmark service. Then I could never find that service again. I am not sure anyone at Yahoo knows what is available, nor is anyone particularly concerned with providing a directly to Yahoo itself. Directory. Remember, Yahooligans? That was your core service.
Finally, have you ever tried to locate some of the innovative work done with various Yahoo tools? Well, I have. I have written about Cluuz.com, which at one time, made Yahoo results quite useful. I have stumbled across others, but Yahoo cannot find a way to provide one click access to developers’ work that showcases Yahoo. I think this is not just indifference. I don’t think anyone at Yahoo knows about much other than what is in front of them at this moment. The culture that bought companies and left to their own devices is still intact. A shift to Microsoft management won’t make much difference because the DNA of the company is in the carpet and cubicles I think.
So is Yahoo a goner? Some pundits want AOL to buy Yahoo or Yahoo to buy AOL. My view right now is that there is no easy, simple solution. Tuesday is already here for Yahoo I think.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2010
Freebie
SAP and Novell: More Open Source Goodness?
October 4, 2010
We know people using SAP applications are concerned about complexity in its deployments. Here’s a solution that waters down the issue, as reported in the SiliconRepublic.com article “Novell and SAP in Linux Application Alliance.” Yet another novel innovation from Novell, the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, improves on the reliability and ease of management of SAP applications on Linux, in collaboration with SAP.
“This latest offering dramatically simplifies and accelerates the deployment of physical and virtual mission-critical workloads for users of SAP solutions,” details the article, adding that the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server also reduces the installation time and cost. Among the many SAP applications that benefit from this collaboration is the NetWeaver Search, which looks for its revival with this alliance. We view this development as crucial to increased user acceptance of SAP applications, but we also sense SAPs growing intimacy with open source. Is the aging retrieval system looking for a new breather in open source?
Harleena Singh, October 9, 2010
Freebie
Need to Understand Transparency and Online Advertising
October 3, 2010
I don’t but you may. An outfit called Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace offers a free white paper “Openness & the Internet: The Role of Transparency in Online Search and Search Advertising.” You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get this 24 page document. Begin the question by navigating to ComputerWeekly.com. You can try this link or run a query with crossed fingers for the title of the white paper. Good luck.
I read the white paper and noted that Lord Watson of Richmond CBE wants me to provide feedback. So, here goes.
The idea is that big online entities should be able to figure out how much dough Google makes so that information can be used by advertisers to get a better deal.
Why not ask Ptolemy why he is using so many circles and arcs? I bet he would drop what he was doing and fill you in? Wrong. The guy was busy reworking Hipparchus’ system of epicycles and eccentric circles. If you didn’t get it, he probably wasn’t going to give the information to you. Is Google much different?
Fat chance.
The silliness of this idea is clear in one passage:
How important is it that a dominant firm employs consistent and predictable procedures for resolution of complaints for online publishers and advertisers?
Really? Why not just write directly about Google? A couple of thoughts:
First, I suggest the author of the white paper drop by the local high school or pre-college institution and attend a Math Club meeting. Once in the room, ask this question, “I am having trouble figuring out how many miles to the gallon I get in my Honda.” The author of the paper should note the response of the group and then revisit this question about consistent and predictable. The only behavior that will be predictable and consistent, in my opinion, will be scorn and laughter.
Second, the notion of dealing with humans who want something the Math Club does not want to provide is addled. The whole idea behind Math Club is that those who join it intuitively grasp certain ideas. Those who don’t “get it” are not worthy of Math Club and, therefore, will never “get it.” Ergo. Go find your lacrosse pals and ask them something.
Third, the underlying principle of online advertising is that everything is dynamic. That means that at any point in time factors change the rules. Asking a human, even a Math Club member, what is happening at a particular point in time and why it is happening evokes a look of disbelief.
In short, the white paper wants the Math Club to change. I think if you tracked down Ptolemy and asked him to explain how he did maps of what is now Northern Europe 2000 years ago, he would have snorted and ignored you.
That behavior doesn’t seem to change in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2010
Freebie
Arnold For Fee Columns, October 2010
October 3, 2010
Yep, another month and another series of for-fee columns. The Beyond Search blog content is a marketing effort. The good stuff finds its way into the work that people actually pay me to do. We just knocked off a report about a new market for search and content processing companies, but I won’t be sharing any of that solid gold information in this blog. Keep in mind that the blog, although written by five people each week, is putting information in the voice of a 66 year old goose. I dearly lover the breathless 20 somethings who want me to participate in briefings with senior executives who have something to say about search engine optimization or the junior mid tier consultants who think I will sit through a Webinar because some vendor was silly enough to give these azurini money to put them in touch with a thought leader. Sigh.
If you want a glimpse of some of the research we have done into information retrieval, you will have to chase down one or more of these for fee columns when each appears either in print, online, or in both media.
- For Information Today, “Connectors: The Next Search Battleground”. I used this phrase in a personal email to a vendor and the vendor wanted to snag my phrase for its Web site. No way, José. If you are in the connector business, you will want to read this column. If you have licensed connectors, you will want to read this column. Why you ask? Who cares about connectors? Well, grasshopper, you don’t know what you don’t know. Think racketeering. How about a Federal court? Of course, you can chase down your PR person or your mid tier consultant and get the “real” story. Pick a path but stay informed.
- For Information World Review, “Governance: A Politically-Correct but Toothless Notion.” I hear so much baloney about governance, I was thrilled when someone paid me to dig into the subject of “taxonomy governance.” Talk about baloney. Instead of recycling a narrow take on governance, I upped the ante an invoked Jeff Papows, Oracle, HP, and Sun Tzu. Bottomline: governance like much info-baloney is a straw man. Talk about being politically correct. You can find out more when the story hits the online and hard copy Information World Review in the next few weeks.
- For KMWorld, “Google Enterprise: Reseller Challenges Arriving.” In this column I talk about Google’s recent attempt to shore up the security of its enterprise products and services. The Google is trying, but now the battle is shifting to productive partners, resellers, and integrators. The point of the story is that now that Google is addressing some important issues with its product offerings, competitors are shifting the battle. Can the Google react quickly? You will have to read the column to find out what’s ahead.
- For Smart Business Network, “Marketing to the US Hispanic Markets: Digital and Grandmother Methods.” Fancy digital marketing is great for those who live in Silicon Valley, are between the mental ages of 10 and 40, and lack the ability to focus on one task for more than three minutes. For SBN online and its network of 12 hard copy business magazines, I point out that the burgeoning Hispanic market may require some different types of market planning and methods. Olé.
A final reminder to the PR people. Please, read the About information for this blog. I sell ads, interviews, and stories. Each story points out that it is a freebie or in some way sponsored. Beyond Search is not a “real” news publication. I have two or three readers, and these folks should have better things to do with their time. I suggest going to the park and feeding the ducks and geese. Winter is coming help out my feathered relatives. If you are an English major, take a book of Browning’s poems and puzzle over “brown Delores.”
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2010
Freebie
More Legal Activities: Is Litigation the New Innovation?
October 3, 2010
I am not an attorney. Thank goodness. When I advertise for some part-time help in Craigslist.com, I get résumés from folks with law degrees. Some attended fancy universities whose very name on a T shirt intimidates this old goose. Nevertheless, lawyers may be the next wave of innovators. Now I don’t mean coding up a nifty new online service. That work goes to the giant non-US publishing companies trying to maintain a monopoly in legal information as the number of attorneys willing to pay big bucks for an online query decreases.
Nope. The innovation of which I speak is that type document in such places as the Washington Post or CentreDaily.com. The Washington Post story “Microsoft Sues Motorola over Smart Phone Patents” told me:
Microsoft Corp. is suing Motorola Inc. for infringing on its smart-phone patents. The software maker on Friday said Motorola phones that use Google Inc.‘s Android software step on Microsoft technology. The functions in question include synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts.
Dry, not juicy.
The CentreDaily.com story “Microsoft Sues Motorola over Smart Phone Patents” said exactly the same thing. So much for real journalism.
What is going on? Repetition that Google’s de-duplication method can’t figure out?
Microsoft itself was more clear stating here:
“Microsoft filed an action today in the International Trade Commission and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Motorola, Inc. for infringement of nine Microsoft patents by Motorola’s Android-based smartphones. The patents at issue relate to a range of functionality embodied in Motorola’s Android smartphone devices that are essential to the smartphone user experience, including synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power. We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing innovative software products and services to market. Motorola needs to stop its infringement of our patented inventions in its Android smartphones.”
I think I understand. Google’s Android phones are helping Motorola, a company with a long history of mobile devices and patent hassles with such outfits as Research in Motion. Lawyers at Microsoft are trying to put a shackle on Motorola and, in my opinion, the Google with this legal challenges.
The poor Google is facing legal innovation at every turn. Someone told me that the Apple HTC dust up was another thrust at Google. Oracle, home of the anti-open source, crowd is allowing its attorneys to challenge Google over Java. (Java in my opinion is one of those ubiquitous, free things that is tough to escape when I fire up a new PC. I also hate the icon and the performance hit imposed on my el cheapo netbook.) Now Microsoft and its Motorola challenge. Motorola! The company has dodged a bullet and seems to be surviving because it can make Android phones that people actually want to buy. I hated my one Motorola mobile phone. So never again, thank you.
It takes quite a leap to see a way to thwart Google by chasing Motorola in court. But I am a silly goose and not a legal eagle. I think the current crop of attorneys are having one of those Newton Leibniz moments. Quite a coincidence that Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft are challenging the GOOG indirectly via what seem to me to be innovative arabesques. One cannot overlook the three dozen US states which are annoyed at Google and the assorted politicos in Germany, Spain, and China which are also miffed. Legal cleverness seems to rely on the notion of safety in numbers. Does the reasoning go like this, “Let’s sue Google or sue a Google partner. One of us will win, right?”
For me, the legal innovation crown sits on US heads.
My question has head to head engineering and business competition given up. Are those challenged by Google relying on legal innovators to cope with a company that has been largely unchallenged for more than a decade? If law schools are the new research and development centers, what does that make the unemployed attorneys who want the goose to hire them?
I think I will go with the unemployed English majors and jobless journalists. Less risky maybe? Consumers buy stuff. Legal actions often have a tough time changing consumer behaviors.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2010
Freebie
Alleged Android User Data Harvesting
October 2, 2010
Short honk: I have no idea if “Android Apps Sending Covert Info to Advertisers” is spot on or disclosing part of a larger story. The main idea is that Android phones beam user data, including phone numbers and location data, back to someone’s ranch. Maybe an advertiser? Maybe some other entity? If the story is false, I remain concerned that certain types of covert data collection is possible. If the story is true, I wonder if there is much chance for a user of any mobile device to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don’t get too many secret calls. The idea that information can be intercepted and used for some purpose for which I have not given permission could pump up my blood pressure. But at this point, I believe that this type of data activity is part of the landscape. The question is, “What other types of data sucking is going on?” Math Club was never this fun in 1958 when I was in high school.
Stephen E Arnold, October 2, 2010
Freebie
Digg Dug Deep Dip
October 2, 2010
I use an aggregation tool we built called Oversight. You can see how it works with its features stripped away at this link. We look at some aggregation sites at lunch, so we don’t have much first hand knowledge about Digg.com. “Is It Too Late for a Digg Comeback?” raises an important question. For me, this passage seemed particularly interesting:
Whether or not the adjustments and upcoming changes will be enough to bring back some of the vibrant Digg community of old remains to be seen. More new features are likely to be rolled out, including “interests” pages, but not much is known about that or whether users will want it. Rose mentioned the return of user “leader-boards,” which had always been popular in the past. The pagination could mean an uptick in page views, which could do good things for the company’s bottom line and morale. Also, once the site’s API stabilizes, it could mean a slew of new products developed around Digg, as well as more traffic. “Publishers can reliably use Digg buttons and Digg widgets once Digg gets its API up to speed,” said Barrera. “More developers will also be able to create web experiences around Digg data, which means Digg will be able to reach a lot more people than through just their site.”
Changes and technology conspired to create problems for Digg. I thought that zippy outfits in Silicon Valley and San Francisco were able to handle tweaks. I think the idea is agility, flexibility, and adaptability. I was wrong. When a site makes fixes, the same old problems crop up just as they do in more traditional, less hip systems. The idea that big Webby systems are easy to manage is silly.
But the main take away for me is that a hot site can cool quickly. On top of that, annoyed users no longer click away. Those annoyed users fire up their Twitter account and start tweeting. Then blogs jump in. Finally, a serious news outfit like Venture Beat picks up the story.
At that point, it is indeed too late. Online is tough even for the young of heart, living in San Francisco, doing podcasts, and implementing Google-esque management methods. Just an opinion from Harrod’s Creek.
Stephen E Arnold, October 2, 2010
Freebie
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
