IBM, OmniFind, Yahoo: What Is Next in Search?
March 8, 2011
I was pointed to this link from IBM’s website, stating that effective September 22, 2010 the Yahoo! Edition of OmniFind was withdrawn from marketing. Further, after June 30, 2011 the product support line will be nullified as well. Why the cancellation? There is an announcement letter attached, though it offers no insight. It does, however, indicate that no replacements will be made available. I tried tracking down some additional information on this free version of OmniFind and its demise, to no avail. So what happened? Was it not popular enough, too limited? Was it Lucene? Does anyone care? We do find IBM quite fascinating for a $100 billion company on Jeopardy, fighting crime in New York, and cracking medical problems with Nuance. Diverse for sure.
Our view is that with Microsoft getting cozy or at least semi-cozy with Yahoo, IBM’s OmniFind unit saw the writing on the wall. The result is that the “free” and severely limited IBM Yahoo search solution was pulled. What will take its place? Our first thought was Watson. Then we realized that Watson may be more appropriate for limited domain searching like medical information. The Jeopardy public relations stunt was a marketing play. Configuring Watson to replace Lucene based OmniFind is probably not a practical solution at this time. As a result, IBM will have to either create a new demo of its enterprise search software or just roll out the full system with some limit on its use.
In short, IBM like other big outfits seems to have some challenges in the enterprise search department just as Google, Microsoft, and Oracle do. No wonder the third party solutions are probing the enterprise for licensing deals. Stay tuned.
Sarah Rogers, March 8, 2011
Freebie
Google in the Kitchen: A Recipe for Disappointment?
March 8, 2011
With an estimated one percent of queries submitted to Google pertaining to food preparation, the multifaceted program is now adding a feature meant to sate user hunger for just such an implement. According to “Google Gives Us a Recipe Search Engine”, the proposed modification will return results compiled using a mixture of relevant ingredients, cooking times, as well as nutritional statistics. Following the French culinary refrain, Mise en place (which translates to everything in its place), access to this addition will be found in the vertical search menu on the left side of the home-screen.
While the above is as satisfying as removing your soufflé from the oven without it deflating, taking every ounce of enthusiasm you had for the endeavor with it, what makes this noteworthy? Like the ability to execute a recipe to perfection, it can be reduced to the technique used. In this case, the method involves the code applied to construct the target folios. Laced within are what is known as rich snippets (short explanatory notes) which recapitulate a page’s content.
The real issue remains the relatively small number of pages that contain structured metadata. Google has invested more than hope into the idea that more sites will follow the path cut by the Food Network and those owned by Condé Nast. Not to be overlooked is the potential for the generation of revenue. Three years ago there was speculation over the agreeability of advertisers to release a bit more coin for elevated status in category listings or under the definition returns associated with hot links. Could a similar arrangement be applied here? Google is a business.
As someone who both knows a few chefs and cooks frequently himself, I can attest to the attraction of a virtual reference library. Any professional chef who claims they do not use the internet for acquiring new recipes or verifying one when their frenzied minds cease recalling those in storage is … well let us just say those vegetables are not as fresh as advertised either.
Micheal Cory, March 8, 2011
Travel Search: Are Google and Microsoft Confused?
March 8, 2011
I read “Ex-Microsoft Employee: 5 Things The Kayak Deal Tells Us About Bing” and took a moment to think about travel search. My personal view of travel search is that it is not very good. Services that promise discount travel play more tricks than a mid tier consulting firm reporting an objective, independent study of search systems. One example is the magic of taxes and fees. Another is the time out trick. Wait too long to click and the search goes dead. Rerunning the search yields a flight listing with the trip one was thinking about gone missing from the list. Clever? Yes, clever indeed.
I think the background for thinking about travel is Google’s effort to acquire a big travel aggregator. That deal is making headlines with its effort to buy ITA Software. You can read Google’s statement at “Facts about Google’s Acquisitions of ITA Software” and then check out the pros and cons on many, many Web posts. I have ignored this type of deal because airlines are starting to play hard ball with aggregators and middle people. Airlines are finally starting to figure out that if they emulate Southwest, they can make some extra money. Now airlines and giant outfits like Google are going to be engaging in a love-hate relationship. Apple has already figured out that its monopoly position allows it, not the content providers, to make the rules.
Nevertheless, I spent a few minutes pondering the Microsoft Kayak deal. Here’s a key snippet from that write up:
Forget vertical. It’s more fun being horizontal. A few years ago, Microsoft thought that they could compete with Google by chipping away one vertical at a time. For example, they bought Farecast to do travel, they did the awful cash back promotion to chip away on shopping search, and then they made a lot of noise in the marketplace about how their maps and pictures were delivering better results then Google. Now it looks like Microsoft is going to focus again on general search.
In my opinion, this passage makes clear that Microsoft is flip flopping and reacting to a number of real and perceived threats. Nothing new, of course. But the statement “Microsoft is going to focus again on general search” caught my attention. Here’s why:
First, I think few people realize that the depth of the Microsoft and Google indexes are not well understood. The action is in the information that gets clicks. This means that when one looks for health care testimony before the US Congress, there will be less information than information about Lady Gaga’s meat dress. The perception that the indexes are deep, wide, and current is one thing. The reality is quite another. The big search services are now little more than collections of vertical content.
Second, the notion that travel search is going to remain objective is off base as well. Airlines will pay to get traffic. Airlines will then try to exclude any other outfit in the food chain from getting a piece of the action. So finding and buying tickets is going to remain a cat and mouse game for quite a while. Who will lose? Probably the ticket buyer like me.
Third, individual brands like Kayak get traction and then get sucked into the maw of a larger outfit. Then the brand magnetism dissipates and whatever benefits were perceived at the time of the deal. Two things happen. Entrepreneurs move into the same space and the acquired outfit begins to decline in potency. You may disagree, but I am comfortable with my generalization. Hey, it happened to our Point (Top 5% of the Internet) and it has happened to other outfits as well. Anyone remember Dodgeball?
Now why confusion?
The companies are taking a tactical approach to this market. One hypothetical strategic view is that Microsoft and Google may have to buy airline companies to get control of ticket sales. Without direct ownership of search, some of the other types of deals are going to be subject to tectonic pressures that will shatter the tie ups. Short of becoming airlines, the air ticket segment of travel will remain a geologically active area for a while. A collection of tactics may yield a victory, but I think tactics will keep the sector unstable which is typical of today’s business machinations in my view.
Stephen E Arnold, March 8, 2011
Freebie
How to Add Keywords to Microsoft Fast Search
March 8, 2011
We have uncovered some more suggestions for improving Fast Search over at the ShareMuch Blog. They have an article titled, “Adding New Keyword Suggestions to FAST Search and SharePoint 2010 Search” that explains users will be given keyword suggestions whenever they conduct a search. These suggestions are automatically generated when a specific keyword is searched for six or more times in a year. You also have the option of to define a list of search suggestions by using PowerShell.
The ShareMuch approach works,but it makes quite clear some of the immaturity of the Fast Search solution. The complex method creates many opportunities for a typographical error.
Here’s one example of what you will need to do to add new keywords to Fast Search and SharePoint 2010 Search:
When you’re done adding the new keyword suggestions – refresh the list so that SharePoint picks up the changes by calling “Prepare query suggestions” timer job.
Get-SPTimerJob “Prepare query suggestions” | Start-SPTimerJob
You can also get the list of already existing keyword suggestions by using this command:
Get-SPEnterpriseSearchLanguageResourcePhrase -Language en-us -Type QuerySuggestionAlwaysSuggest -SearchApplication “FASTQuery”
To remove the keywords you added, use this command:
Remove-SPEnterpriseSearchLanguageResourcePhrase -SearchApplication “FASTQuery” -Type QuerySuggestionBlockList -Language en-us
How often are term modifications required. How about every day or so?
Check out SurfRay and its products at www.surfray.com for a solution that just works without the manual intervention and opportunity for a typographical error.
Torben Ellert, March 8, 2011
SurfRay
Visual Search Engine Round Up
March 7, 2011
Search technology exists in a near constant state of flux. Arguably, over the last decade the trend has been curving toward a more commercially driven format, visual search.
Like.com springs to mind, famous for incorporating image recognition software, utilizing a visual signature in its queries. Generally though, image search is based on textual entries which are then juxtaposed against the metadata linked to the subject image.
Pandia Search Central, a site devoted to all things search, has compiled “A List of Visual Search Engines”, including:
Aga Kids
Bing Visual Search
Nexplore
oScope
Quintura
Qwiki
Redz
Search-cube
Simploos
SpaceTime 3D
Spezify
Ziipa
Yometa
After a swift scan of the list, here are a few details concerning two of the more obscure engines.
Spezify, the Swedish apparatus launched in 2009, presents a more contemporary face. Once engaged, your are abruptly met by an animated collage of material. Results are displayed in a swirling mixture of both straight text and image driven formats, the latter including links to video related to the keyword entered. While not recommended for serious data collection and analysis, Spezify is perhaps better suited for efforts of a decidedly more casual nature.
A background check of Simploos provided little information on this Houston based system. Aside from what the head Gander had to say about Simploos Search back in 2009, I could find no other facts beyond the two hundred and thirty words on the site itself. Described as a “tool” allowing users to access content through the act of “horizontal scrolling”, Simploos’ simple method of navigation and engrossing presentation of results provides a fresh approach to search.
For a brief yet informative review of Yometa, you can read “Kartoo Closes and Opens the Door for Yometa”, also by Stephen Arnold.
Also, Pandia will publishing Stephen E Arnold’s new monograph about enterprise. More details will be available soon.
Micheal Cory, March 7, 2011
Cisco Embraces Video
March 7, 2011
Now anyone can be a video producer according to “Cisco Makes Video Easier to Create, Consume, Search and Share across the Enterprise”. In an effort to improve transmission of information in and among businesses, Cisco Systems is rolling out a new line of products and services, including the TelePresence system and new endpoints. What is most interesting for us at Beyond Search is the claim these new offerings will allow one to:
Enjoy exceptional search capabilities within videos themselves. Instead of wasting time scrolling through hours of video to find the right clip, with a few clicks of a mouse, users can now simply advance to the right spot — whether to a spoken word, phrase or desired speaker.
This will be a useful tool, alleviating long hours and headaches for many. We can be sure this is true because of the positive results after the Voxalead release a few years back, Exalead’s speech-to-text transcription module with the ability to search inside multimedia content in the same manner as Cisco’s new system.
So, in summation… a good feature? Yes. First of its kind? No. Will video reverse Cisco’s softening of its growth plans? Maybe.
Sarah Rogers, March 7, 2011
Freebie
Google and Yelp: The Future of Content Peeks around the PR Baloney
March 7, 2011
My personal view is that content is undergoing a bit of chemical change. The idea that authors are important seems to be eroding. The new value is an online system that generates content from software, volunteers, paid contributors, and sucking goodies from different places. There is no single word that encapsulates these trends. I wish there were. With the right word I could explain what is at the core of the unsolvable problem for Google and Yelp. You can get the core of the hassle in “Google Issues Ultimatum to Yelp: Free Content or No Search Indexing.” One interesting comment in the write up was this passage:
The issue has been ongoing for several years. However, Stoppelman said there is no answer to it at the moment, while Google maintains the same position.
I thought Google had the world’s smartest employees. Yelp has some sharp folks as well. No solution. So we have a new example of an unsolved problem. The Yelp Conundrum is right up there with The Goldbach conjecture. Well, that suggests that neither company is as smart as I thought it was or both companies have what I call a “power” problem.
Yelp is performing in an area where Google is not doing too well. Google wants the Yelp content and will remove Yelp from its index unless Yelp buckles under. When I read this story I thought about Google’s position when China pulled a power play. Now Google seems to be throwing its traffic power around.
Interesting.
With Bing and Yahoo accounting for 12 percent of Web search and Google most of the other traffic, Google’s position strikes an interesting chord with me.
Let’s assume that Google arbitrarily excludes Yelp. What does this say about objectivity in indexing? What does this make clear about Google’s ability to adjust an index manually? No matter how smart Google’s software is, the decision to block or otherwise hamper Yelp tells me quite a bit.
And what about Yelp? Is the company playing hardball because a potential tie up fell through? Is Yelp the most recent casualty of Google’s effort to expand via acquisition, not organic growth?
Too bad I am not a lawyer. I would have an informed opinion. As an observer from far off Kentucky, I see a glimpse of the future for new content environment.
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2011
Freebie
Fresh Spin on SMS
March 7, 2011
One of the PhDs who help out ArnoldIT.com sent me a link to a blog post. I read “Texting Power”. Worth a look. The Tiger Text product caught the attention of the Wall Street Journal.
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2011
Freebie
Some Delicious SharePoint Links
March 7, 2011
Here at SurfRay, we are watching for useful information about SharePoint and Microsoft Fast information. We spotted a quite useful list of links.
We know that not every reader wants to get a laundry list of links, we think some readers will want to know a useful reference source. One never knows when a particular fact is going to be needed.
One of our readers brought this Delicious link collection to our attention. Created by PMP Insights, the Delicious page features dozens of useful Web pages on SharePoint support, developments with the program, how-to articles, SQL code, SharePoint farms, and other pieces about to integrate SharePoint into your enterprise.
One could spend hours or days trying to gather sources of this quality in one place. That is the trouble with the Internet and the basic search, you have to dig through the trash to find the reliable, useful information.
At SurfRay, we dig through the information for you and we try to incorporate useful features into our Ontolica product. Check out SurfRay and its products at www.surfray.com
Torben Ellert, March 7, 2011
SurfRay
SEO Woe: Cows in the Commons
March 6, 2011
I have another gosling writing about this but I wanted to weigh in on this fine rainy Sunday in Harrod’s Creek. Point your browser at “SEO Is No Longer a Viable Marketing Strategy for Startups.” The basic idea is that certain search engine optimization methods of building traffic have lost their efficacy. The key point in my opinion is:’
I talk to lots of startups and almost none that I know of post-2008 have gained significant traction through SEO (the rare exceptions tend to be focused on content areas that were previously un-monetizable). Google keeps its ranking algorithms secret, but it is widely believed that inbound links are the preeminent ranking factor. This ends up rewarding sites that are 1) older and have built up years of inbound links 2) willing to engage in aggressive link building, or what is known as black-hat SEO. (It is also very likely that Google rewards sites for the simple fact that they are older. For educated guesses on which factors matter most for SEO, see SEOMoz’s excellent search engine ranking factors survey).
I added boldface to the phrase that struck me as particularly interesting; namely, the one with the word “content”.
Now there are some outfits who have figured out that the lousy economy makes it easy to get people to write articles for a modest amount of money. If a company generates quite a few articles and tosses in the basics of page indexing, the various search engines usually index the content. The more links and buzz that an article generates makes the write up show up in a Tweetmeme.com list or high in the Google search results or even a top spot on Bing.com.
Wonderful. We have a popularity context much like the one that puts such effective professionals into the various US, state, county, and municipal elected offices.
What I find interesting about the voting approach is that our friend Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out that the majority approach delivers quite a number of outputs. Excellence may not be assumed. Popularity is one yardstick. The measurement of quality in a written document may not lend itself to popularity. One chestnut is the plight of Al Einstein. Nothing he wrote resonated with more than a baker’s dozen of folks. Even the Nobel committee struggled to recognize him. That’s the problem with excellence. Voting does not work particularly well in many situations.
Too many cows in the commons.
What’s this mean for search engine optimization, content factories, and a results list in a free Web search engine? Three points in my opinion:
- Gaming the system (no matter what system) is great fun and extremely lucrative for those who can exploit what I call the “something for nothing” approach to information. A short cut is worth a lot of money, particularly at conferences that explain how to send lots of cows into the common fields of content.
- Smart search engines are just not that smart and probably will not be. That is the reason that commercial content producers generally offer information that follows a different path. I know that most people are not interested in provenance, fact checking, and accuracy, but most of the commercial database producers do a better job than a Web master looking for a way to boost traffic and either keep a job or get a raise. Content is not job one for these people.
- Search engine optimization is pretty much whatever the experts, pundits, and carpet baggers want it to be. There are tricks to exploit stupid Web indexing methods. I just ignore that sector of what some journalists view as “real search” because search is darned easy for any one with a net connection and a browser.
Bottom line: SEO won’t go away. In my view, one can’t kill it. After a nuclear blast, certain creatures will survive. Publicly accessible, ad supported indexes will not be as objective as I would like. Nor will the indexes do a particularly good job of delivering precision and recall. The advanced features are little more than efforts to get more advertisers.
In short, Web search, SEO, and much of the content on the Web is like a common grazing area with too many cows, too many footballers, and too many gullible walkers. (These are metaphors for marketing for me.)
SEO is not dead. How do you kill looking for a deal, finding a short cut, getting something for nothing? Tough to do. And those cows in the commons. Lots of output. Lots.
Stephen E Arnold, March 6, 2011
Freebie
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
