Sheer Insanity and Search
June 7, 2011
Jan Wenner’s bon mot—“sheer insanity and insecurity and fear”—caught my attention. Addled geese are not crazy. Loons, as I recall, have that distinction. Insecurity resonates. Here in Harrod’s Creek a shotgun or an automatic weapon can reduce a goose in a nonce. Fear. Yep, fear. Got it.
The question is, “Do these characterizations apply to the iPad and other tablets?” The write up “Jann Wenner: Magazines’ Rush to iPad Is ‘Sheer Insanity and Insecurity and Fear” accomplishes a fusion which caused me to do some thinking. First, here’s the passage that flapped my wings:
Magazines that depend on photography, and design, and long reads, and quality stuff, are going to do just fine despite the internet and cable news. Because in those areas there’s a real advantage to getting a print product and having something you can hold and that of course is portable and has a luxurious feeling and is comfortable and immersive and you can spend time with it and it’s organized for you. In the age of the 24-hour news cycle and the availability of the internet you have to focus on those qualities in your magazine even more. Really you have to deliver quality more than ever. And unless you can deliver something that’s quality and really compelling there’s just too many …media choices around now. Unless you’re really good you’re in trouble.
Three observations:
First, the notion of quality is an important one. Online delivers information which lacks a tactile component. Mr. Wenner makes an important point about a product one can hold. Digital content may be great but it looks like baloney. Stripped from a Web site, content just floats. With an iPad one holds an Apple or some other manufacturer’s gizmo. The publisher and his / her content is like a sardine in a tin. Who remembers an individual sardine?
Second, another dimension of quality for Mr. Wenner is organization. Who organizes content on the Internet? I suppose I do, but I am not interested in news. I am focused on capturing ideas and links which I used to store in my paper notebooks. I use the content of this blog as raw material for my books. The New Landscape of Search is an example. I use the information captured in this blog in that book, which costs money and has a greater content payload than any collection of my blog posts from airports and restaurants. Mr. Wenner is spot on.
Third, the notion of “always on” and a 24 hour news cycle has changed how many people conceptualize information. I think Mr.Wenner is correct but I think that for certain demographics, there will be little appetite for a hard copy anything. I think the gameification of content is gathering momentum. I miss magazines like Life which I used to flip through on long summer afternoons at my grandparents’ house in nowheresville. The problem is that “quality” has a different freight of meaning for lots of folks y0unger than the goose. There is, I assert, no turning back.
Bottom line? Traditional publishing is under considerable pressure. I don’t think the executives are much different than an executive at Kentucky Fried Chicken who missed his quarterly numbers. The iPad is still fresh and for some, it is perfectly logical to assume that creating online content is pretty much the same as traditional magazine content creation. Publishing executives have to do something. Paper, ink, distribution, and design are not getting much cheaper in my experience.
But my interest is in finding information, search, if you will. Can I find content in a pay walled, iPadded, and filtered world? Not easily. So we are moving backwards as publishers try to press forward. I find this an interesting situation which seems a bit like the Dark Ages running on zippy new gizmos powered by XML.
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Smoothing SharePoint Upgrades
June 7, 2011
After a whirl of conferences, I was catching up on my reading. I was interested in J. Peter Bruzzese’s article “Don’t Upgrade to SharePoint 2010 Until You Read This” suggests, this is not an update for the faint of heart. Our experience at Search Technologies was that SharePoint upgrades have been reasonably straight forward.
His warning suggests:
You may like to be hands-on with your own environment, installing all your own servers and such, but the upgrade to SharePoint 2010 should either be treated with the utmost care or turned over to an expert who’s done it a bunch of times and has it down to a science.
He continues by saying it took him “a week to research and test in-place upgrade process and the database-attach migrate process before throwing down the ‘hire somebody else’ gauntlet.”
So there it is.
His caution comes complete with neon blinking lights. His article cited some well known experts; for example, Spencer Harbar, Microsoft Enterprise Architect and Don Holmes, Intellium consultant and trainer. The article suggest that any “headaches” that you encounter “depends more on your current environment than on SP2010 itself.”
We agree.
They claim that this upgrade “is far less of an issue than upgrading from SPs2003 to Moss2007.”
We have some suggestions. First, check with specialists. Please, consider Search Technologies as a potential resource. Second, work through Microsoft’s documentation paying particular attention to customization notes. Microsoft’s installers are thoroughly tested, but it is impossible for any vendor to upgrade every possible configuration of SharePoint. Third, make certain you have a back up, installation discs and their keys, and any other information that Microsoft provides licensees, certified engineers, or certified SharePoint developers. Often a hiccup can be addressed easily when these essentials are at hand.
For more information, contact us via our Web site at www.searchtechnologies.com.
Iain Fletcher, June 7, 2011
Search Technologies
Corporate Entity Fights with Nation State: David Won Once
June 7, 2011
I enjoy myths from ancient times.A skinny guy gets sand kicked in his face. After buying dumb bells and pumping iron, the skinny guy beats the big bully into whining submission. However, in real life, the big outfits beat little outfits. David and Goliath I suppose.
I read “Chinese Media Calls Google a ‘Political Tool‘.” The main idea of the write up is that Google is like a pair of pliers or a paint brush. A sentient human uses a tool, which is inanimate, not too swift, and limited in function. I suppose one could call Google a Shopsmith, which is a multi function tool, but I am not sure that helps ameliorate the insult.
Now the David and Goliath thing. Google is a big outfit. But when compared to China, Google is not such a big deal. I have mentioned in my various writings and speeches that nation states have money, police, people who want to keep their present dwelling, and mobile death vans. Ah, you don’t know about mobile death vans. Well, fancy that. You can get some info from “China’s Mobile Death Fleet”.
My thought is that one needs to figure out who is a David and who is a Goliath. A quick differentiator is answering the question, “Who has a mobile death van?” Answer: Goliath.
Google has picked a fight with a country. Google blames that country for various alleged anti Google actions.
That Googley approach may work in Math Club but it doth have consequences in the realworld. Among the possible consequences I identified are a media battle, putting staff at risk, and getting up close and personal with some government employees with the focus of Qin Shi Huang’s staff. David is facing a Goliath with a mobile death van.
Will a sling do the job a second time?
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Protected: The Microsoft SharePoint Diagnostic Tool
June 7, 2011
No Parlor Trick: Pulling the API Rug
June 6, 2011
Beyond Search does not do news. We read “Google Pulls the Rug Out from Under Web Service API Developers, Nixes Google Translate and 17 Others.” We watched the flow of commentary about this decision with interest. Now that the blog-rage has moved to more juicy topics, the goslings talked about the decision and formulated their own hypotheses right here in Harrod’s Creek. In an homage to Meredith Wilson, “It begins with G and it stands for Google. Google. Google. Google.”
We learned that a dozen and a half services are goners. The buzzword for this disappearing act is “deprecation.” Goners to us. Google Translate is a casualty of cost, which could mean anything. The article asserted:
The shutdown of the Google Translate API will kill what has become a cottage industry of iPhone, Android, and other mobile phone and web apps that embed translation services…
We think that most of the analyses danced around the shift we discerned from Harrod’s Creek.
First, we considered the question, “What’s the difference between a technology upstart like Google and its longer-lived competitors, IBM or Microsoft?”
The major difference is that Google is sort of free, sort of open, and sort of organized. The key is the phrase “sort of”. What Google demonstrated is that “sort of” is not a deal, a contract, a Service Level Agreement, or something that lasts an indeterminate time. Most big companies use the “too bad” response from time to time. The upside is that Google promises fuzzy stuff. Other big companies sign contracts which gives their customers some semi fuzzy stuff.
Second, Google has, it appears, credibility to burn. With the termination of a service, Google emerges, I assume, unscathed. The question we asked was, “What happens when the credibility balance falls to zero?”
Third, we asked, “Is Google using Translate as a chip in its showdown with Apple and Facebook?” Our answer is, “Yes.” Google Translate has some value in making it easier for “friends” to communicate despite language barriers. Why give away a high value chip without getting lots in return? We think Google will use Translate and other APIs to have a shot at competitors who have left Googlers looking at tail lights in the race to bigger money.
Google continues to position itself up as a service to the Internet, releasing tools and software for developers to use at low or no cost. However, what we often forget in a rush away from paid services is that if you pay for it, it’s going to be supported.
Developers just got a quick slap on the knuckles from Mother Google. Stings and like the caning I got years ago, long remembered.
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
A Taxonomy of NoSQL Databases
June 6, 2011
Search is morphing. The line between databases and search is thin and in some case porous. We believe that most readers of Beyond Search are familiar with the Access and JET engines from Microsoft.
However, some individuals find that the traditional, decades old relational database inappropriate for certain tasks. The solution for some is NoSQL databases. We learned in “The Four Categories of NoSQL Databases”:
Most people just see one big pile of NoSQL databases, while there are quite some differences. You couldn’t use a Key-Value store when you need a Graph database for example, while Relational database systems are all quite compatible.
The author identifies four distinct categories of NoSQL databases:
- Key-values—A math method powers this technique implemented in Google’s and its variants’ approach
- Column Family—A columnar oriented method of organization
- Document—Key value method1
- Graph—Node and edge set up.
No database method is without drawbacks. The article points out that most NoSQL approaches eliminate the central, declarative language of SQL to allow for faster processing. Coupled with different architectures, NoSQL gains some advantages for “big data”; that is, large data sets and certain types of processing. But each models described in the article requires its own method of querying, trading a single, simple method of access for more flexible storage. These programs may not embrace the latest methods from Digital Reasoning, Kitanga and others, but this source is definitely worth tucking away for reference.
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Update on Thetus Savanna
June 6, 2011
A Sys-Con Media article “Thetus’ Savanna Analytical Tool” provides an overview of the Thetus Savanna Analytical Tool by two authors and includes a video evaluation. We found the information interesting, but parts did look as if the Thetus marketing gene was dominant.,
The Savanna Analytical tool is designed to provide search, discovery and visualization tools for analysts. The article said:
Savanna uses tools such as Kapow to scrape websites and all-source data and then pushes them through MetaCarta (for geo-spatial analysis) and Janya (for real-language textual analysis). This data is then sorted into a Savanna’s application – enabling real-time search.
After the documents go through Kapow, MetaCarta and Janya, Savanna re-renders the documents and turns the masses of text into real pages making the search and discovery of the pages much easier.
The write up added:
Savanna’s search function crawls through the document repository added, and uses socio-economic indicators to categorize. It allows analysts to take a large number of search returns and narrow them down quickly and accurately.
If only all decisions could be so simple. Real data in real life can give even sophisticated systems indigestion.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Varieties of Open Source Search: Just Like Soup?
June 6, 2011
Search is a commodity. Vendors are rushing to become the Wal-Mart and Costco of information retrieval. Free, discounts, bundles, and more!
Paul Anthony, at www.WebDistortion.com’s published “Open Source Search Engines Every Developer Should Know About”. In the write up he describes four open source search systems:
- Apache Solr—an open source alternative to guided navigation type search systems
- Constellio—based on Apache Solr
- SearchBlox—Based on Lucene
- Sphinx—a cross platform system
The list is useful but it is not complete. Open source search “products” are available from a number of vendors. One of our favorites is the Tesuji Anacleto system from Budapest. Tesuji powers Project Gutenberg.
In the WebDistortion essay, we learned:
…Typically search is one of the most poorly implemented pieces of technology on a site, with developers opting for the standard the out of the box solution which comes with most modern content management systems – and in many cases doesn’t do justice to your content. I thought I’d take a look at what other enterprise level and open source search engines out there to find and index the information on your site faster, and provide users with a deeper, more relevant result set.
Our view at Beyond Search is that open source software is disruptive but in quite specific ways. Open source search is disruptive is ways that fit into the broader open source software activity but quite particularized in its impact.
Is open source search like a food commodity? Image source: http://goo.gl/H4TMy
It seems that a number of companies are embracing open source search in order to sidestep licensing costs from certain commercial vendors, get a marketing angle, and focus scarce development resources on “wrappers” or “enhancements” to the open source core.
Protected: Microsoft Business Intelligence with SharePoint 2010
June 6, 2011
Web Search: Picking Sides from the Bleachers
June 5, 2011
One of the interesting characteristics of fans is that shouts can inspire athletes in the game. Here is rural Kentucky, fans can focus on one another. Instead of the usually Southern civility, shouting matches or fisticuffs can break out. The players continue playing as the “game within the game” unfolds.
Fans cheer but whether noise alters the outcome of the game is a matter for a PhD dissertation, not a job, though.
The Gold Team
I read “How Facebook Can Put Google Out of Business.” The write up takes a premise set up by Googler Eric Schmidt, who until recently, was the CEO of the company. The PR-inspired mea culpa positioned Mr. Schmidt as the person who was responsible for Google’s failures in social media. Even before Orkut in 2003, I recall seeing references to social functions in Google’s patent documents prior to Google’s purchase of Orkut and its quite interesting trajectory. As you may know, the path wandered through a legal thicket, toured the more risk filled environs of Brazil, and ended up parked next to the railroad tracks near the Googleplex in Mountain View.
The TechCrunch article pointed out that Facebook has detailed information about its 500 or 600 million “members”. The idea is that Facebook can leverage the information about these members’ in order to create a more compelling “finding” system.
I suppose I can nitpick about the write up, but it presents information that I have touched upon in this Web log for a couple of years. When I read the article, my reaction was, “I thought everyone already knew this.”
The Blue Team
Then I read “The Silliest Idea Ever: Facebook Going After Google In Search.” This write up used a rhetorical technique that I have long employed; namely, taking a contrary position in order to highlight certain features of an issue. In my experience, the approach annoys 30 somethings who have memorized an elevator pitch and want to get back to Call of Duty or their iPhone. However, I enjoy the intellectual exercise and will continue the practice.
The main premise of the “Silliest Idea Ever” is that competing with Google in search is expensive, Google is a moving target, and other types of disruption will influence what happens between Google and Facebook in search. You should read the original write up to get the full freight of meaning.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
