Fast Search Founder Slowed Down, Then Stopped
February 10, 2014
I read “Fastgründer John Markus Lervik dømt til fengsel.” Assuming the story is accurate, Dr. John Lervik, the founder of Fast Search & Transfer, will serve at least one year in prison. The issue is related to the financial reporting of Fast Search & Transfer.
In 2008, Microsoft purchased the company for about $1 billion, a deal compared to the price Hewlett Packard paid for Autonomy and about what Oracle paid for Endeca. Mr. Lervik will pay to pay legal fees. He will take appropriate legal steps to overturn the decision.
Enterprise search is a tough nut to crack technically and financially. The monetary challenges stem from the brutal costs of marketing and customer support. But these are at least as expensive as the cost of dealing adequately with technical challenges of enterprise search. For example:
- The time required to make a system deliver what the marketers assure customers are “ready to deploy” functions. Most large scale search solutions are not products. These are complex systems. Because each customer has specific requirements, the marketers do not understand that what they sold may take time to create, test, and deliver. Time is money. With an open ended problem, the cost is staggering.
- The problem of responding to crashes. When an enterprise search system flips over and dies, the cause may be the vendor, the reseller, or the client. Unfortunately the vendor takes the heat because many tech centric managers feel the “buck stops here.” Responding when a client is crazy mad is expensive. Failing to address the client’s need may delay payments or trigger legal action. Expensive stuff.
- The need to invest to keep pace with the information environment. Most of the mainstream search systems, including Fast Search and other older systems, focused on text. Handling different file types and different content types is an expensive operation for some vendors. The choice is stark: Spend and develop the components in house, spend money for third party solutions and then spend more to integrate those solutions into the core system, buy a company that has the people and the software needed, or ignore the client. There may be other options, but these four have big price tags. The cost of keeping up is brutal because information retrieval does not stand still.
- Figuring out why routine operations are slow or output unexpected results. Most search systems are far trickier to set up than licensees expect. With many knobs to turn, Fast Search could be tweaked so that results could boost certain content or address relevancy under specific circumstances. In a complex system, like Fast and many others, turning one knob and experimenting with threshold values could cause some darned exciting consequences. Rolling back those changes was an exciting operation in itself. When a Fast engineer had to figure out how to get the system back on track, the work was not trivial. What’s it cost to get an expert engineer to figure out what a licensee did? In many instances, a lot.
If you add up the costs of the technical work required for a complex search system, the need for money is significant. Dr. Lervik is not a financial expert; he is an expert in information retrieval. Not even ex-Googlers are adept managers. Witness the AOL goof related to “distressed babies.”
But a senior manager is expected to find solutions to difficult managerial, technical, and financial challenges. If the news story is true, it seems that Dr. Lervik was caught in a situation that set the stage for the unfortunate drama that has been playing out over the last five years.
The big question is:
Will other search and content processing vendors find themselves in a similar situation?
In my opinion, yes.
Warning signs are easy to spot. When search vendors that are seven or 12 years old continue to suck in venture funding, the warning flags are flying in my opinion. Search is essentially a zero license fee utility at this point. Firms that have yet to return a profit or show significant growth may find themselves taking financial short cuts.
The Xenky analyses make clear that financial stress is nothing new to search vendors. Check out the Convera, Delphes, and Fulcrum Technologies profiles. What’s different is that in today’s business environment, the consequences may be increasingly severe. You can find case studies of search vendors at www.xenky.com/vendor-profiles. There is no charge for these reports. Many describe enterprise search solutions that struggled financially and either shut down or sold out.
Enterprise search is a tough business. A sad quack for Dr. Lervik.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2014
News Spectrum: An Autonomy Service?
February 10, 2014
I came across www.news-spectrum.com. The system looked a bit like some of Autonomy’s visualizations. Here’s the splash screen for the service:
The idea is that a story can be viewed through time. There are news spectra for the UK, Europe, the US, politics, business, and a handful of other categories. A click on the “detail” button displays stories in the topic stream.
I navigate to a who is service and learned that the domain name is registered to Autonomy, now a unit of Hewlett Packard.
In my lectures for law enforcement and intelligence professionals, the challenges of locating information in “news” is getting more difficult. Sites like News Spectrum and some others do not include a search function. When the search function is present, the user has to turn cartwheels to get useful information. For example, navigate to World News and run a query. I used Sochi. Here’s the result list:
Scroll down the page and this is what I saw:
Videos. Videos. More videos. Where is the text? You have to do some experimenting. A tip is to select a language and then rerun the query.
The problem, of course, is that most people just take what a system displays in the case of News Spectrum and World News.
Any type of in depth research requires some specialized, and often time consuming, tactics. You can learn more about how to get through the Kevlar padding sites that wrap their indexes in Kevlar.
Net net: A news search can look good and run little videos. But for in depth information, news search is getting increasingly difficult.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2014
Google in France: The French Waiter Syndrome
February 10, 2014
Americans in Paris. The stuff of songs. Sometimes Americans and the French struggle to find common ground. There is cheese. French cheese does not often come in shrink wrapped plastic. French wines are different from the stuff whipped up in California.
I noted another example of what I call the “French waiter syndrome.” The FWS refers to the problem some Americans find when ordering a meal in France. The opportunity for misunderstanding increases with the emergence of more and more American traits.
Here’s a recent example: The Google.fr home page.
interesting. I assume ideas about privacy are part of the FWS.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2014
DuckDuckGo Swimming Pretty Following Privacy Revelations
February 10, 2014
A fellow online water-fowl has seen a huge jump in usage since last year’s revelations about NSA activity. At least someone is benefiting from the whole kerfuffle. The Independent reports, “DuckDuckGo Hits 1Bn Annual Searches: Non-Tracking Search Engine Boosted by Privacy Fears.” The emphasis the search service has always placed on anonymity almost seems presentient now. Did they know it was just a matter of time?
Writer James Vincent tells us that last year was, by far, DuckDuckGo‘s biggest year to date with over a billion searches performed. He shares a chart that tracks Ducky usage from July 2010 to January of this year. The leap from July ’13 to present is impressive; usage more than doubled in the months following Snowden’s famous efforts. The folks at the site are seizing the limelight, and say that this year they plan to incorporate user feedback into the site’s functionality. That’s a good thing; frankly, I only use the site when researching sensitive information, like health or financial issues. I find that, usually, Google and Bing are more likely to give me the info I’m looking for. Maybe it’s just me.
I think it is important to recognize that privacy is not the only reason to use an anonymous search service. The other reason (and the one I’m more concerned about) is the fight against the rapidly-multiplying, conformation-bias-promoting echo chambers that have infected our society’s discourse in recent years. The article explains:
“[DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel] Weinberg notes that when a search engine tracks users’ queries, the information not only created profiles to sell to advertisers but also shapes results to fit their own natural bias. This effect is known as the ‘filter bubble’. For example, if a user searches for new stories regarding recent events they might consistently click on reports from sites with a particular political bias. A search engine would take note that these sites are more popular and stop offering other results. ‘That is being trapped in a filter bubble and seeing only points of view that one agrees with, and less and less opposing viewpoints,’ said Weinberg.”
Vincent observes that the search site has a long, long way to go before it is a direct threat to Google, which processes over a billion searches per day. Still, the growing concern over privacy should not be taken lightly.
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Use This Link When Searching CNN Business 2.0 Content
February 10, 2014
Just a short honk to pass along a tip for anyone wishing to access archived articles at CNNMoney‘s Business2.0 website. We’ve found that searching for this content with Google can be very frustrating, so here’s the shortcut: navigate to the site’s Past Issues page and run your query from the search box found there. You are welcome.
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Jelly Supplies Crowdsource-Powered Image Search
February 10, 2014
Here’s a new way to search from one of the minds that helped loose Twitter upon the world. The Los Angeles Times shares an interview with a Twitter co-founder in, “Biz Stone Answers our Questions About New Q&A App Jelly.” Forget algorithms; this app lets you take or upload a picture and pose a question about it to other humans, both within and outside your social-media circles.
Stone and co-founder, Ben Finkel, started with a question: if we were to design a search tool around today’s online landscape, as opposed to the one that existed about a decade ago, what would it look like? As the app’s website explains, “It’s not hard to imagine that the true promise of a connected society is people helping each other.” (Finkel, by the way, founded Q&A site Fluther.com and served as its CEO until that service was acquired by Twitter in 2010.)
One of Jelly‘s rules may annoy some: users cannot post a question without including an image. Writer Jessica Guynn asks Stone why he incorporated that requirement. He responds:
“We did a lot of testing and more often than not, an image very much deepens the context of a question. That’s why we made it so you can either take a picture with your camera and say, ‘What kind of tree is this?’ Or you can pull from the photo albums you already have. Or you can get [a photo] from the Web. Photos are what make mobile mobile. We are really taking advantage of the fact that this is a mobile native application…. Everyone is carrying around these great cameras. It’s a uniquely mobile experience to pair a short question with a photo. It might frustrate a few people in the long run but it will only end up with better quality for us. There is a higher bar to submitting a question.”
The image requirement is just one way Jelly differs from Twitter. The team also worked toward making the new app less conversational in order to avoid the clutter of non-answers. (And we thought 140 characters was limiting.) We’re curious to see how well users will warm to this unique service.
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Efficient eDiscovery with SharePoint
February 10, 2014
Discovery and preservation in SharePoint has long been a time consuming and intense process. However, several good add-on solutions have created a simple and faster method of eDiscovery, including Index Engines’ 5.1 Release. Read more in the PR Web story, “Efficient SharePoint ESI Collection and Preservation Highlights Index Engines’ 5.1 eDiscovery Release.”
The article says:
“Time and access to data for eDiscovery increased with Index Engines’ 5.1 release, which provides litigation support professionals direct indexing of SharePoint for selective culling and collection and also provides support for Exchange 2013 data. Previously, SharePoint extraction was an arduous process that can require the need to copy the data to disk before indexing.”
Stephen E. Arnold is a longtime leader in search, and therefore a longtime follower of SharePoint and enterprise search. His information service, ArnoldIT.com, devotes a lot of attention to SharePoint and the latest tips and trends. Arnold often finds that while SharePoint is a large powerful platform, it is not easily customizable and users often turn to smart add-ons to enhance their satisfaction.
Emily Rae Aldridge, February 10, 2014
From Scanning to eDiscovery to Fraud Triangle Analytics
February 9, 2014
Search and content processing vendors are innovating for 2014. The shift from a back office function like scanning to searching and then “solutions” is a familar path for companies engaged in information retrieval.
I read a 38 page white paper explaining a new angle—fraud triangle analytics. You can get a copy of the explanation by navigating to http://bit.ly/1o6YpnXi and going through the registration process.
The ZyLab concept is that three factors usually surface when fraud exists. These are a payoff, an opportunity, and “ the mindset of the fraudster that justifies them to commit fraud.”
ZyLab’s system uses content analytics, discovery, sentiment analysis, metatagging, faceted search, and visualization to help the analyst chase down the likelihood of fraud. ZyLab weaves in the go-to functions for attorneys from its system. Four case examples are provided, including the Enron matter.
Unlike some search vendors, ZyLab is focusing on a niche. Law enforcement is a market that a number of companies are pursuing. A number of firms offer similar tools, and the competition in this sector is increasing. IBM, for example, has products that perform or can be configured to perform in a somewhat similar manner.
IBM has the i2 product and may be in the process of acquiring a company that adds dramatic fraud detection functionality to the i2 product. This rumored acquisition adds content acquisition different from traditional credit card statements and open source content (little data or big data forms).
As some commercial markets for traditional search and content processing, some vendors are embracing the infrastructure or framework approach. This is a good idea, and it is one that has been evident since the days of Fulcrum Technologies’ launch and TeraText’s infrastructure system. Both date from the 1980s. (My free analysis of the important TeraText system will appear be available on the Xenky.com Web site at the end of this month.)
At ZyLab, search is still important, but it is now a blended set of software package with the FTA notion. As the world shifts to apps and predictive methods, it is interesting to watch the re-emergence of approaches popular with vendors little known by some today.
Stephen E Arnold, February 9, 2014
Funnelback Advocates Big Data Mining
February 9, 2014
It is a new year and, as usual, there are big plans for big data. Instead of looking ahead, however, lets travel back to the July 4, 2012 Squiz and Funnelback European User Summit. On that day, Ben Pottier gave a discussion on “Big Data Mining With Funnelback.” Essentially it is a sales pitch for the company, but it is also a primer to understanding big data and how people use data.
At the beginning of the talk, Pottier mentions a quote from the International Data Corporation:
“The total amount of global data is expected to grow almost 3 zettabytes during 2012.”
That is a lot of ones and zeroes. How much did it grow in 2013 and what is expected for 2014? However much global data is grown, Pottier emphasizes that most of Funnelback’s clients have 75,000 documents and as it grows bigger organizations need to address how to manage it. Over the basic explanation, Pottier explains the single biggest issue for big data is finding enterprise content. In the last five minutes, he discusses data mining’s importance and how it can automate work that used to be done manually.
In Pottier’s talk, he explains that search is a vital feature for big data. Ha! Interesting how search is stretched to cover just about any content related function. Maybe instead of big data it should be changed to big search.
Whitney Grace, February 09, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Bing Eyes China
February 8, 2014
News about China being the next economic giant has died down, but companies still want a part of the Chinese market. Media Post reports that one of companies seeking part of the Middle Kingdom is Microsoft; read the story in “Microsoft Wants A Piece Of China.”
Microsoft plans to use more resources in 2014 to grow Bing’s share in the search market. There are currently 1,000 Bing employees in China and Microsoft plans to add 1,000 more to work in research, customer support, and enterprise services. Bing has less than one percent of China’s search activity.
The article outlines the competition and Bing’s plan to succeed:
“Search market share only contributes a portion to the success or the failure of an engine in any specific country. Baidu, the majority stakeholder in China, won’t likely share the search market on desktop or mobile. Some reports suggest that China’s largest engine holds as much as a 75 percent market share.”
Google, of course, is the dominant search engine in Asia, but Baidu accounts for twenty percent of search on the continent. Baidu strengthened its hold in Asia by purchasing 91 Wireless Websoft and it is cited as one of the most valuable deals in mobile media and technology in 2013.
So does Bing stand a chance? Maybe, but if you look at how Bing has no progress in the US it does not look likely. Is the solution to head to a tough market? Another maybe.
Whitney Grace, February 08, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
