Potential Mobile Collaboration for SharePoint
October 21, 2014
Lots of pieces are coming together to drive the mobilization of Microsoft SharePoint: iOS, Microsoft Office 365, and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility Suite. But is this a good thing? Will it be of value to organizations? FierceMobileIT tackles some of those questions in their recent article, “Does SharePoint offer mobile collaboration opportunities?”
The article begins by referencing an interview with Yaacov Cohen:
“Tech Republic‘s Will Kelly visited the topic in a recent article, speaking with Yaacov Cohen, CEO of harmon.ie, a collaboration tools vendor, for his reality check on how enterprise mobility, SharePoint and Office 365 are currently working together . . . ‘Cohen sees iPad dominance in the Enterprise 2000 market and the executive world as a tremendous opportunity for SharePoint, which has been suffering from a lack of acceptance at the executive level,’ the article notes.”
Stephen E. Arnold has made a career out of following all things search. He reports his findings via ArnoldIT.com and many end users and managers look to his reporting for the latest news, tips, and tricks. SharePoint gets a good share of his attention and those interested in learning more will benefit from keeping an eye on his SharePoint feed.
Emily Rae Aldridge, October 21, 2014
Google and Objective Search Results
October 20, 2014
I recall that in one conference presentation in Boston about Google I attended, the Googler (Dave Girouard, now a Xoogler) emphasized the objectivity of Google search results. I have heard the objective claim from many quarters over the years.
I noted the PC Magazine story “Google ‘Fixes’ Stephen Colbert’s Height Listing.” Here’s the passage I noted:
While Google hasn’t exactly dropped a packet full of stock options off on Colbert’s doorstep, it has managed to address Google’s concerns about his height listing. First up, Colbert now appears as 5 foot 10.5 inches tall on Google’s search results when you query for “Stephen Colbert height.” If you prefer metric, his height is now listed as 1.79 meters… “-ish.”
From my hollow in Harrod’s Creek, this strikes me as an example of Google’s ability to modify search results quickly. I am not sure that the “objective” reference used by Mr. Girouard years ago applies today. If true, Google can intervene in the vaunted PageRank process and make results changes quickly and at will.
Are those claims of outfits like Foundem founded? Maybe, just maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2014
Hewlett Packard Autonomy: Law Firm Spat
October 20, 2014
I read “HP Shareholder Wants Scrutiny of Wachtell Role in Controversial Settlement.” Quite an interesting write up. The proper nouns alone make the article a stunner. Here’s a sampling:
- Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom;
- Proskauer Rose, Choate
- Brown Rudnick
- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
- Greenfield & Goodman
The proper nouns point not to actual humans in most cases but to law firms.
In addition to the HP management decision to buy Autonomy for billions of dollars, the litigation is acting like a magnet for attorneys eager to help their clients and help blind justice remove the occlusion from her eyes.
Here’s a passage I noted:
“Wachtell inappropriately represented simultaneously both HP and the individual director and officer defendants,” the brief said, “and seemingly succumbed to the pressure to construct a settlement that unjustly benefited the individual defendants and provided, at best, nominal value to the company. Since the interests of the company were wholly incompatible with the goal of the individual defendants to eliminate their liability, Wachtell should not have provided such de facto dual representation.”
Would a law firm behave in this manner? I assume that the resolution of this matter will clarify the situation. I had the same silly notion about the settlement between i2 and Palantir. I am hopeful, however.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2014
IBM: Did Watson Predict This?
October 20, 2014
I read “IBM Paying Globalfoundries $1.5 Billion to Take Unit in Retreat From Chips.” Sounds like a good deal. IBM pays $1.5 billion for a company to take a money losing chip operation.
I thought the idea was to buy low and sell high, not pay and then pay high someone to take a product or business. I know the notion of “freemium” gets some chatter, but I think we need another word for this business maneuver.
The write up said:
“IBM has always taken the long view of its business strategy, continuously reinventing,” Tom Rosamilia, IBM’s senior vice president of the systems and technology group and integrated supply chain, said in a blog post today, calling the deal “one more step in the company’s reinvention.”
I wonder if this is a business recommendation from the almost mystical Watson system or if it was the work of humans. If this was the work of Watson, is it a good example of a solid business answer. If it were humans, well, perhaps we learn more about what happens when a company runs out of management steam?
Either way, a business school has a case to feed to the young sharks hungry for business acumen.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2014
Kroll Ontrack Enjoys Predictive Coding Award
October 20, 2014
What happened to Recommind and ZyLAB? We thought they were eDiscovery frontrunners, but now BusinessWire tells us, “Kroll Ontrack Voted Best Predictive Coding Solution in New York Law Journal Survey.” The 2014 survey tallied votes in 90 categories from readers of the law journal ALM. The press release quotes Kroll Ontrack’s VP of product management, John Grancarich:
“We are honored to be chosen as the leading predictive coding technology in the industry by New York Law Journal readers. With a focus on amplifying the power of your best reviewers, this award demonstrates the impact ediscovery.com Review predictive coding technology has in driving increased speed, consistency and accuracy in document review.”
The strength of the predictive coding platform, we are told, comes from three parts that work together: workflow technology, “smart training” technology, and quality control/ sampling technology. The write-up emphasizes:
“Given the innovative volume control mechanisms of ediscovery.com Review, the award-winning power of Kroll Ontrack’s predictive coding is available throughout the entire culling, filtering, early data assessment and review experience. For more information about Kroll Ontrack predictive coding technology, visit http://www.ediscovery.com/solutions/review/ or watch a demo at http://www.ediscovery.com/review-demo/.”
Headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Kroll Ontrack launched as a software firm in 1985. The company’s work with damaged hard drives led to a focus on data recovery. Now, Kroll Ontrack supplies a wealth of data-related solutions to customers in the legal, corporate, and government arenas.
Cynthia Murrell, October 20, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Sail Labs Applauded for ASR that Understands Children
October 20, 2014
Sail Labs is clearly proud of its recent contribution to children’s education. The News & Events section of their website crows, “ITalk2Learn—a Learning Platform Powered by Sail’s ASR Technology for Children’s Voices—Wins 2 Awards in European Competition.” Hm, I suppose differences between adults’ and children’s voices would pose certain challenges for automatic speech recognition. You can read more about the triumphant platform here. The press release briefly informs us:
As a consortium member of the collaborative European project iTlak2Learn, SAIL LABS Technology is proud to have contributed its ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) technology to help develop a learning platform to support children aged 5 to 11 learning mathematics.
SAIL LABS is now especially delighted to announce that the platform prototype qualified for the win of 2 awards during EC-TEL 2014, the Ninth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning.
*Best Demo Award, Second Position
The award is sponsored by Online EDUCA Berlin, the largest global e-learning conference for the corporate, education and public service sectors. The awards were granted based on the votes of the conference participants.
*Honourable Mention by Business Angels
The website for that European tech-enhanced learning conference, EC-TEL 2014, can be found here. Sail Labs, whose breezy name stands for Speech-Artificial-Intelligence-Language-Laboratories, was formed back in 1999. The company specializes in high-end software for speech and multimedia analysis for vertical markets. Sail Labs is located in Vienna, Austria.
Cynthia Murrell, October 20, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Gartner and Enterprise Video Content Management
October 19, 2014
I read “Panopto Recognized as a “Leader” in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Video Content Management.” I learned that Panopto is a “leader” in the mid tier consulting firm’s league table of enterprise video content management vendors.
According to the write up,
In use at Fortune 500 companies and leading academic institutions worldwide, Panopto is the only video platform that provides organizations with an integrated, off-the-shelf solution for video recording, live streaming, video management, and inside-video search. Within the enterprise, Panopto is being used to improve sales enablement, streamline employee onboarding, scale corporate training, and simplify the delivery of executive communications. Within universities, Panopto is the fastest-growing solution for flipping the classroom, capturing lectures, and streaming campus events.
For many years, I have pointed out that locating information in a large collection of videos remains a dicey proposition. Years ago I explored Exalead’s video search system. It worked, but it imposed hefty computational burdens on system resources. Perhaps that has changed under Dassault’s stewardship? I wonder if the Exalead system could be used to manage an organization’s video? I don’t know, and the company does not appear in the Gartner version of the Boston Consulting Group’s matrix.
Another possible omission is Autonomy’s line up of video management and findability tools. I recall seeing a demonstration of a system with the “powered by IDOL” label. Has Autonomy withdrawn from the field of video play?
In our ongoing investigation of Google technology, we learned that it is easy to use YouTube as a convenient, low cost video management system. But no Google in the BCG inspired matrix.
I don’t know too much about video management, but when I scanned the graphic available from this link, I noticed these companies’ absence?
The inclusion of some products/companies with which I was not familiar was interesting; for example, Perceptive Software (part of Lexmark and owner of ISYS test search). The separate entries and Kulu Valley and Qumu struck me as an anomaly. Qumu, I believe, owns Kulu. Does 1 + 1 = a super leader or is this an oversight or just a failure to update?
Congratulations to Panopto. But in the back of my mind there is a reason why some consultancies lag behind McKinsey, BCG, and the pre-break up Booz, Allen & Hamilton. Mentioning “mid tier” reminds me of IDC’s sale of my content on Amazon without my permission under the “expert” Dave Schubmehl’s name.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2014
Harvard and Loeb Digital Library
October 18, 2014
Hungry for a digital version of Fragments of Old Comedy, Volume 1: Diopeithes to Pherecrates? Navigate to this Loeb link. You may want to consider this question from Hacker News’ user Miles:
Why are they charging for access to ebooks, many of which are already in the public domain and available at archive.org?
I assume the answer is “money.” Harvard’s endowment piggy bank contains about $30 billion, according to US News’s 2013 estimate. Latin and Greek readers are flush with cash. Get with the program. Pony up.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2014
Google Scholar and Google Silos of Content
October 18, 2014
I read “Making the World’s Problem Solvers 10% More Efficient.” The article explains that the Google engineer who was “the key inventor” of Google Scholar is leaving the GOOG.
The write up discloses a couple of interesting factoids; for example:
- Google Scholar has been around for 10 years
- The founder of Google Scholar took charge of Google’s indexing in year 2000
- The inventor of Google Scholar had to figure out how to keep Google’s index fresh; that is, new and changed content are reflected in search results.
The most interesting point in the write up is this statement (I have added the boldface):
Also, the nature of academic papers presented some opportunities for more powerful ranking, particularly making use of the citations typically included in academic papers. Those same scholarly citations had been the original inspiration for PageRank, the technique that had originally made Google search more powerful than its competitors. Scholar was able to use them to effectively rank articles on a given query, as well as to identify relationships between papers.
What happened to Eugene Garfield? I know, “Who?” So does this passage mean that today’s Google Web search discards functionality originally included in year 2000?
But the big point for me is that Google is supposed to deliver “universal search.” To make use of Google Scholar, one must navigate to http://scholar.google.com and run separate queries. Is this universal? It seems to be old school siloing.
I like Google Scholar, but I think Google Web search may lack some of the refinements included in Google Scholar. Well, ads are important. Correction: Revenue is important. Perhaps Google will charge for access to Google scholar and compete directly with commercial database vendors? In my view, Google Scholar had a negative impact on commercial database vendors who charge libraries, corporations, and individual for access to curated and indexed professional and scholarly information. Google seems content to allow the Google Scholar service to drift along. Would more purpose be of value? Queries for patent 2012/0251502 A1’s “the isolated nucleic acid molecule includes the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 10, or a complement thereof. In another, the nucleic acid molecule includes a nucleotide sequence having at least 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, 900, 950, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, or 4900 contiguous nucleotides of the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” would permit Google to match Ebola ads to Google Scholar content?
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2014
Earnings and Google
October 17, 2014
I read the dead tree version of “analysts Ask What’s Next for Google.” You can find the write up in the New York Times in section B, page 1 and 2 of the October 17, 2014 edition. You may find the story online at this link but no promises. (As you can see, I am indifferent to Google’s rules for linking. Too bad.)
In the write up, there were two quotes to note. I invite you, gentle reader, to consider each carefully:
- “The thing that worries investors, though, is that the company’s golden goose—its search engine—is showing signs of age.”
- “Google executives grow annoyed with analysts’ fixation on clicks and cost per click.”
The first quote seems to indicate a growing realization that Google’s core technology is more than 15 years young. The innovations are mostly wrapper code and tweaks that generate more money for Google. Keep in mind that the vaunted business model is pretty much what GoTo/Overture/Yahoo had and did not leverage. We have, therefore, a bit of Clever, some voting, and the PageRank method disclosed in a patent held by Stanford University. The innovation engine at Google has been to graft GoTo/Overture/Yahoo with a bit of Oingo (Applied Semantics) and ignite the race to be number one on a page of Google results. Ta da. A business model that works. Keep in mind that Google is, as Steve Ballmer said, before he bought a basketball team, a “one trick pony.” A monoculture of money with an ageing DNA. Eeek.
The second quote shows what happens when a non math club member questions the appropriateness of the math club’s penchant for doing mathy things. In my high school math club, we fooled with machine readable tests, hid books in the library, and dodged confrontations with football players who did not enjoy our sense of humor. Think of it. Google is annoyed with analysts. Don’t those folks have an influence on institutional investors and others with big piles of money to invest? In my math club, we were quite arrogant when the principal attempted to reign in our antics. I can report that the principal put the brakes on our mathy antics. Nevertheless, we were incensed. A mere non math person was poking his nose into our Euler crankcase. Bah.
Google faces several challenges:
First, it has to find a way to generate more money because the company is spending lots and lots of money. Spending is okay as long as there is a payback. Spending to buy balloons, barges, and a solution to death is noteworthy. Pumping bucks into infrastructure is like feeding a youth soccer team at Pizza Hut after a match on a chill autumn day. Fighting legal battles consumes bales of bucks. There are other cost issues, but the GOOG has one source of revenue…after 13 years of trying to generate other revenue streams.
Second, search remains important. Search systems that return results that are not useful face some headwinds. In my view, Google’s precision and recall leave something to be desired. Google forces me to search silos of information within the Google empire to get a reasonable comprehensive view of what Google has indexed. Really useful information like “date indexed” and explicit easy access to book and scholarly content would be a plus. Right now, when I search Google, I see the fruits of much labor in the advertising functions. The relevant results function seems to have been kicked to the side of the information highway.
Third, Google’s enterprise search system has fallen behind the search service available on Amazon Web services. Google tried to disintermediate the information technology professional in an organization. Now, Google has an expensive system that is a lot of work to make useful to the annoyingly youthful users in an organization. In 2002, I figured Google would own enterprise search. Well, that hasn’t worked out. That market should have been a slam dunk for the Google. We do have Google Glass, however.
Google faces some “interesting” challenges. I am confident the math club approach is correct. After all, who cares what an annoying principal or non mathy person thinks?
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
