Twitter Customer Support and Access Control
November 6, 2017
I noted that an alleged employee of Twitter allegedly terminated the Twitter account of the alleged real Donald J. Trump. I scanned a number of news stories about this incident. I representative example is “A Rogue Twitter Employee Shut Down Donald Trump’s Account.” Now that’s access control. But what I found intriguing was an article on a Web site charmingly named Weasel Zipper. That site’s story was “Twitter Employee Who Deactivated Trump’s Account Was Not A Full-Time Employee, Rather A Contractor.” Perhaps Weasel Zipper was influenced by the New York Times’ story from November 4, 2017, which offered the “contractor did it” information? Who knows? The interesting angle for me is that Twitter has controls which allow an employee in “customer service” to kill an account. From my point of view, that’s “real” customer service and exemplary access control. What else can Twitter customer support do with regard to users, access, content, and filtering? Probably nothing: Just a fluke in a well-managed company.
Stephen E Arnold, November 5, 2017
The Companies Leading Open Source
November 6, 2017
Open-source enthusiasts will want to check out this roster from Datamation, “35 Top Open Source Companies.” We’re reminded that the open-source community has moved well beyond a collection of individual hobbyists to include many corporate initiatives. The article notes:
While independent developers are still an important part of the open source community, today much of the work on open source projects is being done by corporate developers. In a recent appearance at the Open Source Summit, Linux founder Linus Torvalds acknowledged this corporate influence and welcomed it. ‘It’s very important to have companies in open source,’ he said. ‘It’s one thing I have been very happy about.’ The list below highlights some of the leading for-profit companies that are using, sponsoring and contributing to open source projects. It includes a mix of large enterprises, small startups and everything in between. Some of the companies exclusively offer products based on open source software, while others sell a mix of proprietary and open source solutions. But all of these companies play a significant role in the open source community.
The write-up emphasizes the list is alphabetical, not a ranking of any sort. Red Hat is there, of course; they are behind Apache and OpenStack, after all, and boast the most popular Linux iteration for large organizations. We also see Cloudera and Hortonworks, homes popular supported Hadoop versions, and the vast open-source repository, GitHub. As for search, Elastic makes the roll with its Elasticsearch project, and MongoDB is recognized for its popular NoSQL database. Some of the biggest companies we see include Adobe, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, and Samsung. See the write-up for the complete list.
Cynthia Murrell, November 6, 2017
What Will Marketers Do When Google Goes Away?
November 6, 2017
Wait, do not panic! Google is still around to help you search for restaurants, test answers, and cat GIFs. Keep your towel handy, however, because Mark Schaefer at Business Grow has some mighty interesting information about SEO and other Internet marketing strategies in, “What Happens To Your Marketing Effort When Google Search Goes Away?” Schaefer makes a clever point in the article’s introduction that consumers are searching for reliable answers to their queries, but businesses are trying to be the number one answer or top search result at any given time.
It might be that search results are going away. Where are they going? Technically, search results will still exist, but voice search tools like Siri and Alexia will be the game changer. Schaefer said that no one has invented a vocal search marketing strategy yet. Smart speakers are one of the latest tech gadgets and eventually, they may become indispensable modern tools, like indoor plumbing, electricity, and the Internet. So what will happen?
From a marketing standpoint, the idea that fascinates me is that increasingly, these speakers will be the “economic on-ramp” for commerce, as Google search is now. However, Amazon will try to direct you to the Amazon eco-system and Apple will try to keep you in the Apple eco-system. This is where the real battleground will be.
Who will “own” or partner with the Wal-Mart eco-system? Will we choose a car in the future due to the brand of smart speaker we like best? Will one part of our home be controlled by Google, another part by Amazon, while an Apple device plays out TV and music?
Marketers are going to need to find a new way to advertise their wares. Looking back at history, this is not new. The same happened with radio, TV, and then the Internet. Smart speaker “airspace” is brand new, but the concept of marketing on the new territory is not.
Whitney Grace, November 6, 2017
Alphabet Google: The Cheese Placement Revolution
November 4, 2017
I noted an article with the mouth watering title “Google Makes the Android Burger a Reality for Its Employees.” The main point of the write up strikes me as the pickle on top of a Google management decision; to wit:
… the company is serving its employees with a burger assembled in a similar order to the one depicted in its emoji.
When I was 16 years old, the owner of the root beer stand at which I worked taught me how to assemble a cheeseburger. The idea was that once the hamburger patty (at least I thought it was real cow then), I was to put the cheese on top of the meat patty and allow the cheese to melt. The idea was that warm melted cheese was the hallmark of this joint in a dead end town in central Illinois.
The Google management decision is that my training in how to make a cheeseburger was not Googley, nor would the cheeseburger be fit for consumption by an Android user who will be monitored.
My son knew the fellow who created the now famous McDonald’s jingle which points out:
Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, and a sesame seed bun.
Obviously that jungle writer was wrong. The jingle suggests that the cheese goes on top of the two all beef patties in my opinion.
I love Google, but the recipe fetish of Jeff Dean may work for Chubby, just not for me.
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
Free Services: What Happens When They Are Killed Off?
November 3, 2017
In the salad days of online, one paid for “time” (the online connection) and one paid for the “content” (the citations, data, full text). Today data are free. Hooray.*
For users of the the Google flight information, the news that Google was likely to shut down its flight data feed is bad news. Even worse, those nifty MBA inspired spreadsheets which happily omitted the cost of flight data are going to have to be re-imagined.
And Oath (remember Yahoo?) is, it seems, going to cut off the finance, if the story in Hacker News is accurate. The write up states:
Yahoo Finance has apparently killed is API. Zero warning. Lots of apps probably use this. Before, you could get stock information by using http://download.finance.yahoo.com/d/quotes.csv Now, you get the following message: It has come to our attention that this service is being used in violation of the Yahoo Terms of Service. As such, the service is being discontinued. For all future markets and equities data research, please refer to finance.yahoo.com. What violation of TOS? People have been using this for years without any issues. If you are going to cut this off, how about a warning and heads up? Guess that’s what we should expect from OATH / Verizon.
The comments are interesting.
Net net: The online model from the 1969 to 1995 phase of online may be poking its nose from a Rip Van Winkle snooze.
And those spreadsheets? MBAs are crafty. The numbers will work out—at least in Excel. In real life? Hmmm. Good question.
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
* Editor’s update: Heads up. I last night (November 3, 2017) I received an impassioned and mom-like communication from a person who wanted confidentiality about the information he was about to impart via Gmail email. (Isn’t that type of email parsed by smart software for the purpose of collecting ad revenue and data?) The alleged former Googler (aka Xoogler) was unaware that I was at dinner with my wife enjoying a grilled squirrel burger with the cheese on the bottom in the approved Google manner. But this write up was an urgent matter in the mind of the agitated Xoogler eager to share confidential information with me. Lucky me! The email included numbers and a statement that I had to rewrite this article because I was, as I have noted on numerous occasions in the course of this 10 year old Beyond Search blog, an “addled goose”. The email made clear that killing Google services and products does no harm, and I was wrong, incorrect, off base, and a Bambi brained deer. Please, check out the source story from Marketwatch. Make up your own mind, gentle reader, because I try to present my opinion whilst separating the giblets from the goosefeathers. My view is that abrupt, unilateral modifications of services is a good thing for some devlopers and users. But I do enjoy confidential communications about the inner workings of my favorite search engine as I munch my burger with cheese on the bottom in the Sundar Pichai approved manner. Plus, I enjoy recalling the Google Reader, Google Talk, Google Health, Knol, Google Buzz, and my favorite and the fave of some Brazilians, Orkut. You don’t? Well, you, unlike me, are not trying to be Googley. To refresh your memory, check out the Google Graveyeard. Do you have a problem with terminated services? In my opinion, termination with extreme prejudiced is in your best interests. Now put the cheese on the bottom of the meat patty.
The Power of Search: Forget Precision, Recall, and Accuracy of the Items in the Results List
November 3, 2017
Thank you, search engine optimization. I now have incontrovertible proof that search which is useful to the user is irrelevant. Maybe dead? Maybe buried?
Navigate to “70 SEO Statistics That Prove the Power of Search.” Prepare to be amazed. If you actually know about precision and recall, you will find that those methods for evaluating the efficacy of a search system belong in the grave.
The “power of search” is measured by statistics presented without silliness like sample size, date, confidence level, etc. Who needs these artifacts from Statistics 101?
Let’s look at four of the 70 statistics. Please, consult the original for the full listing which proves the power of search. I like that “proves” angle too.
First, users don’t do much research. Here’s the statistic which proves the assertion “Online users just take what the system serves up”:
75% of users never click past the first page of search results.
So if you, your product, your company, or your “fake news” item does not appear at the top of a search result list or an output determined by a black box algorithm, you, your product, your company, or your “fake news” item does not exist. How’s that grab you?
Second, users are not too swift when it comes to figuring out what’s content and what’s an ad. Amazing assertion, right?
55% of searchers don’t know which links in the Search Engine Results pages are PPC ads, according to a new survey. And up to 50% of users shown a Search engine Results page screenshot could not identify paid ads.
If one can’t figure out what’s an ad, how many users can figure out if a statistic, like those which prove search is powerful, can differentiate accurate information from hogwash?
Third, search results mean trust. Sound crazy to you? No. Well, it sure does to me. Here’s the statistic that proves search eats Wheaties:
88% of consumers trust online reviews as much as they trust personal recommendations.
I believe everything I read on the Internet, don’t you?
Third, if you blog, prepare to be inundated with sales calls and maybe money. Here’s the statistics which prove that search has power:
Companies who blog have 434% more indexed pages than those who don’t. That means more leads!
I would suggest that if you company engages in hate speech, certain product sales, or violates terms of use—you will have to chase customers on the Dark Web or via i2p. By the way, I think a company is a thing, so “which” not “who” seems more appropriate. Don’t y’all agree?
Fourth, using pictures is a good thing. Hey, who has time to read? This statistic conflicts with “longer articles are better” but I get the picture:
The Backlinko study also reported that using a single image within content will increase search engine rankings.
Here’s a picture to make this write up more compelling:
Search has power. Really?
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
Google and Google Docs: A Monitoring Opportunity or Reality?
November 3, 2017
Yesterday a person wanted me to share content on Google Docs. I politely declined. We have access to this service, but I prefer my content on devices under my old fashioned Kentucky controls.
I read with interest “A Mysterious Message Is Locking Google Docs Users Out of Their Files.” After reading the write up, I don’t think the message is mysterious at all. A violation of Google’s terms of service seems easy to understand.
The write up in the Bezos infused newspaper stated:
Even if the error turns out to be a technical glitch, the fact that Google is capable of identifying “bad” Google Docs at all is a reminder: Much of what you upload, receive or type to Google is monitored.
Right. That’s a news flash for sure.
I noted this statement as well:
Google explicitly refers to docs — albeit in a lower-case fashion — as an example of the type of content from which Google extracts information. I’ve asked Google for clarification on whether they actually read the contents of a person’s Google Docs and will update if I get a response. (Update: Google responded with a statement, which I’ve included above, but declined to answer questions about whether Google reads your Google Docs.)
Ah, the Google. And the comfort of “Don’t be evil.”
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
Voice Search: Bing vs Google
November 3, 2017
We all know that Microsoft’s Bing has struggled to compete with Google Search. Will voice search level the field? Search Engine Watch ponders, “How Does Bing’s Voice Search Compare to Google’s?” Writer Clark Boyd acknowledges it does not seem Bing will eclipse Google as a whole anytime soon, but points to Microsoft’s new partnership with Amazon’s Alexa as evidence of change. The article delves into specifics about Microsoft’s voice-search technology, mostly with details on Cortana but also citing the voice search now found in their Edge browser. It also examines the company’s apparent strategy, which involves that partnership with Amazon and integration into popular platforms like Spotify.
Boyd next examines specific differences between the companies’ voice searches. For example, he states Cortana is better at understanding his Irish accent, and Cortana’s tie-in with Windows lends efficiency to task management. It is Boyd’s analysis of context, though, that I found most interesting. He writes:
When a user is logged in across Windows products, Cortana can serve accurate contextual results. See below for an example of the same phrase [“who are Leeds playing today?”] searched by voice on a Windows laptop using Cortana and Google. The differences are slight but telling. Cortana knows that I am currently in Spain (I am using a Windows laptop), and therefore provides the kick-off in my local time. Google is not privy to this information and serves the result in Eastern Time, as my account is based in the US. When results default to Bing, it all gets a little hairier. I follow up by asking who will be in the starting lineup and receive a bizarre result about the USA soccer team, a news story about a Leeds starting lineup from three years ago, and some news about the Leeds music festival. Google does a better job of this, but both lack the immediacy that integration with a social media feed would provide.
This same pattern plays out across a wide range of travel, weather, and commercial queries. When Cortana can pull an immediate answer, it does so very capable; when it resorts to providing a list of search results from Bing, the quality varies. Google, therefore, represents a much more consistent, reliable option.
Those last two sentences serve the differences in a nutshell. The article concludes with a handy graphic that compares and contrasts Microsoft’s and Google’s voice search pros, cons, and other differences. Will an alliance with Amazon help Bing narrow the distance between it and Google Search? Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2017
Yet Another Way to Make Search Smarter
November 3, 2017
Companies are always inventing new ways to improve search. Their upgrades are always guaranteed to do this or that, but usually they do nothing at all. BA Insights is one of the few companies that offers decent search product and guess what? They have a new upgrade! According to their blog, “BA Insight Makes Search Smarter With Smarthub.” BA Insight’s latest offering is called the Smarthub that is specifically designed for cognitive search. It leverages cloud-based search and cognitive computing services from Google, Elastic, and Microsoft.
Did I mention it was an app? Most of them are these days. Smarthub also supports and is compatible with other technology, has search controls built from metadata, machine learning personalization analytics, cognitive image processing, and simultaneous access to content from over sixty enterprise systems. What exactly is cognitive search?
‘Cognitive search, and indeed, the entire new wave of cognitive applications, are the next leap forward in information access. These apps rest on a search backbone that integrates information, making it findable and usable. Companies such as BA Insight are now able to not only provide better search results, but also uncover patterns and solve problems that traditional search engines can’t,’ said Sue Feldman, Co-Founder and Managing Director at the Cognitive Computing Consortium. ‘There’s a cognitive technology race going on between the big software superpowers, which are developing platforms on which these applications are built. Smart smaller vendors go the next mile, layering highly integrated, well designed, purpose-built applications on top of multiple platforms so that enterprises can leave their information environments in place while adding in the AI, machine learning, and language understanding that gets them greater, faster insights.’
It sounds like what all search applications are supposed to do. I guess it is just a smarter version of the search applications that already exist, but what makes them different is the analytics and machine learning components that make information more findable and personalize the experience.
Whitney Grace, November 3, 2017
I Hear the Crows Cawing: A Newspaper Revels in Alleged Silicon Valley Flubs
November 2, 2017
I read “How to Stop Google and Facebook from Becoming Even More Powerful.” The write up appeared in a British newspaper, one which has embraced the digital revolution. Well, I should say, “Tries to embrace the digital revolution.”
I learned that “banning these tech giants from buying any more companies would prevent them from entrenching their monopoly position and help protect our freedom.
I assume that if Facebook or Google tried to buy the Guardian, the newspaper would tell these giants to take their money and get back to solving death or paying lobbyists. When a certain person with oodles of money approached the estimable Washington Post, my recollection is that the Bezos bucks convinced the stakeholders of the Washington Post to accept the cash. But not the Guardian’s stakeholders, right? Of course not! Money. Filthy lucre.
I also noted this passage:
these institutions are designed to gather vast amounts of information about every American, but they are not built to manage that information in the interest of those individuals or the public as a whole…
What’s a company supposed to do? Should Facebook and Google refuse to sell ads? Is it the nature of a corporate entity to have a heart, a soul, an obligation to save the whales, and preserve the rain forest?
Nope. A corporate entity has an obligation to make money. if one does not make money or at least try to make money, in the US the Internal Revenue Service is suspicious of deductable expenditures I hear.
I circled this statement as well:
If it’s clear that Facebook and Google can’t manage what they already control, why let those corporations own more? America’s antitrust enforcers can impose such a rule almost immediately.
The Guardian has first hand experience with the bureaucracy of the US government I assume. In my experience, the phrase “almost immediately” does not match what appears to be the velocity at which government agencies can operate. Immediately does not capture the reality of certain government functions in the US. Obviously the Guardian knows better than I how to make the Bugatti Chiron of the US government burn off a ridiculous acceleration down the virtual political Nürburgring that is Constitution Avenue.
What’s clear to me is that Facebook and Google are in for more scrutiny, criticism, and pundit pummeling.
Let’s see. Google’s been chugging along for 20 years. Facebook has fewer miles on its odometer, but it’s no spring chicken.
Yep, let make changes immediately. Sounds good from the point of view of a newspaper dutifully reporting the thrill ride of Brexit. But I keep coming back to this question, “Would the Guardian sell itself if either Facebook or Google showed up with a lorry filled with cash, stock, and a promise of technological heaven?”
Stephen E Arnold, November 2, 2017
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
