Alphabet Google: Rumblings Centered in Mountain View
May 31, 2018
I noted an interesting article suggesting that Google wanted or hoped to hire the brains behind Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin. Ethereum, as you may know, is now supported by Amazon. Why not use open source Ethereum?
Answer: Google likes to have the smartest people in the world. Merely using is just not the same as having the brain itself.
I thought about Google’s “hire the guy already” approach to company and new product management. From my vantage point which one wild and crazy entrepreneur described as clueless, Amazon appears to be heading a different direction. Google, it seems, is hunting for a direction in which to go.
As a reference point, Amazon, in my opinion, knows where it is heading. Google, it seems to me, is not sure which compass point is calling to them. Therefore, the management approach seems to be hire smart people and let those individuals figure it out.
The consequences of that approach formed the guts of the story “AI Deal with Pentagon Crates Schism at Google.” To read the printer version you will need the dead tree version of the newspaper. The story appears on the first page of the paper and jumps to page A 15 in the version of the paper which sometimes gets delivered to me in rural Kentucky. There is also an online version of the story which has a different headline. Helpful, right? That version of the story is at this link.
For starters, let me say that I do not believe there is one Alphabet Google. There’s the YouTube thing. There are the low cost death ray services purpose built to kill off Microsoft Office. There are venture firms galore. There are the whiz kids at Google X who are in charge of moon shots.
From here in Harrod’s Creek, the many and duplicative products and services create a grey haze which is a “gaze” as harmful as the Hawaii “laze”.
Glowing in the middle of this digital universe is pay to play advertising centric search. That’s the money machine spewing lava like a Puna vent. After two decades in business and trying really hard to diversify is Google with its advertising revenue.
The NYT story makes a point about Googlers who want smart software to be used for “good.” News flash, Googlers: technology available to the US government is applied to specific problems given priority by a federal agency, department, unit, or inter agency working group. When those projects are classified, it is possible the companies providing the technology have zero idea about certain government activities related to a technology.
Here’s another old chestnut from the cobbled streets of Georgetown: If a company does not do business directly with the US government, intermediary firms provide a conduit for the needed technology. Obviously chatter about what firms provide these services is not usually circulated widely.
The value of the NYT article is that it provides insight into the management methods at Google. I noted three points in the write up. Let me highlight these, and simultaneously urge you to read one of the versions of the NYT article. Even though the title dates of the versions change, the basic points are the same.
Here are my highlights:
- Google chased a Department of Defense contract but developed no game plan for dealing with its employees or the individuals who write articles. Net: No tactical planning.
- Google has factions within the company who are publicly opposed to the use of smart software for warfighting. Net: No management mechanism for its employees. Some of these employees may embrace the now irrelevant “Don’t be evil” catchphrase.
- Google has been involved in US government projects for many years. Many of these are meaningless like licensing the Google Search Appliance to a clueless US government agency unit. As it turned out, Google demanded the return of the GSA because the government client wanted special customer support. No joke. Other projects are more meaningful and lack the “name in lights” visibility Maven has been receiving. Net: Nothing new with this Maven deal except that it gets the Google a seat at a table which very well could be dominated by Amazon, not just IBM and a handful of other established vendors.
Net net: The issue is not Maven. The issue strikes at what is the central weakness of Alphabet Google: Its approach to managing its employees and by extension, its business.
From jumping in and out of business sectors (remember Orkut?) to buying companies and then marginalizing them (Motorola, remember?) to starting products and then orphaning them (remember Google Answers?)—Alphabet Google has manifested situational decision making, sort of like a Delta force operator on a mission alone.
For many of the under 25 year olds with whom I talk know anything about the legal dust up about Google’s online advertising business. None know about the Yahoo, Overture, GoTo settlement with Google prior to its IPO. That was an operation which yielded revenue success. But the management method used to complete that mission is now under considerable stress. Alphabet Google is in need of more than “operators,” no matter how intelligent.
The bottom-line is that the NYT has explained the Google employee Maven issue. From my point of view, which I want you to know one wizard called me dumb, Google has struggled to diversify its revenue. Like its other efforts to generate significant, sustainable and profitable new products and services, Google has not been the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer. Heck, I thought I was the dull implement.
When writing about Google, it’s time to leave the lore of Backrub behind. Forget the bits and bytes, Alphabet Google has reached an important way station in its new revenue journey. The question is, “What must be done to arrive at a destination?” Too bad Peter Drucker is no longer alive. Perhaps he and Vitalik Buterin (the Ethereum wizard) could share an office at Google?
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2018
AI: A Little Helper for Those Seeking Information
May 31, 2018
Search is a powerful tool and big data software has only improved search’s quality. Search can now locate items in all data structures, ranging from structured to unstructured. Do users, however, actually find the answers they want? InfoWorld runs through the impact AI has had on search in the article, “The Wonders Of AI-Or The Shortcomings Of Search?”
In essence, Google and Amazon’s subsecond search results have spoiled and ruined users. Users are so use to accurate and quick results that they expect all Web sites, software, and hardware to do the same. These search tools are actually providing users with an information overload.
One the other hand, AI makes search and other tools more robust. Organizations use AI not only to power search, but to feed and filter data to make business recommendations. Google and Amazon are not the only ones using it. Other companies that use AI to power their businesses are Uber, Tesla, Spotify, Pandora, Netflix, and Bristol Meyers Squibb. AI takes the search out of search:
“Those last points are crucial. A structural shift is under way. AI cuts through the clutter to provide not endless pages of results to wade through, but with specific recommendations tailored to you as the seeker of knowledge—or simply as the seeker of where to find the best Chicago-style pizza while away from home on a business trip. (Which is not to admit, certainly not in print, that I have not supplemented my normal whole-foods, plant-based, no-meat-or-dairy nutrition by indulging in such a cheesy, guilty pleasure. I present it merely for illustration.) The key construct: AI-driven systems present either the single best solution or a tight shortlist of best-fit solutions.”
AI also augments search by providing recommendations that are related to the original query, but are simply suggestions. This requires that AI be fed a lot of data, so that it can offer proactive assistance.
Big data and AI are empowering, but they do need a checks and balances system. The solution is to combine AI search and regular search into one tool: the curated list and the raw data list.
Whitney Grace, May 31, 2018
Is Google Playing Defense?
May 31, 2018
The Search Engine Roundtable reports, “Google Has a Bias Towards Scientific Truth in Search.” Great! Now what about reproducible scientific studies?
This defense of a slant toward verifiable truth was made by Google engineer Paul Haahr on Twitter after someone questioned the impartiality of his company’s “quality raters guidelines,” section 3.2 (reproduced for our convenience in the write-up). The guidelines consider consensus and subject-matter expertise in search rankings, a position one Twitter user took issue with. Writer Barry Schwartz lets that thread speak for itself, so see the write-up for the back-and-forth. The engineer’s challenger basically questions Google’s right to discern good sources from bad (which is, I’d say, is the basic the job of a search engine). This is Haahr’s side:
“We definitely do have a bias towards, for example, what you call ‘Scientific Truth,’ where the guidance in section 3.2 says ‘High quality information pages on scientific topics should represent well established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists. […]
‘It’s the decision we’ve made: we need to be able to describe what good search results are. Those decisions are reflected in our product. Ultimately, someone who disagrees with our principles may want a different product; there may be a market niche for them. […]
‘I think it’s the only realistic model if you want to build a search engine. You need to know what your objective in ranking is. Evaluation is central to the whole process and that needs clarity on what “good” means. If you don’t describe it, you only get noise.’”
The write-up concludes with this question from Haahr—if Google’s search results are bad, is it because they are too close to their guidelines, or too far away?
Cynthia Murrell, May 31, 2018
Alphabet Google Races to a Trillion
May 30, 2018
Short honk: I read “Microsoft Just Surpassed Alphabet’s Market Cap for the First Time in 3 years and the Race to Become the First Trillion Dollar Company Is Heating Up.” The source is one which does quite a few MBA arabesques with nifty “flip it around” spins.
It’s no secret that the egos of the folks who run companies trying to hit the trillion dollar bull’s eye are competitive “aw, shucks” people.
The write up reports, with what I thought was glee:
Microsoft just surpassed Google’s parent company Alphabet in market value, clocking in at the end of Tuesday’s regular trading session with a market cap of $753 billion. Alphabet’s end of day market value was $739 billion.
You don’t catch the glee? Too bad.
For me here in rural Kentucky, pondering the sights and sounds of the local old folks’ home, I noted something different.
In order to pump up the bucks, Alphabet Google may have to turn the dials on its revenue machine. My hypothesis is that Alphabet Google will revisit the “diffusion” of ads in order to deplete advertisers’ accounts in the quest for clicks. My hunch is that some of the sites still getting money from Adsense might note a shift as well. Plus, there are the monetization opportunities subscriptions provide.
If smaller sites dependent on Google for revenue are negatively affected, those sites may go away. That means Alphabet Google spells major accounts. Is this another variation of the have-have nots social pattern?
I think the GOOG can hit a trillion, but there may be some road kill on that fast lane to big bucks. Then there is the problem of the race leaders. I need a bite of an Apple.
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2018
Want Mobile Traffic? New Tactics May Be Needed
May 30, 2018
I read “Mobile Direct Traffic Eclipses Facebook.” Like any research, I like to know the size of the sample, the methodology, and the “shaping” which the researchers bring to the project. To answer these questions, one must see other sources cited in the write up, including Nieman Lab, which appears to be recycling Chartbeat data. In short, I don’t know much about the research design or other aspects of the research.
Nevertheless, I noted a handful of statements or “facts” which on the surface struck me as interesting. The study data appear to support the assertion that “mobile does not equal social”.
First, the study reports that “mobile direct to traffic has surpassed Facebook.” I think this means that if those in the sample use a mobile device, some of those users use an app or a browser to go directly to a site. At first glance, Facebook seems to be a major player but it is, according to the survey, trending down from being the gateway to information for some mobile device users.
Second, the write up points out sites offering “content” are not losing visitors. On one hand, the finding suggests that Facebook is not a gateway trending upwards. I have seen reports suggesting that Facebook has been negatively affected by the Cambridge Analytica matter, but I have also seen reports which assert that Facebook is adding users. Which is it? That’s the question, isn’t it?
Third, the Chartbeat data put Google as the leading source of traffic to sites. What this means is that the “gap” between Facebook and Google as referrers seems to be getting bigger. Bad news for Facebook and good news for Google if the data are accurate.
Several observations:
- The data, if accurate, make it clear that Google and its Android operating system have a clear path to the barn
- Facebook may have to begin the process of adapting to mobile users who do not use Facebook as the gateway to the Internet (whatever that ends up being)
- Governments interested in censoring certain content streams have a crude road map for determine what online destinations should be cut off from the information superhighway. (The law enforcement addiction to Facebook and Twitter may require some special treatment at clinics run by Google and high traffic destinations accessed via an app.)
To sum up, if the data in the Chartbeat report are accurate, changes are underway. Some positive, some negative. There is, however, that “if.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2018
Google Says, Tech Success Is Simple
May 29, 2018
Here at Beyond Search we understood that nothing worthwhile comes easy. We assume that’s why wizards work at Google and addled geese work in rural Kentucky.
A brief write-up at CNBC shares a brief interview with Google’s Anil Sabharwa—“There’s ‘a Very Simple Formula’ to Realizing an Idea in the Tech Space, Says Google’s Vice President of Product.” We wonder, if it is so simple, why is Google still dependent on a revenue stream based on GoTo.com, Overture.com, and Yahoo.com methods? Nevertheless, Sabharwal is enthusiastic about the approach, and points to the popularity of Google Photos as an example. Writer Eustance Huang quotes the VP:
“What we like to think about is a few simple things,” he added. “Where are there opportunities? Where are there scenarios where users could benefit from tremendous capabilities in technology that may not have been there years ago that we can now solve real human problems?” In the case of personal photography, Sabharwal said, a trend was noticed where people are taking “far more photos” than before.
I learned:
“Back in the day we used to only be able to take 24 photos on film, now you take a thousand photos of one sunset,” he added. With this realization that people were taking more photos, the team then sought to find a solution to a series of questions. “How do we give them peace of mind? How do we help them relive and reminisce? How do we help them share those photos with the meaningful people in their lives?” The end result of that process was Google Photos, a product which Sabharwal said was “a really great combination of a problem that was unmet in the market and a capability that Google had that really no one else had.”
Well, okay, but don’t believe the concept of identifying a new niche and filling it is any great secret. Still, positioned as advice for budding developers, the embedded three-minute video is a nice little piece of Googley PR.
I still think there is some truth in the “nothing worthwhile comes easy” truism.
Cynthia Murrell, May 29, 2018
DarkCyber, May 29, 2018, Now Available
May 29, 2018
Stephen E Arnold’s DarkCyber video news program for Tuesday, May 29, 2018, is now available.
This week’s story line up is:
- The “personality” of a good Web hacker
- Why lists are replacing free Dark Web search services
- Where to find a directory of OSINT software
- A new Dark Web index from a commercial vendor.
You can find this week’s program at either www.arnoldit.com/wordpress or on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/272088088.
On June 5, 2018, Stephen will be giving two lectures at the Telestrategies ISS conference in Prague. The audiences will consist of intelligence, law enforcement, and security professionals from Europe. A handful of attendees from other countries will be among the attendees.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018, Stephen will reveal one finding from our analysis of Amazon’s law enforcement, war fighting, and intelligence services initiative.
Because his books have been reused (in several cases without permission) by other analysts, the information about Amazon is available via online or in person presentations.
The DarkCyber team has prepared short video highlighting one research finding. He will include some of the DarkCyber research information in his Prague lectures.
The Amazon-centric video will be available on Tuesday, June 5, 2018. After viewing the video, if you want the details of his for fee lecture, write him at darkcyber333@yandex dot com. Please, put “Amazon” in the subject line.
Several on the DarkCyber team believe that most people will dismiss Stephen’s analysis of Amazon. The reason is that people buy T shirts, books, and videos from the company. However, the DarkCyber research team has identified facts which suggest a major new revenue play from the one time bookseller.
Just as Stephen’s analyses of Google in 2006 altered how some Wall Street professionals viewed Google, his work on Amazon is equally significant. Remember those rumors about Alexa recording what it “hears”? Now think of Amazon’s services/products as pieces in a mosaic.
The picture is fascinating and it has significant financial implications as well.
Enjoy today’s program at this link.
Kenny Toth, May 29, 2018
IBM: Watson Wizards Available for a New Job?
May 28, 2018
I know that newspapers do real “news.” I know I worked for a reasonably good newspaper. I, therefore, assume that the information is true in the story “Some IBM Watson Employees Said They Were Laid Off Thursday.” The Thursday for those who have been on a “faire le pont” is May 24, 2018.
The write up states:
IBM told some employees in the United States and other countries on Thursday that they were being laid off. The news was reported on websites, which cited social media and Internet posts by IBM employees.
IBM also seems to be taking the reduction in force approach to success by nuking some of the Big Blue team in its health unit. (See “‘Ugly Day:’ IBM Laying Off Workers in Watson Health Group, Including Triangle.”)
I noted this statement in the Cleveland write up:
Since 2012, the Cleveland Clinic has collaborated with IBM on electronic medical records and other tools employing Watson, IBM’s supercomputer. The Clinic and IBM Watson Health have worked together to identify new cancer treatments, improve electronic medical records and medical student education, and look at the adoption of genomic-based medicine.
The issue may relate to several facets of Watson:
- Partners do not have a good grasp of the time and effort required to create questions which Watson is expected to answer. High powered smart people are okay with five minute conversations with an IBM Watson engineer, but extend those chats to a couple of hours over weeks, then the Watson thing is not the time saver some hoped
- Watson, like other smart systems, works within a tightly bounded domain. As new issues arise, questions by users cannot be answered in a way that is “spontaneously helpful.” The reason is that Watson and similar systems are just processing queries. if one does not know what one does not know, asking and answering questions can range from general to naive to dead wrong in my experience
- Watson and similar systems are inevitably compared to Google’s ability to locate a pizza restaurant as one drives a van in an unfamiliar locale. Watson does not work like Google.
Toss in the efficiency of using one’s experience or asking a colleague, and Watson gets in the way. Like many smart systems, users do not want to become expert Watson or similar system users. The smart system is supposed to or is expected to provide answers a person can use.
The problem with the Watson approach is that it is old fashioned search. A user has to figure out from a list of results or outputs what’s what. Contrast that to next generation information access systems which provide an answer.
IBM owns technology which performs in a more intelligent and useful way than the Watson solution.
Why IBM chased the same dream that cratered many firms with key word search technology has intrigued me. Was it the crazy idea that marketing would make search work? IBM Watson seems to be to be a potpourri of home brew code, acquired metasearch technology like Vivisimio, and jacking in open source software.
What distinguished it was the hope that marketing would make Watson into a billion dollar business.
It seems as if that dream has suffered a setback. One weird consequence is the use of the word “cognitive.” Vendors worldwide describe their systems as “cognitive search.”
From my point of view, search and retrieval is a utility. One cannot perform digital work without finding a file, content, or some other digital artifact.
No matter how many “governance” experts, how many “search” experts, how many MBAs, how many content management experts, how many information professionals want search to be the next big thing—search is still a utility. Forget this when one dreams of billions in revenue, and there is a disconnect between dreams and reality.
Effective “search” is not a single method or system. Effective search is not just smart software. Effective search is not a buzzword like “cognitive” or “artificial intelligence.”
Finding information and getting useful “answers” requires multiple tools and considerable thought.
My hunch is that the apparent problems with Watson “health” foreshadow even more severe changes for the game show winners, its true believers, and the floundering experts who chant “cognitive” at every opportunity.
Search is difficult, and in my decades of work in information access, I have not found the promised land. Silver bullets, digital bags of garlic, and unicorn dreams have not made information access a walk in the park.
Cognitive? Baloney. Remember. Television programs like Jeopardy do what’s called post production. A flawed cancer treatment may not afford this luxury. Winning a game show is TV. Sorry, IBM. Watson’s business is reality which may make a great business school case study.
Stephen E Arnold, May 28, 2018
Google Bans Bail Bond Ads
May 28, 2018
Google is moving forward with its efforts to manage certain types of advertisements.
Google has placed bail-bond companies in the same category as payday lenders, ArsTechnica reports, “Google Slams ‘For-Profit Bail-Bond Providers,’ Won’t Let Them Advertise.” The brief write-up points to Google’s announcement that it will no longer allow these companies to advertise on its platform. The post also supplies a link refreshing us on the 2016 ban placed on payday lenders. Writer Cyrus Farivar tells us:
“In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a ‘deceptive or harmful product,’ citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. ‘For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years,’ Google wrote….“Also in 2016, another study found that ‘there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the US,’ simply for their inability to pay a bond, which is what drives many people to the services of a bondsman.”
The post cites advocacy group Color of Change, which had called for this ban. The group’s director believes it is high time corporations are held accountable for enabling what he considers the predatory for-profit bail business, and encourages other corporations to follow Google’s lead. In the meantime, Google’s ban is scheduled to take effect in July 2018.
Progress?
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2018
Mobile Search: The Google Focus
May 28, 2018
SEO is the ultimate moving target. Just as you get a hunch about what algorithms are looking for in order to boost rankings, the algorithms and parameters change and you practically have to start from scratch. It’s a convoluted world to navigate fresh and we were pleased to find a really competent explanation of the latest landscape change, the Mobile First Index, in a recent Search Engine Watch story, “Google’s Mobile First Index: Six Actions to Minimize Risk and Maximize Ranking Opportunities.”
According to the story:
“In any period of uncertainty there are opportunities to take advantage of and risks to manage – and in competitive SEO niches, taking every chance to get ahead is important… “Whatever your starting point – the mobile-first index is the new normal in SEO, and now is the time to get to grips with the challenge – and potential.”
Your starting point, it seems, should involve voice search. Another compelling article makes the point that the ideal pairing of Mobile First Indexing is voice search. Watch for this massive shift to happen rapidly. Critics have been eyeing the future of voice search for a while and now the pieces are finally in place.
Old fashioned keyword search seems to be less and less relevant.
Patrick Roland, May 28, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
