Chief Economist of Google Invents a Search Tool for Advertising
December 21, 2009
Most companies don’t have a chief economist. Google has a chief economist. The economist is Hal R. Varian.
Dr. Varian has good paper.
Dr. Varian worked on a Google team which includes other Google wizards. The invention is “search tool advertising”. Definitely clear. In prose any patent attorney would be proud to claim, US2009/0299816 says:
A content item is presented to at least one user via a first medium, where the content item identifies a target concept. The first medium can be, for instance, radio, television, print advertisements, or the Internet. The number of requests at a search tool for the target concept are measured subsequent to the presentation of the content item in the first medium. The difference (e.g, increase or decrease) in use of a second medium, e.g., the Internet, subsequent to the presentation of the content item in the first medium can be measured, which can be used to modify a value associated with a subsequent presentation of the content item using the first medium.
Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
The diagrams are abstract. The claims, all 30 of them, make clear that the Google is moving forward with the use of semi autonomous agents to assemble content. Although focused on advertising, the “assembly” plumbing can be seen elsewhere in Google’s open source information. (You think I am going to list these co-occurrences in a free Web log? Wrong.)
Several points strike me of interest:
- The invention applies to text and other media; for example, television or radio
- Metrics make the little method hum; that is, data from the system feed back and inform subsequent decisions the semi autonomous agents make
- The use of the word “publisher” makes clear that the “digital Gutenberg” is alive and kicking. See [0030].
Stephen E. Arnold, December 21, 2009
Oyez, oyez, this is a freebie. I want to disclose this fact to the Economic Adjustment Office. Google competitors will have to make some adjustments due to Google economics. Where better to report and seek succor?
RatBook: UK Bad Guy Goodies
December 19, 2009
Short honk: It is not often that I come across a new information service that intrigues me. I have done a tiny bit of work in the UK. I don’t know too much about people who participate in crimes, but the Rat Book makes it easy to get some information. If you want to know about criminals in the UK, navigate to the RatBook.com.
The firm told me:
Our website exposes convicted criminals across the UK, currently containing over 14,000 criminal profiles (updated daily), consisting of Paedophiles, Perverts, Rapists, Murderers, Abusers, Terrorists, and other Violent Criminals. Criminals can be searched based on their location, and the crimes they have committed, all through our easy to use Rat Map.
My query for “Russian” generated and interesting list of hits. Some of the content was dated, which is not unusual for information generated by a government entity and made available to a non-governmental service. Might be useful.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 19, 2009
Oyez, oyez, a freebie. I am now reporting this fact to the Court of International Trade. My hunch is that some of the bad people may move to and fro.
Murdoch Business Acumen Sparkles
December 19, 2009
I read in the hard copy version of the Wall Street Journal a short self-congratulatory article called “Sony Reader to Offer Journal Subscriptions.? In my Harrod’s Creek, mine-drainage edition, the story was on B6 in the December 18, 2009 edition. I did a quick search on Topix and found lots of articles about this news development. I am very sensitive to the value of an important news story, and I fully expected to have to pay to see information about this news development. Was I wrong? Yes.
The story reported that Sony and the Wall Street Journal have crafted a deal for digital subscriptions. The idea is that I can get the Wall Street Journal plus some other high-value content on my Sony reader. My Sony reader suffered a broken screen. My queries to Sony went unanswered, so I disassembled the device to see what was inside and vowed never to buy another Sony book reading device. The device lacked sufficient rigidity for the rigors of this addled goose’s fast-paced life. Fatal flaw in my opinion.
The information that interested me in the Wall Street Journal and Sony announcement was I would have to pay $20 for the digital edition and another $14 for the MarketWatch information. I have documented the spam I have received from the Wall Street Journal, and I demonstrated that if I simply hold out, the Wall Street Journal will sell the paper edition to me in Harrod’s Creek for less than $80 per year.
So, let’s think about this bit of Murdoch business acumen. I wait for an email or coupon promotion and buy the paper edition for $80. I know that $80 does not cover the cost of much more than a pizza for the IT guys in lower Manhattan on the Sunday night shift.
For a mere $240 a year, I get a digital edition. For the electronic version on the Sony gizmo which costs somewhere between $150 to $400, I pay $160 more.
Yep, maybe that will work for some folks. I don’t think this will work for me in Harrod’s Creek. I heard that newspapers are being given away in a number of cities. Why? People aren’t buying them. So, will differential pricing work? In my experience, the old pricing models are not amenable to the rigors of the digital crowd.
If I search Topix for the phrase “brilliant pricing models”, will this news story come up?
Stephen E. Arnold, December 19, 2009
You got me between a rock and a hard place. I was not paid to write this article, but I have to report to the Council of Economic Advisers this sad situation. I wonder if any of those bean counters can find a way to make this Wall Street Journal pricing work?
Will Mr. Google Rustle the Adobe Cash Cow
December 18, 2009
I think most buisness intelligence write ups are dull. Corporate catastrophes can be fun! Just ask Bain, Boston Consulting Group, and other blue chip firms. I want to give you a glimpse of another Google disruption that is not in the “Sergey and Larry eat pizza books.” The informaton in this write up comes from open sources. The difference between this analysis of a single Google invention and telling anecdotes about advertising is that the Google is poised to put some major pain a some large outfits in a business sector not generally associated with Google. In this article, I refer to Google as Mr. Google and Googzilla. I find that making light of what may be one of the more significant capabiliteis of this company is fun for me. Enjoy. Oh, if you are annoyed by my writing style, may I remind you that this is my personal Web log and it available to you for free. Therefore, don’t write to complain about my approach, just go read something more appetizing to you.
Any one remember Andrew Herzfeld? Earlier this year, the New York Times pointed out that Andrew Hertzfeld, “who helped develop the original Maacintosh and now works at Google” that Mr. Google was looking for different cash cows. Graphical interfaces and related software wizardry are nothing new to Mr. Google. But Mr. Hertzfeld is a bit like Vint Cerf or Jeff Dean. These are humans with brains that dwarf the addled goose’s pitable gray matter. Mr. Hertzfeld is a wizard. In addition to the Macintosh work, he founded General Magic and then Eazel in 1999. He donned his Google T shirt in 2005. Not exactly an average Googler, but you get the idea that Mr. Hertzfeld has some graphics savvy amidst the Haskell crowd.
So, what’s Mr. Hertzfeld doing at Googzilla’s magic factory? Picasa? An in-browser image editor? I don’t know much, but I do know how to look at certain types of open source information. A recent example is US Patent 7631252, filed in July 2006. The title is “Selective Image Editing in a Browser”. To give you some context for Mr. Hertzfeld’s interests, he has a patent called “Graphical User Interface for Navigating btween Levels Displaying Hallway and Room Metaphors.” After looking at these two documents, my hunch is that the Google wants to visit the feedlot where Adobe’s cash cow Photoshop is getting fat.
You can read these documents and draw your own conclusion, but I am going to snap this invention into my Google capabilities matrix under “Graphics Disruption”. Hey, I am an addled goose, so those folks with image editing systems that run on the desktop or in the cloud can tell me I am off base. No problemo.
But, just for fun, let’s look at what the crystal clear prose of US7631252 tries to communicate.
Here’s the abstract:
Methods, tools, and systems are provided for editing an image in a browser. One method provides editing an image in a browser including maintaining a list of transformations applied to the image including a last transformation, receiving a selection from a user to rollback a transformation, the selection not including the last transformation, generating a unique identifier associated with the edited image without the selection and requesting a page using the unique identifier.
Not too exciting, right?
Now Mr. Google employs a junior poobah named Cyrus. This bright lad insists that I create illustrations for my books and lectures using Photoshop. The reason for this interesting assertion is that Cyrus does not read patent documents. Here’s a Google illustration that supports the patent:
If you know about online image editing, you can figure out that the simplified interface supports a number of controls. The feature seems to be that behind the “simple” facade are some Photoshop-like functions.
What makes the patent interesting to me is that Mr. Google is supporting some computationally intensive and storage gobbling functions. Browser based roll back is one example.
The other aspect of the invention that I noted was that there is some smart software clanking around in the background. One quick example is the auto recognition capability that invokes certain functions. Mr. Google provides 21 claims for this invention. Most of these till earth that other image editing outfits have trampled into hard packed clay. A couple of them are going to allow Mr. Google to exert some disruptive forces in the image editing markets.
To put this in some perspective, Mr. Google has a vector capability. Mr. Google has a bitmap editing capability. Mr. Google has a plan for something. I wonder if there is a confection called the “creative sweet” in Mr. Google’s candy shop.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 18, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I want to report to the Jet Propulsion Lab that I was not paid to write about this invention, the Googler who does not read patents, or the coming pressure for the kids from Adobe. I would like to get paid for this type of serious patent analysis. I won’t even get a lump of coal for Christmas.
Governments, Data, Transparency, Threats, and Common Sense
December 14, 2009
A happy quack to the reader (one of two or three sad to say) who sent me a link to The Register’s “Gov Slams Critical Database Report as Opaque, Flawed, Inaccurate”. The idea is that the UK government has a bit of a tussle underway with an outfit called Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. The Trust published a report. The UK government says, according to the Register, that the consultants got its facts wrong. In my experience, this is the pot calling the kettle discolored.
Here are some links provided by my colleague in the Eastern Mediterranean basin:
- http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf see especially “Developing Effective Systems” pdf
- http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/government-response-rowntree-illegal-databases-report.pdf
I think consultants get stuff wrong and I think governments get stuff wrong as well. This is the norm. The reason is that consultants don’t see government efforts from the government’s point of view. The government, on the other hand, has a tough time seeing consultants as much more than reasons to have another meeting. By definition, citizen facing data will be assembled with intent. By definition, consultants will be able to find fault with almost any data a government entity produces. When consultants produce data for the government and then the government makes those data available to citizens, then other consultants will rise to the occasion. In short, data, transparency, threats to the nation state, and common sense collide. Part of the landscape. Live with it, opines this addled goose.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to report to the manager of the US government’s Recovery.gov Web site that I was not paid to write this paragraph pointing out what seems obvious to geese living in Harrod’s Creek. Real humans may have another viewpoint. No problemo. I disclosed, didn’t I?
Androids Everywhere in Google Telco Invasion
December 14, 2009
Yep, I recall my partner from a consulting firm in a tony part of Seattle making the rounds of telecommunications companies in 2006. The presentation was “Google Telephone & Telegraph”. The presentation included some whimsy; for example, an antenna and transceiver that could be put in a pizza deliver vehicle to the serious; for example, the use of a non-intuitive method of finding a low latency path through a cellular network. The presentation also took a look at a half dozen of the Google patent documents that disclosed everything from support of double byte queries for mobile search to Sergey Brin’s voice search invention to the use of semi autonomous agents to queue content * before * a user needed that content.
A view of the wizard’s lair at Tintagel.
I have to tell you that the response to these confidential, technically charged, and blue-chip consultant type briefings was—ah, how shall I say it—dismissive, maybe indifferent.
I thought of these six or seven big dollar escapades when I read PCWorld’s “More Than 50 Android Phones to Ship in 2010”. It is not just the handsets or the Android operating system. Nope, it is the fact that there is a Google telephony consortium guzzling Googzilla’s own Kool-Aid and chanting compression algorithms in Mountain View’s Tintagel.
Now three years later, guess which big, unassailable, monopolistic industry has a Google sized problem on its plate for the New Year? Yep, those same telco executives.
Do you know which industry sector is next? Folks are waking up, but it may be a little late. More on the future of Google appears in my Google trilogy. Spend $1,000 and find out if you should be applying for work as a Wal*Mart greeter. On the other hand, pretend Google is a search and ad company. Life is more comfortable in the cloud of unknowing. Just ask your telco connections via one of Google’s communication methods. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2009
I wish to disclose that I was not paid to write this “I told you so” article. Now to whom must I disclose this? I know. The Federal Communications outfit. Yes, that’s the one. This is a freebie shamelessly promoting my three Google monographs. Almost 1,000 pages of Google information from its patent documents and other open source information objects.
Google in 2019
December 12, 2009
I am not sure what I will look like tomorrow morning. Royal Pingdom moves outside a prediction envelope of 24 hours and targets 87,600 hours. The prognostication appears in “What the Google Web Will Look Like in 10 Years.” The hook for the article is Google and its public DNS service. Pingdom then touches upon a number of separate Google products and services, including Android and Wave. The wrap up is a discussion of the concept of the “technological Singularity”. Interesting stuff.
Several observations:
- The context for these separate pearls from Google is missing. That’s a common method when some folks discuss Google. These things seem so disconnected. Because Google does not connect the dots, the description of products and services hang like a lone ornament or two on my neighbor’s artificial Christmas tree.
- Google has been accelerating its release of these individual pearls since late 2006. Is that a coincidence or a consequence? Not much illumination from the Sergey-and-Larry-eat-pizza crowd in my opinion.
- The trajectory of these individual pearls warrants some physics. For example, are the pearls bee bees or are they ICBMs? Are the pearls scattered or are they the organic output of a construct?
I don’t want to get too philosophical, but I think it is easy to explain Google in 2019. Google becomes the Web for some folks, just one big Google dataspace. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2009
Oyez, oyez, National Science Foundation, wake up. I am disclosing that no one paid me to write this opinion. The goose can too predict the future. There will be more mine run off tomorrow. 100 percent accuracy for free.
A Twitter over a Google Triviality
December 10, 2009
The Google is so darn good at making a relatively trivial service into headlines, the Google gobbling mavens miss the air craft carrier as it sits off shore. Its very presence is masked by twits, blogs, and assorted punditry. The example this morning is “Join this group: Google Groups joins Google Apps”. No sooner does the Google hook together two services than the Megites and the Techmemes overflow with posts. Sigh. The fact is that the Google is a more homogeneous set up than Microsoft or Yahoo. This means that “connecting” Google parts is more complex than a kid’s snapping together Lego blocks but certainly not Ramanathan Guha-type or Simon Tony-like rocket science. There will be more of these connections coming down the pike. Perhaps the world of CMS experts with roadmaps, the SEO wizards, and the point-and-click poobahs will step back and focus on plumbing and scale. I will post a short example of serious Google mojo later today. Serious Google magic this is from the depths of the Black Forest.
Stephen Arnold, December 10, 2009
Silobreaker Applies Intelligence Technology to Consumer Topics
December 9, 2009
Silobreaker, http://www.silobreaker.com, started out as a intelligence service for government agencies and competitive intelligence professionals. Its search function targets news and current events in Global Issues, Technology, Science, Business, Energy, and World topics. But it doesn’t just return a list of results, it aggregates a collection of information around the key words entered and presents it in a visual interface. Now Silobreaker is expanding into a more consumer-targeted market and offering its search aggregator’s services in the highly popular fields of sports and entertainment. http://sports.silobreaker.com/ and http://entertainment.silobreaker.com/ offer fans the chance to create their own targeted Silobreaker page with widgets to keep track of top stories, news, blogs, reports and research, audio and visual material, trends, quotes, and even material at YouTube.com. You can start with the standard generated page and filter results, or the customized user page can be shared with others. I think sports and entertainment fanatics who are willing to spend the time to set up the widgets would really enjoy this search service. Silobreaker likes the new services as well. Ads on the sites are generating “real money”, the managing director told Beyond Search.
Jessica Bratcher, December 9, 2009
I paid Ms. Bratcher to write this article. Silobreaker did not pay me one red cent, but I was assured of herring 12 ways when I am in Stockholm in May 2010. Yummy!
Forrester and Enterprise Content Management
December 9, 2009
I remember working at a company paying $55,000 per year for technology information from Forrester. The outfit changed direction, and I wandered off. That number sticks with me because certain consulting firms are in several different businesses. That’s fine with me. I steer clear of the azure chip crowd. Follow through, timely action, and nitty gritty research attract me. The absence of these qualities cause the addled goose to flap away.
I read “Forrester report names four leading vendors in ECM space” and quacked happily. First, none of the four vendors hit doubles or even triples for me. In fact, EMC, IBM, Open Text, and Oracle face some serious challenges in my opinion. Here is my take, and I don’t sell anything to these outfits and i don’t have much, if any, interaction with their employees or PR mavens.
EMC is a storage company that bought software to perform content tricks. So far these software tools are not tightly integrated with one another and the company had been kicking the tires of Lucene and other search systems. before buying a low profile eDiscovery outfit. Lots of work ahead for this company.
IBM has more technologies, products, and partners than any other company I follow. The firm owns iPhrase, which was a content processing company. IBM owns FileNet and IBM offers myriad Omnifind products. The search system does not work too well. I have documented this issue in this Web log. Just search for IBM, the company that wrote me a letter saying that IBM knows all about the Google. Yep, righto.
Open Text is not one cohesive software product. The company has many different content processing systems, and it is working to convince some people that Vignette is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Okay, what about RedDot’s stability or juicing up that mainframe standard, BRS search?
And Oracle. Rumors about Oracle are thicker than bats in the caves near Shanghai in the spring. Oracle SES 10g is not exactly a speedster. The company is attacking Mark Logic by asserting Oracle’s aging data management system is a better XML repository. Yawn.
These are the four companies, according to the article by Veronica Silva are:
The four leaders in the ECM market offer a mix of solutions to help information and knowledge management professionals manage, secure, and retain content, the Forrester report stated. “Their offerings include a mix of data management, business intelligence, content integration support, and content-centric application support. All four offer the promise of end-to-end ECM functionality from a single vendor,” the report added.
A mix or hash?
Stephen Arnold, December 9, 2009
Oyez, oyez. I want to report to the GSA kitchen that i was not paid to make this reference to a hash. I would not each has in a GSA commissary either.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
