CyberOSINT banner

New UltraSearch Version Available for Free Download

April 1, 2015

Anyone who has researched alternatives to Window’s built-in Desktop Search has probably read about the freeware program UltraSearch. Now, MajorGeeks.com offers a free download of the latest version, UltrasearchPortable 2.0.3. The description specifies:

“UltraSearch finds files and folders on local NTFS drives and provides the results in just a few seconds.UltraSearch does not maintain an index which is stored on your hard disk, but achieves its speed by working directly on the Master File Table (MFT) of the NTFS partitions. UltraSearch even identifies NTFShardlinks. Simply enter a file name or a pattern like *.exe and see the first results while you are still typing. In addition, UltraSearch supports regular expressions. Additional information like file size and file dates (last changes, last access and file creation) will be shown for all listed files. Naturally, the Explorer context menu is available inside UltraSearch. UltraSearch enables you to exclude folders, files or file types from searches via an exclude filter. The search results can be sorted according to different criteria, printed or exported as text, RTF, HTML, CSV, and Excel file.”

UltraSearch can be started from within a Windows Explorer directory. It also allows users to store the 100 most recently used search patterns for later reference, and includes an autocomplete function and pattern suggestions.

Keep in mind, though, that UltraSearch is not your only Windows Desktop Search alternative. Some others include Sow Soft’s Effective File SearchGaviri Pocket Search,Snowbird, ,FileSearchEXSuper Finder XTLocate32Search Everything, and Launchy. There’s plenty to check out for the comparative shopper.

Cynthia Murrell, April 1, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

A Little Lucene History

March 26, 2015

Instead of venturing to Wikipedia to learn about Lucene’s history, visit the Parse.ly blog and read the post, “Lucene: The Good Parts.”  After detailing how Doug Cutting created Lucene in 1999, the post describes how searching through SQL in the early 2000s was a huge task.   SQL databases are not the best when it comes to unstructured search, so developers installed Lucene to make SQL document search more reliable.  What is interesting is how much it has been adopted:

“At the time, Solr and Elasticsearch didn’t yet exist. Solr would be released in one year by the team at CNET. With that release would come a very important application of Lucene: faceted search. Elasticsearch would take another 5 years to be released. With its recent releases, it has brought another important application of Lucene to the world: aggregations. Over the last decade, the Solr and Elasticsearch packages have brought Lucene to a much wider community. Solr and Elasticsearch are now being considered alongside data stores like MongoDB and Cassandra, and people are genuinely confused by the differences.”

If you need a refresher or a brief overview of how Lucene works, related jargon, tips for using in big data projects, and a few more tricks.  Lucene might just be a java library, but it makes using databases much easier.  We have said for a while, information is only useful if you can find it easily.  Lucene made information search and retrieval much simpler and accurate.  It set the grounds for the current big data boom.

Whitney Grace, March 26, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Elasticsearch Becomes Elastic, Acquires Found

March 25, 2015

The article on Forbes.com titled Elasticsearch Changes Its Name, Enjoys An Amazing Open Source Ride and Hopes to Avoid Mistakes explains the latest acquisition and the reasons behind the name change to simply Elastic. That choice is surmised to be due to Elastic’s wish to avoid confusion over the open source product Elasticsearch and the company itself. It also signals the company’s movement beyond solely providing search technology. The article also discusses the acquisition of Found, a Norwegian company,

“Found provides hosted and fully ­managed Elasticsearch clusters with technology that automates processes such as installation, configuration, maintenance, backup, and high­availability. Doing all of this heavy-lifting enables developers to integrate a search engine into their database, website or app quickly In addition, Found has created a turnkey process to scale Elasticsearch clusters up or down at any time and without any downtime. Found’s Elasticsearch as a Service offering is being used by companies like Docker, Gild… and the New York Public Library.”

Elasticsearch has raised almost $105 million since its start after being created by Shay Banon in 2010. The article posits that they have been doing the right things so far, such as the acquisition of Kibana, the visualization vendor. Although some startups relying on Elasticsearch may throw shade at the Found acquisition, there are no foreseeable threats to Elastic’s future.

Chelsea Kerwin, March 25, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Cable and Enterprise Search: The Problem of “Peak”

March 22, 2015

I read “Peak Cable.” More people think about television than enterprise search in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky. After reading this write up, I scanned the passages I highlighted in pale pink. Here’s a favorite:

Disruption theory suggests that once a product over-serves on meaningful bases of value creation (and underserves on value) it opens the door to disruption.

Lucene/Solr have become the go to search systems for many companies. IBM, for example, gussies up Lucene and hypes Watson. Next generation information access vendors use Lucene as a “good enough” keyword search system. And start ups find that open source search, data management, and analytics are suitable for their purposes. Spare money is used for slick interfaces and, truth be told, Uber rides.

Here’s another passage I found interesting:

The same phenomenon occurred with mobile vs. fixed telephony. For several years it seemed that mobile was sustaining to fixed or that fixed was immune due to lock-ins. The fixed telephone incumbents insisted that the data was inconclusive. Then the trickle of abandonment turned into a deluge. The quality of service for mobile kept increasing and, with data, it became clear that the mobile devices could unleash unfathomable functionality and value. And so it goes. A business dies first slowly then quickly. The exact timing is tricky because of the non-linearity of the phenomenon. It’s also hard to declare end-of-life since business zombies are very common. What is clear however is that the economics will change dramatically and the alliances between talent and distribution will shift to entrants and away from incumbents.

Has enterprise search passed its “peak”? If so, cable providers in the US might look at the enterprise search market for a glimpse of its future.

Stephen E Arnold, March 22, 2015

Enterprise Search Is Important: But Vendor Survey Fails to Make Its Case

March 20, 2015

I read “Concept Searching Survey Shows Enterprise Search Rises in the Ranks of Strategic Applications.” Over the years, I have watched enterprise search vendors impale themselves on their swords. In a few instances, licensees of search technology loosed legal eagles to beat the vendors to the ground. Let me highlight a few of the milestones in enterprise search before commenting on this “survey says, it must be true” news release.

A Simple Question?

What do these companies have in common?

  • Autonomy
  • Convera
  • Fast Search & Transfer?

I know from my decades of work in the information retrieval sector that financial doubts plagued these firms. Autonomy, as you know, is the focal point of on-going litigation over accounting methods, revenue, and its purchase price. Like many high-tech companies, Autonomy achieved significant revenues and caused some financial firms to wonder how Autonomy achieved its hundreds of millions in revenue. There was a report from Cazenove Capital I saw years ago, and it contained analyses that suggested search was not the money machine for the company.

And Convera? After morphing from Excalibur with its acquisition of the manual-indexing ConQuest Technologies, a document scanning with some brute force searching technology morphed into Convera. Convera suggested that it could perform indexing magic on text and video. Intel dived in and so did the NBA. These two deals did not work out and the company fell on hard times. With an investment from Allen & Company, Conquest tried its hand at Web indexing. Finally, stakeholders lost faith and Convera sold off its government sales and folded its tent. (Some of the principals cooked up another search company. This time the former Convera wizards got into the consulting engineering business.) Convera lives on in a sense as part of the Ntent system. Convera lost some money along the way. Lots of money as I recall.

And Fast Search? Microsoft paid $1.2 billion for Fast Search. Now the 1998 technology lives on within Microsoft SharePoint. But Fast Search has the unique distinction of facing both a financial investigation for fancy dancing with its profit and loss statement and the distinction of having its founder facing a jail term. Fast Search ran into trouble when its marketers promised magic from the ESP system. When the pixie dust caused licensees to develop an allergic reaction, Fast ran into trouble. The scrambling caused some managers to flee the floundering Norwegian search ship and found another search company. For those who struggle with Fast Search in its present guise, you understand the issues created by Fast Search’s “sell it today and program it tomorrow” approach.

Is There a Lesson in These Vendors’ Trajectories?

What do these three examples tell us? High flying enterprise search vendors seem to have run into some difficulties. Not surprisingly, the customers of these companies are often wary of enterprise search. Perhaps that is the reason so many enterprise search vendors do not use the words “enterprise search”, preferring euphemisms like customer support, business intelligence, and knowledge management?

The Rush to Sell Out before Drowning in Red Ink

Now a sidelight. Before open source search effectively became the go to keyword search system, there were vendors who had products that for the most part worked when installed to do basic information retrieval. These companies’ executives worked overtime to find buyers. The founders cashed out and left the new owners to figure out how to make sales, pay for research, and generate sufficient revenue to get the purchase price back. Which companies are these? Here’s a short list and incomplete list to help jog your memory:

  • Artificial Linguistics (sold to Oracle)
  • BRS Search (sold to OpenText)
  • EasyAsk (first to Progress Software and then to an individual investor)
  • Endeca to Oracle
  • Enginium (sold to Kroll and now out of business)
  • Exalead to Dassault
  • Fulcrum Technology to IBM (quite a story. See the Fulcrum profile at www.xenky.com/vendor-profiles)
  • InQuira to Oracle
  • Information Dimensions (sold to OpenText)
  • Innerprise (Microsoft centric, sold to GoDaddy)
  • iPhrase to IBM (iPhrase was a variant of Teratext’s approach)
  • ISYS Search Software to Lexmark (yes, a printer company)
  • RightNow to Oracle (RightNow acquired Dutch technology for its search function)
  • Schemalogic to Smartlogic
  • Stratify/Purple Yogi (sold to Iron Mountain and then to Autonomy)
  • Teratext to SAIC, now Leidos
  • TripleHop to Oracle
  • Verity to Autonomy and then HP bought Autonomy
  • Vivisimo to IBM (how clustering and metasearch magically became a Big Data system from the company that “invented” Watson) .

The brand impact of these acquired search vendors is dwindling. The only “name” on the list which seems to have some market traction is Endeca.

Some outfits just did not make it or who are in a very quiet, almost dormant, mode. Consider  these search vendors:

  • Delphes (academic thinkers with linguistic leanings)
  • Edgee
  • Dieselpoint (structured data search)
  • DR LINK (Syracuse University and an investment bank)
  • Executive Search (not a headhunting outfit, an enterprise search outfit)
  • Grokker
  • Intrafind
  • Kartoo
  • Lextek International
  • Maxxcat
  • Mondosoft
  • Pertimm (reincarnated with Axel Springer (Macmillan) money as Qwant, which according to Eric Schmidt, is a threat to Google. Yeah, right.)
  • Siderean Software (semantic search)
  • Speed of Mind
  • Suggest (Weitkämper Technology)?
  • Thunderstone

These are not a comprehensive list. I just wanted to layout some facts about vendors who tilted at the enterprise search windmill. I think that a reasonable person might conclude that enterprise search has been a tough sell. Of the companies that developed a brand, none was able to achieve sustainable revenues. The information highway is littered with the remains of vendors who pitched enterprise search as the killer app for anything to do with information.

Now the survey purports to reveal insights to which I have been insensitive in my decades of work in digital information access.

Here’s what the company sponsoring the survey offers:

Concept Searching [the survey promulgator], the global leader in semantic metadata generation, auto-classification, and taxonomy management software, and developer of the Smart Content Framework™, is compiling the statistics from its 2015 SharePoint and Office 365 Metadata survey, currently unpublished. One of the findings, gathered from over 360 responses, indicates a renewed focus on improving enterprise search.

The focus seems to be on SharePoint. I thought SharePoint was a mishmash of content management, collaboration, and contacts along with documents created by the fortunate SharePoint users. Question: Is enterprise search conflated with SharePoint?

I would not make this connection.

If I understand this, the survey makes clear that some of the companies in the “sample” (method of selection not revealed) want better search. I want better information access, not search per se.

Each day I have dozens of software applications which require information access activity.  I also have a number of “enterprise” search systems available to me. Nevertheless, the finding suggests to me that enterprise search is and has not been particularly good. If I put on my SharePoint sunglasses, I see a glint of the notion that SharePoint search is not very good. The dying sparks of Fast Search technology smoldering in fire at Camp DontWorkGud.

Images, videos, and audio content present me with a challenge. Enterprise search and metatagging systems struggle to deal with these content types. I also get odd ball file formats; for example, Framemaker, Quark, and AS/400 DB2 UDB files.

The survey points out that the problem with enterprise search is that indexing is not very good. That may be an understatement. But the remedy is not just indexing, is it?

After reading the news release, I formed the opinion that the fix is to use the type of system available from the survey sponsor Concept Searching. Is that a coincidence?

Frankly, I think the problems with search are more severe than bad indexing, whether performed by humans or traditional “smart” software.

According the news release, my view is not congruent with the survey or the implications of the survey data:

A new focus on enterprise search can be viewed as a step forward in the management and use of unstructured content. Organizations are realizing that the issue isn’t going to go away and is now impacting applications such as records management, security, and litigation support. This translates into real business currency and increases the risk of non-compliance and security breaches. You can’t find, protect, or use what you don’t know exists. For those organizations that are using, or intend to deploy, a hybrid environment, the challenges of leveraging metadata across the entire enterprise can be daunting, without the appropriate technology to automate tagging.

Real business currency. Is that money?

Are system administrators still indexing human resource personnel records, in process legal documents related to litigation, data from research tests and trials in an enterprise search system? I thought a more fine-grained approach to indexing was appropriate. If an organization has a certain type of government work, knowledge of that work can only be made available to those with a need to know. Is indiscriminate and uncontrolled indexing in line with a “need to know” approach?

Information access has a bright future. Open source technology such as Lucene/Solar/Searchdaimon/SphinxSearch, et al is a reasonable approach to keyword functionality.

Value-added content processing is also important but not as an add on. I think that the type of functionality available from BAE, Haystax, Leidos, and Raytheon is more along the lines of the type of indexing, metatagging, and coding I need. The metatagging is integrated into a more modern system and architecture.

For instance, I want to map geo-coordinates in the manner of Geofeedia to each item of data. I also want context. I need an entity (Barrerra) mapped to an image integrated with social media. And, for me, predictive analytics are essential. If I have the name of an individual, I want that name and its variants. I want the content to be multi-language.

I want what next generation information access systems deliver. I don’t want indexing and basic metatagging. There is a reason for Google’s investing in Recorded Future, isn’t there?

The future of buggy whip enterprise search is probably less of a “strategic application” and more of a utility. Microsoft may make money from SharePoint. But for certain types of work, SharePoint is a bit like Windows 3.11. I want a system that solves problems, not one that spawns new challenges on a daily basis.

Enterprise search vendors have been delivering so-so, flawed, and problematic functionality for 40 years. After decades of vendor effort to make information findable in an organization, has significant progress been made. DARPA doesn’t think search is very good. The agency is seeking better methods of information access.

What I see when I review the landscape of enterprise search is that today’s “leaders”  (Attivio, BA Insight, Coveo, dtSearch, Exorbyte, among others) remind me of the buggy whip makers driving a Model T to lecture farmers that their future depends on the horse as the motive power for their tractor.

Enterprise search is a digital horse, an one that is approaching break down.

Enterprise search is a utility within more feature rich, mission critical systems. For a list of 20 companies delivering NGIA with integrated content processing, check out www.xenky.com/cyberosint.

Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2015

Enterprise Search: Messages Confuse, Confound

March 19, 2015

I review a couple of times a week a free digital “newspaper” called Paper.li. I learned about this Paper.li “newspaper” When Vivisimo sent me its version of “search news.” The enterprise search newspaper I receive is assembled under the firm hand of Edwin Stauthamer. The stories are automatically assembled into “The Enterprise Search Daily.”

The publication includes a wide range of information. The referrer’s name appears with each article. The title page for the March 18, 2015, issue is looks like this.

image

In the last week or so, I have noticed a stridency in the articles about search and the disciplines the umbrella term protects from would-be encroachers. Search is customer support, but from the enterprise search vendors’ viewpoint, enterprise search is the secret sauce for a great customer support soufflé. Enterprise search also does Big Data, business intelligence, and dozens of other activities.

The reason for the primacy of search, as I understand the assertions of the search companies and the self appointed search “experts” is that information retrieval makes the business work. Improve search. It follows, according to the logic, that revenues will increase, profits will rise, and employee and customer satisfaction will skyrocket.

Unfortunately enterprise search is difficult to position at the alpha and omega of enterprise software. Consider this article from the March 18 edition of The Enterprise Search Daily.

Why Enterprise Search is a Must Have for Any Enterprise Content Management Strategy

The article begins:

Enterprise search has notoriously been a problem in the content management equation. Various content and document management systems have made it possible to store files. But the ability to categorize that information intuitively and in a user-friendly way, and make that information easy to retrieve later, has been one of several missing pieces in the ECM market. When will enterprise search be as easy to use and insightful as Google’s external search engine? If enterprise search worked anywhere near as effectively as Google, it might be the versatile new item in our content management wardrobes, piecing content together with a clean sophistication that would appeal to users by making everything findable, accessible and easy to organize.

I am not sure how beginning with the general perception that enterprise search has been, is, and may well be a failure flips to a “must have” product. My view is that keyword search is a utility. For organizations with cash to invest, automated indexing and tagging systems can add some additional findability hooks. The caveat is that the licensee of these systems must be prepared to spend money on a professional who can ride herd on the automated system. The indexing strays have to be rounded up and meshed with the herd. But the title’s assertion is a dream, a wish. I don’t think enterprise content management is particularly buttoned up in most organizations. Even primitive search systems struggle to figure out what version is the one the user needs to find. Indexing by machine or human often leads to manual inspection of documents in order to locate the one the user requires. Google wanders into the scene because most employees give Google.com a whirl before undertaking a manual inspection job. If the needed document is on the Web somewhere, Google may surface it if the user is lucky enough to enter the secret combination of keywords. Google is deeply flawed, but for many employees, it is better than whatever their employer provides.

Read more

IBM Hadoop

March 18, 2015

For anyone who sees setting up an instance of Hadoop as a huge challenge, Open Source Insider points to IBM’s efforts to help in, “Has IBM Made (Hard) Hadoop Easier?” Why do some folks consider Hadoop so difficult? Blogger Adrian Bridgwater elaborates:

“More specifically, it has been said that the Hadoop framework for distributed processing of large data sets across clusters of computers using simple programming models is tough to get to grips with because:

Hadoop is not a database

Hadoop is not an analytics environment

Hadoop is not a visualisation tool

Hadoop is not known for clusters that meet enterprise-grade security requirements

Foundation fixation

This is because Hadoop is a ‘foundational’ technology in many senses, so its route to ‘business usefulness’ is neither direct or clear cut in many cases.”

Hmm. So, perhaps one should understand what Hadoop is and what it does before trying to implement it. Still, the folks at IBM would prefer companies just pay them to handle it. The article cites a survey of “bit-data developers” (commissioned by IBM) that shows about a quarter of the respondents us IBM’s Hadoop. Bridgwater also mentions:

“IBM also recently conducted an independently audited benchmark, which was reviewed by third-party Infosizing, of three popular SQL-on-Hadoop implementations, and the results showed that IBM’s Big SQL was the only Hadoop solution tested that was able to run all 99 Hadoop-DS queries…. Smith says that this new report and benchmark are proof that customers can ask more complex questions of IBM when it comes to Hadoop implementation.”

I’m not sure that’s what those factors prove, but it is clear that many companies do turn to the tech giant for help with Hadoop. But is their assistance worth the cost? Unfortunately, this article includes no word on IBM’s Hadoop pricing.

Cynthia Murrell, March 18, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Qwant Develops Qwant Junior, the Search Engine for Children

March 17, 2015

The article on Telecompaper titled Qwant Tests Child-Friendly Search Engine discusses the French companies work. Qwant is focused on targeting 3 to 13 year olds with Qwant Junior, in partnership with the Education Ministry. Twenty percent of the company is owned by digital publishing powerhouse Axel Springer. The child-friendly search engine will attempt to limit the access to inappropriate content while encouraging children to use the search engine to learn. The article explains,

“The new version blocks or lists very far down in search results websites that show violence and pornography, as well as e-commerce sites. The version features an education tab separately from the general web search that offers simplified access to educational programme, said co-founder Eric Leandri. Qwant Junior’s video tab offers child-appropriate videos from YouTube, Dailymotion and Vimeo. After tests with the ministry, the search engine will be tested by several hundred schools.”

Teaching youngsters the ways of the search engine is important in our present age. The concept of listing pornography “very far down” on the list of results might unsettle some parents of young teens smart enough to just keep scrolling, but it is France! Perhaps the expectation of blocking all unsavory material is simply untenable. Qwant is planning on a major launch by September, and is in talks with Brazil for a similar program.

Chelsea Kerwin, March 17, 2014

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Assessing SharePoint Content Security

March 17, 2015

With the volume of content housed in SharePoint implementations constantly growing, security threats are becoming an increasingly large problem as well. For organizations that are not sure how to measure the security of their SharePoint infrastructure, Metalogix may have a solution. CMS Wire covers the news in their article, “9 Metrics To Assess SharePoint Content Security.”

The article begins:

“Is your SharePoint content secure? More importantly, do you know how to assess your content security? Given the number of SharePoint environments, it’s likely that a lot of people would answer ‘no.’ Metalogix, however, has just released a new tool it claims will help. The new Insider Threat Index (ITI) offers SharePoint managers insight into their content security based on nine metrics.”

A lot of resources are devoted to helping organizations make the most of their SharePoint solution. Security is not the only concern, but also efficiency, structure, and user experience. To keep up with these and other topics, consider the SharePoint feed on ArnoldIT.com. Stephen E. Arnold has spent his career following all things search, including SharePoint. His expert-run Web site allows users to find lots of tips, tricks, and news pertaining to the enterprise.

Emily Rae Aldridge, March 17, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Lookeen Desktop Search: Exclusive Interview Reveals Lucene as a Personal Search Solution

March 17, 2015

Axonic’s enterprise-centric search products eliminate most, if not all, of the problems a Windows user encounters when trying to locate related information produced by different applications on a desktop computer. Email and other types of information are findable with a few keystrokes.

When I was in Germany in June 2014, I learned about Lookeen, a desktop search product that was built on Lucene. The idea was to tap the power of Lucene to put content on a user’s computer at one’s fingertips. Imagine working in Outlook, reading a message, and seeing a reference to a PowerPoint on the user’s external storage device. Lookeen allows access to the content from within Outlook. Now the company is releasing a commercial version of its desktop search product that promises to be a game changer on the desktop and in the enterprise. The company offers robust functionality at a very attractive price point.

The role of Lucene and other technical innovations in the high-performance software appears in an exclusive interview with Lookeen’s chief operating officer. You can find the interview at http://bit.ly/1LizbkQ.

Lookeen Search Results

The Lookeen interface is intuitive. No training is required to install the Lucene-based system nor to use it for simple or complex information retrieval tasks. Image used with the permission of Axonic GmbH.

Lookeen is a product developed by Axonic, a software and services firm located in Karlsruhe, Germany, in Rhine Valley, a short distance from Stuttgart.  Axonic is one of the leading software development and services firms for Outlook and Exchange Server search technologies in Europe. The company specializes in enterprise applications and has a core competency in Microsoft technologies.

I wanted more detail about Lookeen’s approach to desktop search. In an exclusive interview, Peter Oehler, COO, revealed a its breakthrough approach to desktop search. The company’s Lookeen software gives Windows users the industry-leading search technology tuned for the Microsoft environment. Outlook email, PowerPoint decks, Word documents and other common file types are instantly findable.

Peter Oehler said:

We’ve utilized Lucene’s extensive query syntax to enable users to use familiar Google-like Boolean search, as well as wildcard, proximity, and keyword matching.  The introduction of more search strings and filter features enable users to narrow down searches in an easy and intuitive way, and more proficient searchers can access the best of Lucene’s query syntax.

He added:

Lucene is a very good, widely used open source search system. Many of the innovations we’ve developed on top of the Lucene engine stem directly from our extensive experience with Outlook. For example, the Lookeen context menu allows a user to open, reply to, forward, move and summarize emails and topics, all from within Lookeen.

What sets Lookeen apart from proprietary, freeware, and shareware is that Axonic has engineered its system to provide real-time access to information on the user’s computer. The system can handle terabytes of user content, returning results almost instantaneously.

Axonic has deep experience with Microsoft technology. Oehler told me:

Lucene is a beast within the Microsoft environment. Microsoft doesn’t make it easy to work with Outlook without causing problems or affecting performance. Outlook is the lifeblood of most professionals – the most important tool. If it stops working, you stop working. The art of our product is how we tackle the complex code hiding under the surface of Outlook and combine it with Lucene to create a deceptively smooth and simple search solution.

Beyond Search ran tests on Lookeen and compared the results with outputs from a number of test systems. Lookeen’s response times were among the fastest. When indexing and searching email, including archived collections of emails, Lookeen was the top performer. Our test systems include Copernic, dtSearch, Effective File Search, Gaviri, ISYS Desktop Search, and X1.

Lookeen requires no special training or complex set up. Lookeen allows a user to search external shared content directly from the Lookeen app. The interface is clear and logical. A busy professional can access needed documents, view and interact with them without launching an external application.

A 14 day free trial is available. The license fee is $58 for a single user version. The company offers a business edition (at $83) which adds group policy functions and an enterprise edition, which begins at about $116 per user, however volume discounts are available.

To read the complete exclusive interview with Peter Oehler, navigate to the Search Wizards Speak service at this link on ArnoldIT. More information about the company is available at http://www.lookeen.com.

Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2015

Next Page »