Yahoo Imposes Unilateral Profile Changes
October 19, 2008
I have a Yahoo email premium account. I have written before about killing Yahoo for fee services. Since I analyzed Yahoo’s email search system for a paying customer, I just left the account sitting in cyberspace. As part of the test, I created a custom news profile, slapped some sources on the page, and fiddled with the point and click color and layout functions. I check the site periodically to see what’s new. In the last year, the layout changed so an email link is sometimes hard to find. Eh, so what? Then there were new themes. None of which seemed particularly useful to my 64 year old eyes. Eh, so what? Then there was the sharp deterioration in the shopping search. Eh, so what? I did not pay much attention because Yahoo was morphing into a less and less relevant service for my needs.
Imagine my surprise when I found out that Slashdot posted another Yahoo change. You can read the original Slashdot snippet here, dated October 19, 2008. Yahoo explains what it did and why here. As far as I am concerned a free service can change any time it wants. For me, Yahoo’s fiddling around with open source, its Web log asking for help to improve its help, or this shift in profiles are irrelevant. This addled goose is not going to flap his wings or make a sound.
However, it seems that some users are annoyed with the blank profile delivered to them. I logged on and took a gander. Here’s what the new blank profile looks like:
Amazing. This blank layout is easier for me to read. I can even spot the tiny links to email at the top left hand corner of the display. I don’t care too much for the weird handling of USA Today content, but I skip that drivel regardless of color. The nice red of the stock market declines leaps out at me. Although not shown in the list of financial results is Yahoo’s share price at closing on October 17, 2008, at $12.90, down about $20 from Microsoft’s offer earlier this year. That delta of $20 speaks volumes about Yahoo.
The company is adrift. Grand stand plays like making everything open source won’t work. Even the helpful Yahooligan who reminded me that the real Yahoo shopping service is Kelkoo.com, not the big shopping search link on the splash page’s search box. You could have fooled me. I thought that when the main page’s search box’s shopping label was clicked, Yahoo would deliver the goods so the speak. Nope, that’s not the “real” service. I also pine for Mindset, a Yahoo experimental search service that was somewhat more helpful for me than the “real” search service. Mindset disappeared without warning in the last 12 months or so.
More Fast Search Excitement: A View from London
October 16, 2008
The news buzzed through the Internet Librarian International Conference. Word of the Norwegian authorities’ actions hit a nerve. Not surprising. Many of the information professionals in attendance rely on Microsoft search technology in their organizations. Details, of course, were sparse. The International Herald Tribune has a write up online and one person had printed out the story. Here’s the link to the AP article “Norwegian Police Raid Microsoft Subsidiary.” I don’t want to quote from an AP story and then have to deal with accusations that I am using content without permission. You can find this story online in a number of places. Another good source is http://e24.no/boers-og-finans/article2716323.ece. You can translate this at http://translate.google.com. Select Norwegian as the source language. A helpful PCWorld write up “Microsoft’s Fast Search Charged with Fraud in Norway” by Jeremy Kirk here includes this comment: “Microsoft has said it has taken steps to align Fast Search & Transfer’s accounting practices with its own.” This suggests to me that Microsoft wants to work through this problem and move forward. That’s good news for Fast Search employees in Oslo.
I spoke with several people about this situation. One executive who does business with both Microsoft and Fast Search said, “That’s really bad news.” A Danish software vendor said, “This is a public relations disaster. Fast Search had worked hard to make itself the number one Scandinavian software company. Now that’s a joke if there was fraud.” An information professional in Germany told me, “We are looking at Fast Search for our SharePoint installation. I don’t know what today’s police action will mean. We are a very conservative organization so we will have to get more facts. We don’t like difficulties with our vendors.”
A black eye for those involved. Source: http://www.lonewolffx.com/images/large%20images/make%20up%20effects/black-eye-from-Flynton.jpg
After I heard about the economic crime division’s actions, I jotted down my thoughts about this incident. Feel free to comment about my opinions. You may have more detailed information than I can get at the conference venue:
First, this is a public relations problem for Microsoft. If the company conducted a thorough audit and missed something, we learn that the phrase “Microsoft audit” carries a connotation that is not too positive. If Microsoft did not do a thorough audit, we learn that when the company decides to buy something, the philosophy may be “Fire, Ready, Aim. Microsoft will have to deal with this “do you still beat your wife” situation.
Second, Microsoft just said that it would concentrate search research and development in Oslo, presumably with Fast Search engineers. If the authorities action is more than window dressing, what is the working situation in Oslo in the wake of this high profile action. Norway is a comparatively wealthy and small-town type of country compared to my own beloved US of A. Fast Search’s employees, the reputation of the Norwegian business community, and Norway itself have a black eye. How long will it be to remove the mark if a problem is uncovered?
Third, Microsoft sales professionals and partners are making Fast Search a big part of SharePoint procurements where large document collections must be indexed. How will some organizations react to finding the suggested solution the product of an engineering operation that has been the subject of this alleged action by the police? My thought is that in some government procurements, the police action against Fast Search could be a deal breaker.
Fourth, I have had little experience with investigations of this type. If the action results in more negative information, a court action may make the marketing and public relations task even larger. If I were a competitor, I would communicate to potential customers that the action reported by the Associated Press might be sufficient cause to shift the procurement effort from Microsoft Fast to an alternative without a similar issue.
As I thought about this information–assuming that it is true–I don’t see a silver lining to this particular cloud. Here’s why:
Searching Google Patent Documents with ISYS Version 9
October 13, 2008
After my two lectures at the Enterprise Search Summit in San Jose, California, in mid-September 2008, I had two people write me about my method for figuring out Google patent documents. Please, appreciate that I can’t reveal the tools that I use which my team has developed. These are my secret sauce, but I can describe the broad approach and provide some detail about what Constance, Don, Stuart, and Tony do when I have to cut through the “fog of transparency” and lava lamp light emanating from Google.
Background
Google generates a large volume of technical information and comparatively modest amounts of patent-related documents. The starting point, therefore, is a fact that catches my attention. One client sent two people to “watch” me investigate a technical topic. After five days of taking notes, snapping digital photos, and reviewing the information that I have flowing into my Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, offices, the pair gave up. The procedure was easily flow charted, but the identification of an important and interesting item was a consequence of effort and years of grunting through technical material. Knowing what to research, it seems, is a matter of experience, judgment, and instinct.
The two “watchers” looked at the dozens of search, text mining, and content utilities I had on my machines. The two even fiddled with the systems’ ability to pattern match using n-gram technology, entity extraction using 12-year-old methods that some companies still find cutting edge, and various search systems from companies still in business as well as those long since bought out or simply shut down.
Here’s the big picture:
- Spider and collect information via various push methods. The data may be in XML, PDF, or other formats. The key point is that everything I process is open source. This means that I rely on search engines, university Web sites, government agencies with search systems that are prone to time outs, and postings of Web logs. I use exactly the same data that you can use when you run a query on any of the more than 500 systems listed here. This list is one of the keys to our work because none of the well known search systems index “everything”. The popular search engines don’t even come close. In fact, most don’t go more than two or three links deep for certain Web sites. Do some exploring on the US Department of Energy Web site, and you will what I mean. The key is to run the query across multiple systems and filter out duplicates. Software and humans do this work, just as humans process information at national security operations in many countries. (If you read my Web log, you will know that I have a close familiarity with systems developed by former intelligence professionals.)
- Take the filtered subset and process it with a search engine. The bulk of this Web log post describes the ISYS Search Software system. We have been using this system for several years, and we find that it is a quick indexer, so we can process new information quickly.
- Subset analysis. Once we have a cut from the content we are processing, then we move the subset into our proprietary tools. One of these tools runs stored queries or what some people call saved searches against the subset looking for specific people and things. My team looks at these outputs.
- I review the winnowed subset, and, as time allows, I involve myself in the preceding steps. Once the subset is on my machine, I have to do what anyone reviewing patents and technical documents must do. I read these materials. No, I don’t like to do it, but I have found that doing consistently the dog work that most people prefer to dismiss as irrelevant is what makes it possible for me to “connect the dots”.
Searching
There’s not much to say about running queries and collecting information that comes via RSS or other push technologies. We get “stuff” from open sources, and we filter out the spam, duplicates, and uninteresting material. Let’s assume that we have information regarding new Google patent documents. We get this information pushed to us, and these are easy to flag. You can navigate to the USPTO Web site and see what we get. You can pay commercial services to send you alerts when new Google documents are filed or published. You can poke around on the Web and find a number of free patent services. If you want to use Google to track Google, then you can use Google’s own patent service. I don’t find it particularly helpful, but Google may improve it at some point in the future. Right now, it’s on my list, but it’s like a dull but well meaning student. I let the student attend my lectures, but I don’t pay much attention to the outputs. If you want some basic information about patent documents, click here.
Narrowed result set for a Google hardware invention related to cooling. This is an image generated using ISYS Version 9, which is now available.
Before Running Queries
You can’t search patent documents and technical materials shooting from the hip. When I look for information about Google or Microsoft, for instance, I have to get smart with regards to terminology. Let me illustrate. If you want to find out how Microsoft is building data centers to compete with Google, you will get zero useful information with this type of query on any system: “Microsoft and “data centers”. My actual queries are more complex and use nesting, but this test query is one you can use on Microsoft’s Live.com search. Now run the same query for “Microsoft Monsoon”. You will see what you need to know here. If you don’t know the code word “Monsoon”, you will never find the information. It’s that simple.
Surviving Nuclear Winter: 10 Item Checklist for Selling Content Processing
October 9, 2008
After a month of international travel and dozens of meetings, I went through my old-fashioned paper notebook and looked at the comments I wrote to myself. I am not sure if these are useful, but I thought I would save myself the hassle of creating a file and storing it in my “Book Notes” folder on my desk top computer. If you want to critique, refine, or criticize these thoughts, please, use the comments section to the Web log. I received a flurry of emails from PR mavens last night who discovered that pulling this goose’s tail feathers produces a couple of loud honks and fierce beak peck.
Set Up
It should come as no surprise that two of the high profile search vendors have been working overtime to generate PR buzz and revenue. Furthermore, I have documented the sad fate of content processing companies who post a Web site, invite people to contact the company, and then don’t respond. You can plow through the postings on this diary / Web log and find these articles about SurfRay, TeezIR, and other firms. Finally, there are quite a few start ups. I met with two in San Jose and one in Utrecht that show significant promise. These outfits are in pre-divestment mode, so each has to hit up mom and dad for cash to keep the lights on.
These points, then, are designed to encapsulate what I thought as I pondered these meetings and the information I gathered about content processing in the last month. If the list is useful, great. If it annoys you, use the comments to tell. I don’t need to hear from Trent or Sky for a PR Webinar.
The List
Here are the 10 tips:
Autonomy and OpenText: Equally Good Bellwethers
October 8, 2008
Last week, a Web log reader asked me, “How similar are Autonomy and OpenText?” I provided an answer after doing a bit of research, mostly digging through my own collectioin of search- and content processing-related information. I abandoned the Enterprise Search Report in February 2007 due to a health concern. I think that enterprise search is a sinking ship, so that was in retrospect a prescient decision. Nevertheless, I have software that keeps sucking in informatoin about 50 or so search vendors. It’s a trivial matter to scan the collected informatoin about vendors–in this case, Autonomy and OpenText–and provide a reasonably-informed opinion based on the data as I understand them.
But this question has gnawed on my left web foot for the last 72 hours. I jotted down my ideas and created this table–a very preliminary table–to guide my thinking.
Continue with this story after the jump for the table and other visuals.
Cognos 8: Blurring Business Intelligence and Search
October 4, 2008
The death of enterprise search and the wobblies pulling down content management systems (CMS) are not well understood by licensees–yet. In the months going forward, the growing financial challenges in North America and Western Europe will take a toll on spending for information technology. The strong interest (based on my analysis of the clicks on the articles on this Web site) suggest that some folks are thinking hard about the utility of open source search systems and lower-cost alternatives to the seven figure price tags on some of the high profile search systems. I can’t mention these firms by name. My attorney is no fun at all. You can identify these vendors by going to almost any Web search system and keying the phrase “enterprise search” or “information access”. You can figure out the rest of the information from these results pages.
IBM baffles me. The company offers more information products and services than any other firm I track. Each year I try to sort out the product and service names. This year I noticed this information buried deep in one of the news stories about the new version of Cognos 8. My source is here,
My hunch is that IBM is creating a new map for business intelligence. On that map, IBM will point out the big X where the real high value payoff may be found. Here’s the pertinent passage from the IBM Cognos news release:
IBM’s recent CEO and CIO surveys have found unstructured corporate information such as user files, customer comments, medical images, Web and rich media content to be growing at 63%. The explosive growth of this type of business information has pushed the convergence of the BI and Search categories. It has created demand for new BI search capabilities to provide quick and easy access to both ranked and relevant BI content and unstructured information. Newly updated, IBM Cognos 8 Go! Search v4 lets any business user extend the decision-making capabilities of IBM Cognos 8 BI by securely accessing and dynamically creating BI content using simple key-word search criteria. The software works with popular enterprise search applications such as IBM OmniFind Enterprise Edition, Google, Yahoo and Autonomy so users can see structured, trusted BI content and unstructured data such as Word documents and PDF’s in the same view within a familiar interface. Users can search all fully-indexed metadata as well as titles and descriptions within a report. Search-assisted authoring and exploration gives them options to refine queries or analyze data cubes based on search terms. These capabilities speed access to the most relevant business information regardless of naming similarities between reports, helps business users quickly refine queries as required and frees IT from constantly re-creating commonly used reports. This leaves IT with more time for strategic business initiatives. The software is completely integrated with the web-based administration and security parameters set by IT administrators for IBM Cognos 8 BI. This integration provides a centralized, efficient approach to administration and security and effectively addresses two common areas of concern for resource-constrained IT departments, who want to provide more autonomy to business users, but need a single administration point and assurance that corporate authentication policies will be maintained. ‘These new enhancements to our Go! Portfolio provide business-driven performance information to help each area of the organization strategically manage the information that is most pertinent to them,’ said Leah MacMillan, vice president, product marketing, Cognos, an IBM Company. ‘Both the business and IT gain more autonomy whether employees are in the office searching, monitoring and analyzing business outcomes or on the road looking for new business updates or geographically relevant information.’ The IBM Cognos 8 Go! Portfolio of software is a key component of IBM’s Information Agenda, a new approach consisting of industry-specific software and consulting services geared to helping customers use information as a strategic asset across their businesses. [Emphasis added]
Let me deconstruct this passage using my addled goose methods.
Oracle: Soccer Mom Strategy
October 1, 2008
I have been thinking about the low profile Secure Enterprise Search 10g has had since May 2008. Oracle bought my lunch, gave a dog-and-pony show, and commented on my addled goose Web log. That was it. At the Oracle shin dig last week near the old Sea World, Oracle revealed its strategy for maintaining its grip on the enterprise database market. Oracle is implementing what I call the “soccer mom strategy.” Here’s how it works:
- Get a big vehicle. An SUV or a Cadillac Escalade will do
- Stuff it full of kids, soccer balls, cleats, coolers, and maybe a big friendly dog or two
- Drive it to a destination
- Unleash the goodies within
- Load up again and repeat.
Here’s how Oracle implements this procedure. Click here to read the news release about Oracle Business Intelligence Suite Enterprise Edition Plus 10.1.3.4 (Oracle BI Suite EE Plus). Now this is a stuffed minivan, and you can get options. These range from Oracle’s security server to a platoon of Oracle engineers to customized your OBISEEP to your heart’s content.
A soccer mom implementing her “pack it in” strategy before picking up the team, delivering the kids, and then ferrying the little ones back to their homes. Whew.
What’s going on?
In addition to data management and support you get
- The Oracle EPM Workspace. “EPM” is Oracle speak for enterprise performance management, which is utilities and an interface to make Oracle go faster without adding CPUs and clusters right out of the box. The Workspace allows a database administrator with knowledge of business intelligence to make it easier for end-users, and I quote, “to access and interact with Oracle BI data alongside Oracle EPM System data through a single, thin-client Web interface”
Nine Reasons Why Enterprise Search Is Sinking
September 30, 2008
I’ve been thinking about the distribution of attendees at a recent combo trade show I attended. I won’t name the show, and instead I want to focus on summarizing the comments made to me by attendees and exhibitors. I’ve chosen to present this list in terms of enterprise search but it applies to content management and knowledge management as well.
- When people say “search”, the people are not talking about key word and Boolean queries. Search is in trouble, therefore, because of the assumptions about the meaning of the term. Just as in high school debate, definition of terms is the first step. Get this wrong and you have the craters that pock mark the enterprise landscape.
- Search looks easy but is not. I’m not sure if we can pin this on Google. The company uses kindergarten colors and a very simple interface. The user thinks, “Wow, this is easy.” Search in the organization is rocket science, yet no one believes it until projects become problems and budgets run wild. Misjudge complexity and you pay, and pay big.
- Vendors make sales. Vendors are not college professors who educate you. As a result, I hear such statements as “The vendor told me x, y, and z.” Well, what do you expect. Search sales professionals move around more than the Dallas Cowboys defensive secondary. The vendors want to generate revenues, not experts in search. So, customers have to know about search, ask the appropriate questions, and know when goose feathers or giblets are served up.
- Internal information technology wizards assume that search is a no brainer. As a result, the internal wizards nap during training or skip it, ignore advice of consultants, and dismiss cautions from the vendors’ engineers about infrastructure. When the search system fires up, the system falls over. The IT professionals say, “Hey, not my problem.” I beg to differ. IT professionals need to learn to listen. If most of these engineers were Google or Microsoft R&D grade, the engineers would be–you know what’s coming–working at Google or Microsoft or involved in rocket science. My thought, “Skip the genius pitch and learn how to make search work before deploying the system.”
- Users. Accept this: Users cannot accurately and completely tell you what they need and will use for information access. You have to conduct research, offer demonstrations, and provide proofs-of-concept. Skip these steps and the most influential person in the organization will hear from Timmy or Becky that “Our search system still does not meet out needs.” Research, communication, and involvement are essential. Skip these steps and you will fall off the tight rope into the abyss; that is, you will sit in your cube and the email chime won’t sound. You are excluded.
Dow Jones and Automatic Taxonomy Generation
September 30, 2008
An eager beaver reader (I only have two or three) sent me a link to “Taxonomies for Human Vs Auto-Indexing.” The author of the Synaptica Central write up is Wendy Lim. She is summarizing or reproducing information attributed to Heather Hedden. From a bibliographic angle, I think a tad more work could be done to make clear who was writing what, where, and when. But that’s an old, failed database goose quacking about the brilliant work done by “experts” decades younger than I. Quack. Quack.
You can read the September 26, 2008, write up here. The article is about a Taxonomy Bootcamp. After a bit of sleuthing, I discovered that this is an add on to some Information Today trade shows. The bootcamp, as I understand it, is an intellectual Camp Lejune except the that the attendees skip the push ups, the 5 am wake up calls, and the 20 mile runs. Over a period of two or three days, taxonomy recruits emerge battle ready, honed to deal with the intellectual rigors of creating taxonomies.
A real taxonomy. Source: www.nnf.org.na
The word “taxonomy” is more popular than “enterprise search” and for good reason. Enterpriser search has emerged from organizations with a bold 4F stamped on its fitness report. After hours, maybe months of work, and some hefty bills to pay, enterprise search customers are looking for a way to kill the enterprise search enemy. That’s where a taxonomy comes it. I’m no expert in taxonomies. I know I was involved in creating taxonomies for some once-hot commercial databases like ABI / INFORM, Business Dateline, General Business File, Health Reference Center, and the 1993 Web direct Point (Top 5% of the Internet). What those experiences taught me was that I don’t know too much about taxonomies or classification systems in general for that matter. I keep in touch with people who do know; for example, Marje Hlava at Access Innovations, Barbara Quint (Searcher Magazine), Marydee Ojala (Online Magazine), Ulla de Stricker (De Stricker & Associates), and other specialists. I get nervous when a 20- or 30-something explains that taxonomies are not big deal or that a business process can crack a taxonomy problem or a certain vendor’s software can auto-magically create a taxonomy.
A Synaptica Central tag cloud.
In my experience, the truth is not to be found in any one solution. In fact, the reality of taxonomies is that the concept has gained traction because of fundamental errors in planning and deploying information access systems. I don’t think a taxonomy can retrofit stupid, short sighted decisions. For that reason, I steer clear of most taxonomy discussions because after working with these beasts for more than 30 years, I understand their unpredictable behavior.
Start Ups Will Fail: Quite an Insight that’s 50 Years Too Late to Be New
September 29, 2008
One of the truisms for new companies, new products, and new girl friends in high school is:
80 to 90 percent will fail.
The fellow who gave currency to this notion was Conrad Jones, who died in 1992. If you don’t know about him and his work, click here for some information about this exceptional business analyst.
Imagine my surprise when I saw the Silicon Alley Insider’s article “Calcanis: Collapsing Economy Will Kill 50%-80% of Start Ups”. You can read this article here. Citing Scott Kurnit (About.com) and other thought leaders, the author walked me through thr trials and tribulations of starting a Web venture. I found the mini-consulting tutorial in the section “10 Specific Things You Can Do” more intriguing than the set up to this advice. For example, the author suggests “cutting spending wherever you can.” I wanted to email my former colleagues at Booz, Allen & Hamilton to clue them in on something the firm has not known since 1917, the year Mr. Booz sold his first gig to the Sears’s management team. Tip nine also caused my heart to palpitate. The advice, “Build marketshare.” I had to take a dose of blood pressure medicine to calm down.
Reflecting on this article, several thoughts went through my mind:
- The advice is probably going to be made into a “Start Ups for Dummies” book. It will sell millions of copies. PT Barnum and other business wizards of the past would be supportive.
- The recycling of old ideas as new may be what’s behind the rediscovery of human-intermediated indexing, taxonomies, and finding ways to let people and colleagues comment on one’s work. Getting input is now “social software.” When I was 20, it was called “letting someone comment on a paper or an idea.” Paper worked. The phone worked. Now we need enterprise search systems that allow a user to tag. Old wine, new plastic bottles.
- Data from many fields of inquiry–quantum mechanics to framing stores in strip malls–suggest that in 100 tries at anything, most fail. Some behaviors can be learned. So line up the MBAs who are investing money as the Wall Street Journal does periodically, and most of the best fail when compared to one another. “Fail” is tough to define. Ignoring the definition makes it easier to give advice.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
