Google and Broad Match
February 11, 2021
I read “Google Is Moving on From Broad Match Modifier.” The essay’s angle is search engine optimization; that is, spoofing Google’s now diluted relevance methods. The write up says:
Google says it has been getting better at learning the intent behind a query, and is therefore more confident it can correctly map advertisements to queries. As that ability improves, the differences between Phrase Match and Broad Match Modified diminishes. Moving forward, there will be three match types, each with specific benefits:
- Exact match: for precision
- Broad match: for reach
- Phrase match: in Google’s words, to combine the best of both.
Let’s assume that these are the reasons. Exact match delivers precision. Broad match casts a wide net. No thumbtypers wants a null set. Obviously there is zero information in a null set in the mind of the GenXers and Millennials, right? The phrase match is supposed to combine precision and recall. Oh, my goodness, precision and recall. What happened to cause the Google to reach into the deep history of STAIRS III and RECON for this notion.
Google hasn’t and won’t.
The missing factor in the write up’s analysis is answering the question, “When will each of the three approaches be used, under what conditions, and what happens if the bus drives to the wrong city?” (This bus analogy is my happy way of expressing the idea that Google search results often have little to do with either the words in the user’s query or the “intent” of the user (allegedly determined by Google’s knowledge of each user and the magic of more than 100 “factors” for determining what to present).
The key is the word “reach.” Changes to Google’s methods are, from my point of view, are designed to accomplish one thing: Burn through ad inventory.
By killing off functioning Boolean, deprecating search operators, ignoring meaningful time indexing, and tossing disambiguation into the wind blowing a Google volleyball into Shoreline traffic — the company’s core search methods have been shaped to produce money.
SEO experts don’t like this viewpoint. Google doesn’t care as long as the money keeps flowing. With Google investing less in infrastructure and facing significant pressure from government investigators and outfits like Amazon and Facebook, re-explaining search boils down to showing content which transports ads.
Where’s that leave the SEO experts? Answer: Ad sales reps for the Google. Traffic comes to advertisers. But the big bucks are the big advertisers’ campaigns which expose a message to as many eyeballs as possible. That’s why “broad reach” is the fox in the relevance hen house.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2021
Terrorized Publishers Try a New Poison Dart on the Google
February 10, 2021
Google has reduced its investment in plumbing. It’s mostly waffled and fumbled its push into online games. The company has failed to keep Loon balloons aloft. And, more disappointingly, the Google has not solved death. Amazon and Facebook, despite protestations to the contrary, are making progress in online advertising. And the Bezos bulldozer’s new driver knows that product searches are Amazon’s personal turf.
Another group, however, wants to pour poison in Googzilla’s ear. The publishers, aided by their advisors, and assorted governments may have found a way. The write up “EU Ready to Follow Australia’s Lead on Making Big Tech Pay for News” reports:
EU lawmakers overseeing new digital regulation in Europe want to force Big Tech companies to pay for news, echoing a similar move in Australia and strengthening the hand of publishers against Google and Facebook.
Note that this article is behind a paywall, and in order to access it, you have to snag a wonky orange copy or fork over some cash. Very European, eh?
What happens if countries require Google to pay for news? What happens if the millennials holding elected and appointed positions don’t buy the threat of blocking search or killing access to Android apps (hopefully those which distribute malware via the Google Play service)? What if the bold push by Google Australia’s wizardly manager is recognized as a company acting like a country, maybe like the nation state in “The Mouse That Roared”?
Let’s see. Google has been involved in doing its brand of “not evil” for information for about 20 years and change. It takes a long time to develop an economic poison. Too bad the governments were not into the “warp speed” approach to innovation.
And France and its Googley tie up? Ah, France.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2021
Stock Market Trigger Trading for Everyone!
February 10, 2021
Stock brokers have long since tapped into AI to help them make big bucks at high speeds. Now F.X.A. Technologies offers an AI tool for the amateurs. We learn of the new trading algorithm directed at retail traders working with MT4 trading accounts in, “The Revolutionary Automated Algorithmic Technology that Is Making Mass-Trading a Breeze” at GetNews. The write-up specifies:
“The purpose of developing this automatic algorithmic technology is to help retail traders by giving them free access to an automated algorithmic-based copy trading software platform. This is where FXA Technologies has stepped in with one-of-its-kind copy trading software that is set to take the industry by storm. Retail traders can start the proceeding by connecting their MT4 trading account to the platform by creating an account and signing up for free. Once they sign up, they can use the multi-strategy algorithm to place trades – which is automatically copied onto the users’ account via copy trading software. All the process takes place automatically and without intrusion. The company claims to have no access or control on the user’s data. This is being considered as a fresh breath of air in the industry as the user is always in control and in command of their data. That means their personal information and funds are absolutely safe.”
Yes, the software is free—if one does not make any money. F.X.A. makes its profits from its monthly 20% “performance fee” collected via PayPal. The company points to its performance record as generated by Myfxbook to demonstrate its algorithm’s effectiveness. Who is ready to put their savings in the hands of this AI?
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2021
Google and Microsoft in Australia: Ripping the Fabric of Some of the Internet?
February 8, 2021
Australia wants Google to pay for news. Microsoft wants more traffic and advertising revenue. Australia? The front lines of the battle for the Internet? “Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine” and learned:
The worsening situation over upload filters has obscured the other bad idea of the EU Copyright Directive: the so-called “link tax”, which would require large Internet companies like Google to pay when they use even small amounts of news material. One worrying development in this area is that the idea has spread beyond the EU. As Techdirt reported, Australia is bringing in what amounts to a tax on Google and Facebook for daring to send traffic to legacy news organizations — notably those of Rupert Murdoch.
Yep, from the European Union to Australia the fabric of the Internet is under pressure. Google is concerned, upset even. But Microsoft:
in a desperate attempt to get someone to use its still largely-ignored search engine Bing, Microsoft is apparently willing to throw the Web under the bus. It’s an incredibly short-sighted and selfish move. Sure, it’s legitimate to want to take advantage of a rival’s problems. But not to the extent of causing serious harm to the very fabric of the Web, the hyperlink.
Links under assault? A push to investigate technology monopolies in the US? The SolarWinds’ misstep which reminds one that security is a misty concept? Political turmoil? Covid?
Now links.
Who knew that monetizing links would do “harm to the fabric of the Web”? Quick questions? What’s happening in China and Russia? Whose Internet? Perhaps the Internet has already morphed and the skirmish in Australia may be less than it seems? The tension seems to be removed from the growth sectors for online services? In fact, the dust up seems almost quaint.
Threats, saber rattling, and the effort to preserve the online past are not easily TikTok-able. That could be a problem for the firms and publishers not in the big growth game.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2021
McKinsey: MBAs Are a Fascinating Group to Observe
February 5, 2021
Watching blue chip consulting firms is more enjoyable than visiting a zoo. Here’s a good example of the entertainment value of individuals who strive to apply logic to business. Logic is definitely good, right?
“AP Source: McKinsey to Pay $573M for Role in Opioid Crisis” explains that the McKinsey wizards somehow became involved in the “opioid crisis.” Crisis is self explanatory because most people have been ensnared in the Covid Rona thing. But opioid is difficult to appreciate. Think of addiction, crime, prostitution, trashed families, abandoned children, etc. You get the idea.
How could a blue chip consulting firm become involved in crimes which do not appear in the McKinsey collateral, on its Web site, or in its presentations to potential and current clients?
The write up says in the manner of “real” news outfits:
The global business consulting firm McKinsey & Company has agreed to a $573 million settlement over its role in advising companies on how to “supercharge” opioid sales amid an overdose crisis…
I interpret this to mean that the MBAs used their expertise to incentivize those in the legal pharma chain to move product. “Moving product” is a phrase used by narcotics dealers and MBAs alike, I believe.
The “real” news item reports:
McKinsey provided documents used in legal proceedings regarding OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, including some that describe its efforts to help the company try to “supercharge” opioid sales in 2013, as reaction to the overdose crisis was taking a toll on prescribing. Documents made public in Purdue proceedings last year include include emails among McKinsey.
A wonderful engagement until it wasn’t. Blue chip consulting firms like to write checks to those who generate billable hours. My understanding is that writing checks for unbillable work irritates partners who expect bonuses and adulation for their business acumen.
An allegation of “supercharging” addictive products and producing the secondary effects itemize by me in paragraph two of this post is a bit of a negative. Even worse, the desired secondary effect like a zippy new Porsche conjured up on the Porsche Car Configurator, a position in a new investment fund, or a nice house and land in New Zealand does not arrive.
No word on jail time, but there’s a new administration now. The prostitution, child abandonment, and crime issues may become more consequential now.
Will this become a Harvard case? Who am I kidding? McKinsey in numero uno. Do los narcotraficantes operate with McKinsey’s acumen, logic, and efficiency. Good question.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2021
Subscriptions Are Dead: Bad News for Substack and Its Truck Load of Competitors
February 3, 2021
I know. I know. I know that “Subscription-Based Pricing Is Dead: Smart SaaS Companies Are Shifting to Usage-Based Models” is talking about cloud service providers. These are the small, emotionally sensitive firms like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others who struggle to make ends meet each month. The basic idea is that the taxi meter approach to pricing is the future. Hop in the cab, tell the head in the clouds driver your destination, and pay what the meter shows upon arrival. Did your driver crash? Did your driver take you to Sonic Drive In before reversing course and delivering you near your destination? Did your driver like some gig workers driving vehicles for money pull a gun and rob you? No? Lucky you.
The write up states:
Some fear that investors will hate usage-based pricing because customers aren’t locked into a subscription. But, investors actually see it as a sign that customers are seeing value from a product and there’s no shelf-ware. In fact, investors are increasingly rewarding usage-based companies in the market. Usage-based companies are trading at a 50% revenue multiple premium over their peers. Investors especially love how the usage-based pricing model pairs with the land-and-expand business model. And of the IPOs over the last three years, seven of the nine that had the best net dollar retention all have a usage-based model.
To read this article, guess what? You have to pay a subscription fee. I know. I know. Silicon Valley “real” news outfits just emit parental and oracular, consult like statements.
A couple of observations may be warranted:
First, many customers dislike usage based pricing because of surprises when the bill is presented. And, believe me, when the bill is submitted, getting a sensitive firm to alter it can be a time sink hole.
Second, the usage based model was one that was popular among some timesharing companies. Example: The much loved Dialcom or the European Space Agency’s operation decades ago. Why? Surprise fees.
Third, usage based pricing demands convoluted price lists. I assume that you, gentle reader, remember the wonderful days of IBM’s J1, J2, and J3 fee schedules. AT&T had some excellent methods as well. After Judge Green’s break up of Ma Bell, even Baby Bells howled when Bellcore fired off an invoice. Those were the days.
Now, if the write up is correct, the good old days have returned, except at the “real” news outfit making this profound statement.
Stephen E Arnold, February 3, 2021
IBM Watsonizes Blockchain: Cash Sinkhole Grows
February 2, 2021
IBM had big plans to regain its position as the champion of the digital world wide mud wrestling competition. We know that mainframes generate revenue. We know that IBM’s cloud is at least in the game. We know that the cognitive computing marketing hoo hah Watson thing has struggled to climb in the ring. Now we know that the IBM blockchain superstar made it in the ring but tripped over a rope and plunged to the mat. Yep, dazed and confused before landing a punch.
If the information in “IBM Blockchain Is a Shell of Its Former Self After Revenue Misses, Job Cuts: Sources” is accurate, that’s the pickle on top of the IBM disaster burger. The write up asserts from unnamed sources of course:
BM has cut its blockchain team down to almost nothing, according to four people familiar with the situation. Job losses at IBM escalated as the company failed to meet its revenue targets for the once-fêted technology by 90% this year, according to one of the sources. “IBM is doing a major reorganization,” said a source at a startup that has been interviewing former IBM blockchain staffers. “There is not really going to be a blockchain team any longer. Most of the blockchain people at IBM have left.”
The write up noted:
In its recent full-year results statement, IBM as a whole reported revenue fell 6% on an annualized basis. Looking back to its 2017 financial statement, IBM called itself the “blockchain leader for business.” All mention of the technology is now absent from the company’s statements.
IBM, steeped in cognitive computing technology and confidence replied:
“IBM maintains a strong team dedicated to blockchain across the company. We have shifted some resources but remain committed to the technology, blockchain ecosystem and services. We see blockchain as a driver for our cloud business.”
Good to know. What’s Watson say?
Stephen E Arnold, February 2, 2021
IBM: Watson, What Is Going On?
January 27, 2021
I want to keep this brief. IBM is a company anchored in the past, and its management is demonstrating that agility, pivoting, buzzwords, and sci-fi technology are not working in the money department. “International Business Machines : IBM Shares Are an Anomaly in a Hot Tech Sector” like hearing Frank Sinatra’s “My Way” in a karaoke bar in Osaka.
Does this sound familiar? It seems as if Market Screener is recycling boilerplate:
The simple answer for IBM’s stock performance? It hasn’t delivered the growth expected of technology companies. Although IBM snapped a 22-quarter streak of falling sales in January 2018, briefly reviving some investors’ hopes for a successful turnaround, it has largely failed to post strong results since then, trailing behind rivals like Amazon and Microsoft in the cloud computing business.
Is it fair to compare IBM with Amazon, Google, or any other digital dervish? No. A more apt comparison should be drawn with other companies anchored in adding machines and mainframes.
If we ask Watson, what do we get?
Answer: A link to a news item about Watson winning jeopardy. Interesting but not what the stakeholders need.
Stephen E Arnold, January 27, 2021
Financial Guru: Cryptocurrency Observation of Note
January 27, 2021
Years ago I ran across an orthogonal financial thinker named Nouriel Roubini, a consultant, financial type, and professor at New York University. He wrote an essay called the “Great Crypto Heist.” The essay is behind a paywall dutifully constructed by the estimable Financial News of London wizards. With digital currency in the news, I spotted a passage in the essay I found interesting. Herewith is the snippet:
It is high time that US and other law-enforcement agencies stepped in.So far, regulators have been asleep at the wheel as the crypto cancerhas metastasized. According to one study, 80% of “initial coinofferings” in 2017 were scams. At a minimum, Hayes and all theothers overseeing similar rackets from offshore safe havens should beinvestigated, before millions more retail investors get scammed intofinancial ruin. Even US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin –no fan of financial regulation – agrees that cryptocurrencies mustnot be allowed to “become the equivalent of secret numberedaccounts”, which have long been the preserve of terrorists,gangsters, and other criminals.
Are regulators asleep at the switch?
Stephen E Arnold, January 27, 2021
Technology and Exponential Costs: MBAs Confront a Painful Online Reality
January 20, 2021
The article “When Costs Are Nonlinear, Keep It Small” addresses exponential costs in terms of technology in general. A business uses software; costs can grow exponentially. I completely agree. The author, one Jessitron, states:
When costs increase nonlinearly with delay or batch size, larger batches are not more efficient…. The changes interact, and so batching them up increases the cost of the batch by more than the cost of the change you’re adding. Batching is less efficient.
I want to use this observation to explain why online information services find themselves in a cost swamp. The consequence of the exponential demand for resources are:
- Management needs cash and must put more pressure on sales professionals to close deals. Pressure leads to overstatement and clever workarounds. Once the deal is closed an an invoice sent, the sales professional moves on either to another company or to another customer.
- Marketing gets the message that sales are number one, so the art history majors and former hospitality workers crank out hyperbole-stuffed messages. (Post SolarWinds check out the tone deaf pitching of security systems which failed to notice the breach. Sales are needed, and marketing is the cheerful servant of the organization.)
- Fancy dancing with the books. The number of online companies booking business before cash arrives is probably infinitesimal, right? But there are other ways of producing money; for example, the public information about the activities of Fast Search & Transfer provide and example. Other examples are available.
- Go back to the funders. An enthusiastic group of clear eyed, good school, sincere individuals explain to an equally clear eyed, good school, sincere individuals why money should be invested. The recipients pray for a big sale or other financial home run because repaying the money is what might be called a long shot.
These activities are often a result of the truths that Jessitron explains and illustrates with annotated drawings.
In the online world, when something goes wrong, money must be spent. The amount required is unknown until the wrong is righted. How much is a new product? Same deal. The amount of cash required is unknown, yet cash must be spent.
Exponential costs are part of the deal. The article suggests that changes be kept small; that is, changing many things increases the likelihood of problems. Problems require cash. A cycle, just not so virtuous.
Online services live with exponential costs. Thus, the online vendors have zero choice but to do the type of thinking which has created some of the more fascinating ethical, financial, political, and technical tactical minefields dotting the datasphere.
Useful paper, Jessitron. Keep it small.
Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
