Delightful Irony: Human Crashes Google Car
August 7, 2011
This morning my Overflight information service overflowed with Google related information. There were coveys of quales [Latin and not a misspelling, gentle reader] about Google and patents. There was another Googley shutdown story. The idea is that you should just Google a word. Who cares about a “real” dictionary entry. I find the reference appropriate because who cares about a “real” anything, including an azure chip consulting company with a penchant for becoming authorities in ANSI standard controlled term lists. I found a tardy response to the feline centric “How Do I Hate Google? Let Me Count the Ways”, which had precious little of the Elizabeth Barrett Browning gentleness from her pain and suffering.
Consider this EBB passage:
First time he kissed me, he but only kissed The fingers of this hand wherewith I write; And, ever since, it grew more clean and white.
Now evaluate the budding wordsmith Brian S. Hall’s passage:
David Drummond, you are [lame]. Larry, Sergey, you are [lame]. And I know why you’re [lame]. I know why you have monopoly profits in one business, use them to *destroy* other businesses, dominate the newest business (smartphones) and still whine.
Now who should be the focus for legions of soon to be unemployed English majors?
But what caught my attention was this item: “Google Blames a Human for its Robo-Car Crash.” My take: Algorithm good. Human bad.
Now what happens if Google’s next big product initiative such as a relaunch of the fascinating Google TV product line or a fully integrated, graphically consistent interface to the Android mobile devices flops?
Maybe algorithm good, human bad? Amusing to me because humans, not algorithms, are actually making decisions at the Googleplex. So a failure at Google boils down to “Human bad.” Seems logical.
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Thoughts from an Industry Leader: Margie Hlava, Access Innovations
August 4, 2011
Here are some astute observations on the direction of enterprise search from someone who knows what she’s talking about. Library Technology Guides points to an interview with Margie Hlava, president of Access Innovations, in “Access Innovations founder and industry pioneer talks about trends in taxonomy and search.”
Ms Hlava’s 33 years in the search industry informed her observations on current trends, three of which she sees as significant: Cloud and Software as a Service (SaaS) computing, term mining, and the demand for metadata.
The move to the Cloud and SaaS computing demands more of our hardware, not less, Hlava insists. In particular, broadband networks are struggling to keep up. One advantage of the shift is a declining need to navigate labyrinths of hardware, software, and even internal politics on the client side. Other pluses are the motion toward increased data sharing and service enhancement. Also, more ways to maintain security and intellectual property rights are on the horizon.
She says that term mining is “a process involving conceptual extraction using thesaurus terms and their synonyms with a rule-base, then looking for occurrences to create more detailed data maps,” according to Hlava. Her company leverages this concept to make the most of clients’ large data sets. She is interested in new angles like mashups, data fusion, visualization, linked data, and personalization, but with a caveat: success in all these depends on the quality of the data itself. “Rotten data gives rotten results.”
Ms. Hlava regards taxonomies and other metadata enrichment as the way to bring efficiency to our searches. In that realm, the benefits have only begun:
“In terms of taxonomies and search, ‘I think we have just scratched the surface. With good data, our clients are in a good position to do an incredible array of new and interesting things. Good taxonomies take everything to the next level, forming the basis of not only mashups, but also author networks, project collaborations, deeper and better information retrieval,’ she concluded.”
Wise words from a wise woman. We look forward to observing these predictions take shape as the search industry moves forward. The interview with Margie Hlava, can be read in full here.
Access Innovations offers a wide range of content management services. The company has been building its semantic-based solutions for over thirty years and prides itself on its unique tool set and experienced personnel.
Stephen E Arnold, August 4, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Another Googler Shares Google Insights
August 3, 2011
“Former Google CIO Says Business Misses Key People Marks,” reports ITworld. The problem, says Douglas Merrill, lies in outdated management practices. Dr. Merrill was speaking at this year’s CA Expo in Sydney when he praised the environment at his former company for its innovative atmosphere. He stated:
“Don’t be afraid to do dumb things. [Google cofounders] Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] developed a search product called ‘Backrub’ – don’t ask me how they got that – and shortly after that launched Google as part of the Stanford domain. Most of the early Google hardware was stolen from trash and as the stuff they stole broke all the time they built a reliable software system. Everyone knew we shouldn’t build our own hardware as it was ‘dumb’, but everyone was wrong. Sometimes being dumb changes the game.
Besides embracing “dumb” choices, Merrill advocates a couple other tactics. For one, don’t listen to your customers, at least not exclusively. They might not know they want something until you offer it. Also, hire lots of different types of people. Ones who annoy you are especially promising. Finally, unless it involves IT security or HR files, don’t keep secrets.
So, keep an open mind, be flexible, and try out some of those dumb ideas. Then your business might just be the next Google. We have finished reading I’m Feeling Lucky by Douglas Edwards. Look for some quotes to note from this book.
Cynthia Murrell, August 3, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Blue Sky Time at Google Trimmed
August 3, 2011
Google recently announced via its official blog they’re closing down Google Labs, the website playground for demonstrating and testing new technologies that spawned successful projects like Gmail and Google Calendar. Bummer. (You can read Beyond Search’s “semi official” view at this link.)
Google explains in the blog post they’re prioritizing product efforts and that many Labs experiments will end or be incorporated into different product areas, and the site will remain open as a source for news updates.
Ted Samson examines Google’s move in, “Google Sacrifices Google Labs to ‘Product Focus:’”
The news inevitably raises questions as to how this shift will affect future innovation from Google. On the one hand, the announcement does signal potentially greater business maturity at Google…One must wonder, though, if the closure will result in hampering the type of creation and innovation for which Google is known.
Will the move stifle Google employees’ innovative and experimental play in the Labs? The prospect of side-projects in the Labs has also long been a draw for wannabe Googlers. Will the product managers encourage innovation not related to social applications and services? We think not. We think it is simple cost management. Who wants to work in Google Labs on a blue sky project when a bonus is directly tied to contributions to Google’s social media push against the evil Darth Sucker?
Philip West, August 3, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Arnold, Google, and Innovation: The Google Labs Event
July 31, 2011
Imagine my surprise when a reader sent me a link to “The End of an Era for Google Labs—Innovation Now Via Acquisition and Pontification.” I submitted an analytic write up which ran as a news item. I don’t do news, but Information Today did me the honor of handling my commentary as “real” news. A happy honk to the editor for this decision.
The point of my write up was that Google asserts that innovation will come from product teams. Maybe? I think product teams add features. Some features require innovation, but in my research, the big ideas such as Google becoming the Internet come from the pre-2007 era at Google. Since that wonderful year, Google has been implementing and buying companies to get innovation. In some cases, Google acquires people who developed a company and then join Google to follow their research path. I document a couple of these individuals with companies in their past cases in my monograph Google Version 2.0, which is still relevant and available from this link.
In my Information Today “news” break, I asserted:
… consider that less than 3 weeks after the Google+ tsunami rolled over the lucky invited beta testers, Google purchased Fridge, a start up with technology that allows a Google+ user to create private groups. A few days later, Google bought PittPatt, a start up with facial recognition software. Keep in mind that Google has its own facial recognition technology and Schmidt cautioned governments about the use of such technology. The phrase I jotted down was “facial recognition is too creepy even for Google.” The quote appears in a May 18, 2011 article in The Telegraph, a U.K. newspaper. Creepy or not, Google is buying technology, presumably to add functionality to its lineup of products. I will have to check out Google+ to see if PittPatt features turn up in Picasa, the photo sharing program now integrated into Google+. (Google Labs generated some interesting patent applications such as US2010 0008547, “Method and System for Automated Annotation of Persons in Video Content.”)
I think the shift at Google is understandable and, in fact, almost inevitable.
Let me go back in time to the mid 1970s. I worked on a project which is long since forgotten. The companies which were the focus of the study have morphed in dramatic ways (GE) and some have just disappeared (RCA). My memory is not to sharp, but let me summarize what I recall from a research project conducted almost 40 years ago.
A Historical Note about Innovation
In the late 1970s, I worked at a major consulting firm. In 1974, only McKinsey & Co., Bain, and Boston Consulting Group challenged my employer for the top spot of the experts-for-hire totem pole. One of my most challenging projects was working on a global study of innovation. The research, commissioned by a Fortune 50 company, was to answer what looks like a simple question, “How do technology leaders innovate?”
I remember the three key findings of that work completed almost 40 years ago. Our sample was skewed to what the client called “big innovation spenders”, so the investments in innovation were hefty when fully loaded with:
Quote to Note: Xoogler on Management
July 14, 2011
Quote to note: The juicy item appeared in “Facebook Exec: Google Is Blocking My Book.” I saw a presentation about social circles and then I heard a pundit talk about “the rings of Saturn.” Good idea, but I sort of figured out the notion of hierarchical clustering a while ago. Tucked in the article, however, was a keeper for my “Quotes” folder. Here she be:
… I wasn’t being listened to when it came to executing that strategy. My peers listened intently, but persuading the leadership was a losing battle. Google values technology, not social science. I also moved because the culture had changed dramatically in the few years I was at Google. It became much more bureaucratic and political.
I find this interesting because it suggests that sharp employees are allegedly suffering from bureaucracy. I find the notion of controlled chaos spawning a bureaucracy fascinating. Oxymoron does not do the clash of concepts justice. I thought about the “listen” reference, but I won’t go there.
Stephen E Arnold, July 14, 2011
A freebie. No sponsor. Sigh.
Quote: The Two Types Complacency
June 7, 2011
Quote to note: Navigate to “Stephen Elop’s Nokia Adventure.” The subject is not about search and content processing, but it may apply to some of those in the market. Here’s the quote attributed to Juha Akra,a Nokia personnel professional. The context for the remark was Nokia’s failure to respond to Apple’s and Google’s incursion into mobile phones:
“It was an ignorant complacency, not an arrogant complacency.”
From the shareholders point of view, does the distinction make a difference?
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
The Android Revenue Rocket and Gravity
May 30, 2011
The Android blast off has been spectacular. In the span of 24 months, Android is everywhere. Poor Apple. Although the company is rolling in dough, its mobile market share has been kicked to the curb by Googzilla. Everything Apple did as an innovator has migrated to the Googleplex. With mobile search accounting for a significant amount of Web traffic, Google is the winner.
Well, that’s what it looks like to some former Web masters, art history major who have become consultants, and poobahs focused on poopahing.
Then there is “Why It’s Harder to Make Money on Android than on Apple’s iOS.” I don’t put much effort into tracking the musings of Time Warner, but I did find this article interesting.
The data in the story came from an outfit called Distimo. I have a healthy skepticism for most sampled data related to anything Webby. You can read the original write up to get the numbers and specific numbers each appears to be.
Here’s the key point in my opinion:
Roughly Drafted’s Dilger, an Apple partisan who clearly has a stick in this fire, suggests that the rapid ascendance of the Android Market is an illusion. Android may be gaining in sheer volume, he says, but not in quality. He quotes the app guidelines Apple issued last September:
“We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don’t need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn’t do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted.”
Google has no such policy, Dilger writes. “All one has to do is pay a fee and shovel junk into its online listings. Suddenly it’s obvious why Google is ‘beating’ Apple in free titles: 134,342 to 121,845 according to Distimo: they’re only comparing Fart Apps, ringtones and wallpapers. Of course Google is winning in that regard.”
The bottom line on the write up is that Android developers are not exactly rolling in cash–yet. Other observations:
- “Controlled chaos” has to demonstrate that it works better than Apple’s control method
- Android needs to produce some vocal, developers who are rolling in dough before the developers look for more lucrative things to do
- Fragmentation and the telecommunications industry’s penchant for doing proprietary things to benefit themselves reduces Google’s span of control.
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information
SAP and Risk Automation
May 27, 2011
SAP information continues to flow to me. An attention grabber was the story “Who’s the Top Innovator: SAP or Oracle?” I scanned the article and wondered why the author ignored Apple? With the set of innovators limited to a relational database company and an IBM-influenced traditional enterprise software company, I concluded, “PR. Skip.”
However, the news release “Proviti Teams Up with SAP Labs U.S. to Enhance Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) Analytics for CIOs and IT Executives” contained information that surprised me.
Proviti will be designing some automated controls to be employed in conjunction with SAP’s newest analytic application, BusinessObjects Executive IT Reporting.
The desired outcome is to give those at the top a well-rounded picture of the risks plaguing their businesses through a whole slew of buzz-word themed tools such as IT dashboards and key risk indicators. I like “well rounded” as a way to explain business fixes.
We found the following passage by the senior director of SAP’s IT strategy group to be particularly interesting:
Today, in many companies, IT controls and risk-management activities are at best manual, subjective activities. By automating these activities and linking them to business processes, we can allow customers to simplify their compliance and risk management activities, protect value by anticipating common losses, and create more value by taking on more calculated technology risk.
Do we sense an admission that when humans use software they create a content disaster? What took so long for that revelation?
The challenges of implementing enterprise solutions using IBM-style and SAP-like solutions are significant. The buzzword “governance” means that costs are tough to control and users often must adapt to systems, not the other way around. Governance is a signal to me that information chaos exists. So governance and other content-free words are used to cope with intractable issues. Are traditional enterprise software solutions to be to be subject to “governance”? Just an engineer’s skepticism at work.
What happened to TREX and Inxight? Search is apparently not an issue.
Sarah Rogers, May 27, 2011
Freebie
Protected: A Guide for Planning SharePoint Projects
May 25, 2011
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
