Bargain Basement Usability and SEO
July 27, 2009
I get asked about SEO and usability almost every day. Let’s get this fact out one more time: I like the dot command line interface and I think search engine optimization is a load of lignite coal.
But if you want to “fix up” your flawed Web site and maybe improve your Google ranking, then you will want to work through Web Designer’s Depot article “10 Tools to Improve Your Site’s Usability”. I located this article using the deeply flawed Digglicioius.com service. This outfit makes it impossible for me to get the source page’s url without extra effort. I posted a nasty gram to the Web site, but no action. No surprise there because Web site owners are trying to stay in business, avoiding the fate of TechFuga.com and SearchMe.com.
Among the more interesting tips in the article were these two points:
- Get free feedback about a Web site from Feedback Army
- Use the utility ClickTale to “see” what users really do when visiting your site.
My recommendation is keep the site simple and create original, compelling content. Last time I checked indexing robots don’t pay much attention to arts and crafts, delusions from those with MFA degrees, or color.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
Media Moguls Want Money the Old Way. We Pay Them
July 26, 2009
I found the Bloomberg story “Diller Calls Free Web Content a ‘Myth, Joins Refrain” useful for my snippet file. I am doing a talk for the Magazine Publishers Association, and I want some current quotes to make clear the hopes and beliefs of media moguls. Mr. Diller knows how to make money. His judgment is not quite so good when it comes to Web search. He is the proud owner of Ask.com, the search engine of NASCAR. This is a sport that is struggling just like most Web search companies. At least eHarmony.com did not make the match up.
The Bloomberg story runs down some examples of media executives’ plans for getting those who connect to the Internet to pay for content. You can work through the examples yourself and decide which approach is right for you.
My thought after reading the story was that the information on my Web site and in this marketing blog is free. I run some Google ads, but the revenue doesn’t pay for Tess’s heartworm medicine. I don’t charge for the information available from ArnoldIT.com. I even have a couple of monographs available for free if you click around and do some hunting.
So categorical assertions aside, this Web log costs a reader nothing. I don’t market the Web log. I don’t care if people are annoyed at the comments the addled goose makes.
I think the point is that as long as there are individuals who have time and some ideas to share, there will be free content on the Internet. In fact, for a person wanting to keep track of the topics covered in Beyond Search, some of the for fee information comes in a distant second to what I provide.
The difference, of course, is that I have a reasonably zippy business model compared to traditional information companies. I don’t have to huff and puff. I don’t have to deny that the older models are not as flexible as they once were. I don’t have shareholders to reassure.
For that reason, there will be information available to anyone with an information connection as long as this addled goose can paddle and a handful of fellow geese flock to the information opportunities of the Internet. Quack.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Lucene / Solr to Bite the Big Search Dogs
July 26, 2009
Matt Asay’s “Open Source Lucene Threatens Microsoft, Google Enterprise Search” is a thought-provoker. The hook for the story is a chart from Indeed.com that shows hiring for Lucene, Solr, and Hadoop experts is on the rise. Matt Assay reported that he spoke with Lucid Imagination’s chief technical officer. Lucid Imagination is a hybrid company. The core is open source, and in my opinion, the firm will “wrap” proprietary services and possible products around the open source core.
The question is, “Is open source a threat to Microsoft and Google?” Several observations:
- Google plays the open source card. One might suggest that if open source wins, then Google will benefit. Google, after all, is plumbing, not just search. The fact that search is part of Google’s plumbing has some interesting implications. I, therefore, don’t buy the open source threat to Google.
- Microsoft is another kettle of fish. Microsoft faces a challenge from itself, Google, and open source. If the Microsoft Fast Enterprise Search Platform flops, Microsoft will bundle it with SharePoint and give it away as a utility. Microsoft-centric shops and those who see a steady paycheck as a SharePoint engineer will jump at this offer.
Where does open source search fit? I think there will be interest from organizations suffering cash crunches. The notion of no license fees and cafeteria style, open consulting is appealing. Start ups will find open source attractive as well. Some government agencies will follow the Obama administration’s suggestion that open source is good.
But—and this is a big “but”—open source firms must demonstrate that they can market, sell, deliver, and generate revenue from engineering and consulting services. The future to me looks like small open source search outfits that will be gobbled up by giants looking to control their ecosystem. Lemur Consulting is one acquisition opportunity. The lesser known Tesuji is another. Oracle pulled this trick with the Sun Microsystems buy out. Whither MySQL? Maybe no where. IBM is an open source champion. The company can sell services and tons of quasi-proprietary software, hardware, and partner services.
In short, open source is important. There are some twists not covered in Matt Asay’s write up, which strikes me as an article that could benefit from more analysis of the Google, Microsoft threat assertion. I don’t buy it.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
FDA: Going Against the Obama Open Source Push
July 26, 2009
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has contracted to with ISYS Search Software, http://www.isys-search.com/, to provide ISYS Anywhere enterprise software for FDA staff to have secure mobile access to organizational content. ISYS Anywhere is a universal enterprise search solution that provides secure access across multiple repositories to web-enabled mobile devices.
This is quite a surprise for the Beyond Search goslings. The new administration wants to go open source, but the FDA is licensing proprietary software from a company based in Australia. We’re wondering if this is a reflection of where the federal government is going on enterprise software, or if the FDA is striking out on its own.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Microsoft Destabilized by Google
July 26, 2009
I enjoy John Dvorak’s “crankiness.” When I worked at Ziff Communications in the hay day of computer magazine publishing, he was a home run hitter. If I turned up on his door step, he wouldn’t recognize me, but I would recognize him. He’s ubiquitous, and I think he is close to the “truth” about Microsoft.
I want to piggyback on his “Is the Party over for Microsoft?” that ran as a “second opinion” essay on July 24, 2009. He provides a good run down of the distractions to which Microsoft succumbed. But in my opinion, these distractions gained greater urgency when Microsoft realized that Google was a really big problem.
Here’s my take on the Google factor:
First, Google was a champion of open source. I don’t think Google woke up one sunny day in 1998 and said, “We are all for open source.” I think the company, once it got some cash, realized that open source could bleed Microsoft’s attention and revenue. There was only an upside for the Google because it didn’t have the legacy problem and the established base’s need for backwards compatibility. So, the Google rotated about 10 degrees and became an open source engine. Microsoft’s various executives have pointed out that open source was a problem. I will leave it to others to provide the history of Microsoft’s open source, Unix, and community initiatives. While Microsoft thrashed with open source, the Google chugged along.
Second, Apple has been a thorn in Microsoft’s side for a long time. When Apple realized that Google had Mac power connectors in its conference rooms and no Microsoft compatible power connectors, the love bond between Apple and Google grew in intensity. With Eric Schmidt on the Board and Googlers dropping to the Unix command line in their ubiquitous Mac notebooks, the folks at Microsoft had a new problem. Google and Apple found common ground in their desire to give Microsoft a digital (see the illustration below for nerd humor), the two companies cooperated to annoy Microsoft. My hunch is that the annoy Microsoft aspect of the Google Apple tie up is the driving force. Yep, I don’t pay much attention to the “competition” between the iPhone and Google’s telephonic dreams. Google is building the 21st century AT&T. Apple is the “new Sony”. I see symbiosis.
With two outfits with lots of smart nerds, Microsoft had its hands full because together Google and Apple make Microsoft’s technology look pretty lame. Enterprise search is just one example. Microsoft has no product that is industrial strength that can be deployed quickly. Google offers a search toaster which is good enough. Vaporware is not a box shipped overnight from Dell Computer, another outfit squabbling with Microsoft. So Google and Apple doubled Microsoft’s pain. Google with enterprise initiatives and Apple with killer ads that made fun in a nice way of the Microsoft technologies.
Third, Google has proved hugely disruptive to Microsoft’s internal teams. Bing.com, for example, is a response to what Google was in 2007, not what Google is today or even more telling what Google is becoming. Where is a Microsoft dataspace initiative? Google’s Wave is rolling toward a broader developer shoreline and Microsoft’s dataspace row boat is still docked.
Add this up, and I see that Microsoft’s woes have been given a couple of twists of the thumbscrews because of Google.
Mr. Dvorak is right. Don’t get me wrong. I just think the Google is a much bigger factor than most of the pundits, mavens, azure chip consultants, and analysts have recognized. Now Google is on the path to be the next Microsoft. As I wrote in 2004 or 2005, Microsoft is now the next IBM. IBM is now a consulting company.
Looks like I was spot on when I pointed out that Google was moving to “check mate” mode in its relationship with Microsoft. Zune, Xbox, Codd based SQL Server, and ribbons won’t do much to stop the decline.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Twitter and Business
July 25, 2009
Short honk: “Twitter Offers Clues to the Puzzled” in Silicon Valley Blog provided an interesting tidbit to the goose’s bill. The comment that caught my attention was:
We need to do a better job of explaining ourselves to people who hear about us and then have no idea what do to.” Part of that effort is Twitter 101, a guide aimed at the business users the company may try to monetize some day.
Another monetization prognostication. In today’s economy, make money and take money. Promising revenues is easy. Generating revenues is tough. I just learned that SearchMe is a gone goose. A niche publisher has told staff that it is a four day week, folks. Twitter needs to crank the dough meter in my opinion. Businesses may not be the place to look for cash. Too much work to make the system pay off unless the businesses like the newly unemployed or the riffed folks in New Jersey have extra time on their hands.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
Analyzing the Web Consulting Game
July 25, 2009
Darned interesting article “Joel Spolsky: The Day My Industry Died” in Inc Magazine, a publication I have not looked at for years. I don’t read many magazines now so this is not a criticism of Inc. I am commenting on my changed information acquisition habits. I do not know Joel Spolsky. He mentions that he is a programmer. The write up explains that Web consulting is a tough way to earn a living. For me one of the most interesting comments was:
My theory was that if I could start a company and be only partially incompetent instead of entirely incompetent, I would be ahead of the game.
Yep, consulting looks easy. Just tell people you are an expert and wait for the phone to ring. Mr. Spolsky revealed:
We started late, and we hadn’t had a chance to hire very many people yet, so we didn’t burn through cash as quickly as others. And we were fortunate enough to have a software product under development, so that when the Web consulting industry disappeared, we still had money coming in. Because if you can survive the death of your industry, well, you can survive just about anything. In the next issue, I’ll tell you how Fog Creek pulled it off.
What we have is a case study recast as a 1950s’ movie cliff hanger. My hunch is that this is a good news set up. What’s this have to do with search? Ah, try and find case studies of successful Web consulting companies. Neither Bing.com nor Google.com shed much light on this topic. The reason? Lousy indexing and a dearth of information. One needs a consultant to assemble meaning case analyses in my view.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
AP News Registry
July 25, 2009
Important initiative from the Associated Press. A news registry. You must read the official announcement with the killer title “Associated Press to Build News Registry to Protect Content”. Because I am fearful of legal reprisals against me, I won’t quote from this “news release.” I do have some questions:
- What’s news?
- When news in in a public news release, what is protected?
- What happens if some addled goose cites an AP story and includes a sentence or two in a blog post?
Will this initiative protect content? I only know that if I was cautious about AP before reading this announcement, the addled goose wants to steer clear of underpaid stringers, constantly changing stories sent down the wire, and the general made AP’s intellectual property because a publi9c announcement from a state government office in Illinois finds its way into the AP state feed. Honk if you are afraid of change.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Wake Up Call for Smaller Scale Digital Initiatives
July 24, 2009
Thank goodness I am not trying to get a small scale archiving or abstracting project off the ground. The story “Japanese E-library Project Could Lose Out to Google Book Search without Government Flex” in the Mainichi Daily News caused a number of thoughts to flap through the addled goose’s brain. The story asserted:
It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books’ content in Japan, including the e-library project.
I took a look at the Japanese original and could not make sense of Google’s transformation. Despite the prose in the Mainichi version, I concluded that Google operates at a government or nation state level. A library scale project is a non starter unless a motivated government jumps in to pay the cost of dig9itzation, transformation, and indexing. The commercial database publishers will the next group of entities to find themselves in Google’s pressure cooker. Commercial database publishers have been forced to innovate in pricing, packaging, and placement. Once these dinosaurs run out of wiggle room, the Google pressure cooker will infuse some excitement into these low profile operations.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Elsevier and Its Article of the Future
July 23, 2009
I write a column for Information World Review for money. As an addled goose blogger, I want to call your attention to an item that appeared with the headline “Elsevier Releases Article of the Future Prototypes.” For me, the most interesting comment in the story was:
IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, vice president of content innovation for Elsevier science & technology journal publishing said: “These tools will enhance the presentation of scientific results and improve the interpretation and speed of results analysis. They are central to driving innovation in scientific publishing and represent our investment in the future of research, enabling scientists all over the world to access, interpret, and create better science more efficiently.”
I will not put up pointers to my Web log posts about sponsored articles or other material that may not be exactly what readers expect from certain sci-tech publishers. I hope that the Article of the Future does not drag along some methods from the not-to-distant past. I hope legitimate publishers regardless of type find ways to generate revenue without hip hopping over content accuracy. Alas, unlike the addled goose, some publishers are human.
Stephen Arnold, July 23, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
