Rhode Island and Rooster Pricing
June 24, 2009
When a lad in Illinois, I recall visiting one of my relative’s farm. I learned how to kill a chicken. Learned what tough bird meant. Rooster pricing one of the farming Arnolds told me was that a good bird would fetch a pretty penny. The problem was that once a farm had a rooster, two roosters would be a problem. So roosters had a chance of not being worth too much.
I thought about my early rooster pricing lesson when I read “Why A New (And Unusual) Pricing Strategy By A Rhode Island Paper Will Fail.” This quite interesting article explains that a newspaper reader in Rhode Island (lots of roosters at one time) would charge a premium to get the newspaper in electronic form. Paper only was cheapest. Paper and online slightly more expensive. The online newspaper costs about $350 per year.
PaidContent.org’s write up said the idea will fail.
My view is that it might work when someone really needs only that digital version of the Newport (R.I.) Daily News. I don’t agree. The problem is rooster pricing. I think a few people who want only the digital edition will pay. In my opinion, the number of buyers will be as rare as hen’s teeth. A couple of sales won’t pay the bills. In my opinion, bad idea that rooster pricing. This article inspired me to collect my nine mysteries of online essays in one PDF and make the set available without charge. I will announce the download link in this Web log. No strings attached. No registration silliness. Some of that information will offer alternative pricing ideas. Sorry, no rooster option included.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Text Mining and Predicting Doom
June 23, 2009
The New Scientist does not cover the information retrieval sector. Occasionally the publication runs an article like “Email Patterns Can Predict Impending Doom” which gets into a content processing issue. I quite liked the confluence of three buzz words in today’s ever thrilling milieu: “predict”, “email”, and “doom”. What’s the New Scientist’s angle? The answer is that as tension within an organization increases, communication patterns in email can be discerned via text mining. The article hints that analysis of email is tough with privacy a concern. The article offers a suggestive reference to an email project at Yahoo, but provided few details. With monitoring of real time data flows available to anyone with an Internet connection, message patterns seem to be quite useful to those lucky enough to have the tools need to ferret out the nuggets. Nothing about fuzzification of data, however. Nothing about which vendors are leaders in the space except for the Yahoo and Enron comments. I think there is more to be said on this topic.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2009
A Google Vulnerability Exposed
June 22, 2009
Erick Schonfeld’s “When It Comes to Search Trends, Google Is Lagging Behind Bing” identifies a potential Google weakness. I think TechCrunch is on to something, but I think the visible vulnerability explained by Mr. Schonfeld is a symptom of a deeper problem.
The weakness is an ability to handle what’s new and what’s happening. Mr. Schonfeld, wrote:
As Microsoft tries to take away market share from Google with its new search engine, Bing
, it is battling Google feature by feature. One feature where Microsoft seems to be edging out Google is with displaying recent search trends. This may not be a major feature, but it shows a weakness in Google’s armor.
Mr. Schonfeld presented sample queries that illustrate this issue. The bottom-line is that for the most recent information, I may want to use more than Google. Bing.com is one option and there are the numerous real time search systems available.
My take on this is different. Keep in mind that I think Mr. Schonfeld has identified a symptom, the deeper disease is “time deficiency.” As zippy as the Google system is when responding to queries, the Google is not as fast on the intake and indexing of real time data flows such as those from social networks.
My research has identified several reasons:
- Google’s attention is on its leapfrog technologies such as Google Fusion and Google Wave. Both of these are manifestations of a larger Google play. While the wizards focused on these innovations, the real time content explosion took place, leaving Google without a here-and-now response
- Google is big and it is suffering from the same administrative friction that plagued IBM when Microsoft pulled off the disc operating system coup and that hobbled Microsoft when Google zoomed into Web search. Now the Google finds itself aware of Facebook, Twitter, and similar services yet without a here-and-now response. Slow out of the blocks may mean losing the race.
- Google’s plumbing is not connected to the real time streams from social and RSS services. Sure, there is some information, but it is simply not as fresh as what I can find on Scoopler and some other services.
What we have is a happy circumstance. If Microsoft can exploit that weakness, I think it has a chance to capture traffic in the real time sector. But having identified a weakness does not mean that hemlock can be poured into Googzilla’s ear.
There are some other weaknesses at the Google as well. I will be talking about one at the NFAIS conference on Friday, June 26, 2009. Get too many weaknesses, and these nicks start to hurt. Addled geese have to be very careful but big companies are often too big and tough to be worried about a few nicks. If there are a thousand of them, well, the big outfit might notice.
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Twitter Tools
June 22, 2009
Now that outfits like the New York Times and CNN have concluded that Twitter is useful when reporting certain events, the Social Media Guide’s round up of Twitter tools may find some use in the newsroom. The round up “The Ultimate List of Twitter Tools” is long, grouped, and quite good. Highly recommended for dinosaurs and new forms of sentient information life. A reminder: there are other sources of real time info as well. Keep those options open, the addled goose honks.
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Library Teaches Search – More Instruction Needed
June 22, 2009
My recollection is that libraries taught search as far back at 1980. I recall that either database vendors would run demonstrations or that librarians skilled in the use of online would provide guidance to those who asked. I recall running a class in ABI/INFORM at Chicago Public Library and there was an overflow crowd of both staff and research minded patrons. I was delighted, therefore, to see an article in the Sacramento Bee that described the Sutter Library’s classes in finding health and medical information online. The class is a reminder to me that:
- Librarians and information professionals often know how to search and have an interest in sharing that knowledge
- Patrons are smart enough to know that despite the marketing hype and the pundits’ assertions that search is a “done deal” additional instruction attracts people and finds its way into The Sacramento Bee
We have a long way to go before information professionals will be relics of a long gone time. The people who tell me that they “know how to search” and “can locate almost anything online” are kidding themselves. I think I am a reasonably good researcher. But if you spend time monitoring how I find information, you will learn quickly that I turn to experts who make my search skills look primitive. Even my nifty Overflight system pales with the type of information that my research team generates by:
- Knowing what content is located where
- Understanding the editorial method behind or absent from certain online systems
- Leveraging hard-to-manipulate resources such as information from government repositories, specialized services, and individual experts.
I would like to see more libraries move aggressively into online instruction, market those programs, and raise the level of expertise. Most of the people who claim to be experts at search are clueless about how bad their skills are. Among the worst offenders are self appointed search experts who have trouble figuring out when something is likely to be baloney and when something is just plain wrong. Enterprise search, content management, and text mining are three disciplines where better research will be most beneficial in my opinion. Then we need critical thinking skills. Schools have dropped the ball. Maybe libraries can help in this area as well? Search procurement teams will be well served if the team has one or more librarians in the huddle.
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Associated Press and Facebook
June 22, 2009
Ryan Tate’s “AP Tells Reporters to Muzzle Facebook Friends” may be an indication that the Bozeman Syndrome is spreading. Bozeman, as you may recall wanted job applicants to provide user names and passwords for social networking site. I have a short item about this that will run in the future. Bozeman’s officials changed their minds, but the idea, in my opinion, may have meme power. (For information on the Bozeman request KTVQ, a Montana news outlet, offered up “Bozeman City Job Requirement Raises Privacy Concerns”.)
Mr. Tate’s story is not directly connected with Montana. But I perceive thin shoots of reaching toward the idea that an employee may not have tight control over social network memberships or participation. Mr. Tate wrote:
Someone sent us the Associated Press‘ guidelines for staff social networking and, in keeping with company tradition, they’re on the paranoid side. You should probably read them, since basically everyone in the world must now follow them. The AP’s Facebook and Twitter policies are less draconian than, say, Bloomberg’s, but that’s not saying much. They do sound, on the whole, reasonable, until you stop and ponder a few of the specifics.
My hunch is that this idea will find a quick uptake because some senior managers see social networking participation as falling within their span of interest. One of the goslings manages my social network participation, and I wonder if such control is possible. I delegate it, and I can think of several work arounds. When I squeeze a tube of super glue too firmly, the substance gets out of the tube. The metaphor may apply to social network controls.
The information can be “out there” and real time search tools allows me to find it. What’s missing is the “real” name of the person or software pumping out the content. So, what’s more important: finding the person who sent out the info or the info itself? Maybe both. Will stopping one ensure stopping the other?
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Overflight Adds Coveo
June 21, 2009
Short honk: If you want to see what’s new with Coveo, you can navigate to the ArnoldIT.com Overflight service. There’s no charge for this auto-generated page that provides a brief description of the company, contact information, and highlights from public information sources about the company. Twitter Tweets about this company are now included.
Stuart Schram IV, June 21, 2009
Another Knock against Amazon and Google
June 20, 2009
Cory Doctorow’s “Internet Crapshoot: How Internet Gatekeepers Stifle Progress” opens a new front in the copyright, objectivity, and intellectual property war. The article appeared in Internet Evolution. Mr. Doctorow has a high profile and will elicit significant discussion in the blogosphere. He said:
That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer’s market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold. And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, through malice or negligence, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself, carrying on its cultural discourse — a discourse that ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject.
The article contains five additional sections that lays out clearly Mr. Doctorow’s argument that Amazon and Google represent a challenge to innovation. I found the hooking of the market driven economy to a stifling of innovation refreshing. His conclusion comes right from Speech 101 with a call to action: “Stop working for gatekeepers.” The idea is that individuals can exercise considerable influence over the Amazons and Googles of our market driven world. He asserted:
For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they’re doomed to work for their gatekeepers, rather than the other way around.
Interesting. There are several thoughts flapping through my mind. I will mention one. The short term thinking is going to be tough to shake. There’s the old hierarchy of needs notion. Then there’s the stock market and the imperative to make a buck. And there’s a human’s less than stellar skill in dealing with uncertainty.
In short, gatekeepers have an advantage. Game’s not over, but time is not on the side of anyone except Amazon and Google. Both continue to expand and pretty soon the “space” will be exhausted. A new paradigm will emerge if our pal Hegel is correct. But can those short sighted folks “see” that and make here and now decisions that will exert sufficient influence before monopolies take hold. Maybe? Maybe not? Great for lawyers, though.
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
Three Months, Eight Outside Consultants, and Microsoft Staff= One Web Site
June 19, 2009
Here’s the sentence that made me quack happily:
In only three months we were able to understand the existing Web site content, create a new information taxonomy and Web site design, develop the components, move content, conduct performance tests, and roll out the site to production. Building on the SharePoint platform allowed us to meet or exceed all of the project goals in a short amount of time. The product group is already realizing the benefits of the improved content publishing model and the Web site is growing and improving every day.
Who built what?
Microsoft’s SharePoint team created its own SharePoint Web site. If you find this expensive and a bit much for your constrained budget, you will want to read the case history “How We Did It: SharePoint.Microsoft.com” on the Microsoft SharePoint Team Web log.
The case is a lengthy write up with a number of workarounds and their solutions. One example:
Another interesting requirement was to display content for targeted audiences at the bottom of the home page. When users click tabs at the left side of the home page, relevant content is displayed without refreshing the page. Additionally, content authors needed to be able to update the content inside a Web browser without requiring Web site coding skills. To implement this requirement, Advaiya created a custom content type and page layout to store information that corresponds to the audience content requirements, and to provide an interface for authoring. Based on the custom page layout, we created publishing pages that correspond to each audience tab on the home page. Content is stored in a page layout so authors can easily write and update it, track versions, and take advantage of the Web content management approval functionality that SharePoint provides. Content authors can create and edit the audience content with out-of-the box SharePoint publishing functionality. Only authenticated users have permission to create, edit, and delete content in these pages, and publishing approval workflows ensure that only approved content appears on the home page.
Keep in mind that Microsoft’s engineers did not do this work. I find that quite interesting. I recall the “dog food” references I have heard at Microsoft conferences. Perhaps the notion does not apply to SharePoint because the system is too complex, too resource intensive, and too interdependent for Microsoft employees to tackle. Enter Advaiya. You will need Silverlight and some other plug ins to view this company’s Web site.
The vendor is described by Microsoft in this way:
The Microsoft® Office SharePoint® product group teamed with Advaiya, Inc. to rebuild the SharePoint Web site using the SharePoint Server 2007 platform. Microsoft chose Advaiya, a consulting company in Kirkland, WA, to work with the SharePoint product group because Advaiya has a long history of working closely with many Microsoft teams to develop strategies to roll out new technologies, content, and solutions.
Good work for Advaiya. Maybe not such good work for a small shop struggling with SharePoint. When the vendor needs help implementing a Web site, I think outfits like SquareSpace.com have a real business opportunity. Also, nary a word about search. I wonder how many people it would take to hook Fast ESP into this site. The SharePoint build, according to the write up, involved eight people from Advaiya. No report of the number of Microsoft engineers pressed into service. Quack!
Stephen Arnold, June 19, 2009
The Future of Search: Capturing Paper and Digital Records
June 18, 2009
Short honk: I read Pharmaceutical Business Review’s “Autonomy GCB to Safely Capture, Manage Patients Records”. (The split infinitive and the possessive error are not mine, folks.) The point of the article is that Autonomy has landed a big contract with Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services.” What strikes me as interesting is that Brainware, ZyLAB, and now Autonomy are starting to look a great deal like the original Excalibur Technologies’ business of a decade ago. Sure, there are some differences, but I think that this end-to-end content processing service is bringing search back to its roots. I am not sure of the ramifications of this “blast from the past” approach to information, but I wanted to note my observation about this retrenchment or rediscovery of the roots of information management as a process within an organization’s work flows.
Stephen Arnold, June 17, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
