Cyberwarfare Attack Devices
May 26, 2009
If you worry about enterprise search, you won’t find much of interest in this Aviation Week. The addled goose, on the other hand, sees the story “Network Attack Weapons Emerge” here by David Fulghum as a precursor of similar information initiatives in the business arena. Information is a strategic asset and methods to locate, disrupt, intercept, and analyze those assets are going to remain and become increasingly significant. The core of the Aviatiion Week story was this comment:
Devices to launch and control cyber, electronic and information attacks are being tested and refined by the U.S. military and industry in preparation for moving out of the laboratory and into the warfighter’s backpack.
Mr. Fulghum added:
The Russians conducted a cyberattack that was well coordinated with what Russian troops were doing on the ground,” says a longtime specialist in military information operations. “It was obvious that someone conducting the cyber[war] was talking to those controlling the ground forces. They knew where the [cyber]talent was [in Russia], how to use it, and how to coordinate it. “That sophisticated planning at different levels of cyberwarfare surprised a lot of people in the Defense Dept.,” he says. “It looked like a seamless, combined operation that coordinated the use of a range of cyberweapons from the sophisticated to the high school kids that thought it was cool to deface official web sites. The techniques they used everybody knows about. The issue was how effective they were as part of a combined operation.”
I found interesting his description of the components of a cyberattack toolkit:
The three major elements of a cyberattack system are its toolbox, planning and execution capabilities. The toolbox is put together by the hardware and software experts in any organization to address specific missions. They maintain the database of available capabilities.
Worth reading.
Stephen Arnold, May 26, 2009
Tweetmeme: Snapshot
May 26, 2009
Tweetmeme is a service provided by Twitter that gathers all links posted on Twitter and determines which are the most popular. It then categorizes those links on the front page making it easier to find what you’re looking for. Readers can easily subscribe to each of the available categories, gaining access to the most popular, up-to-the-minute content through their Twitter account.
Twitter and its tools are the latest rage in Social Networking and business should be taking full advantage of what they can offer. If your business posts a blog, Tweetmeme provides the freshest, most relevant topics to be used as inspiration for the blog posts. Business can also use Tweetmeme’s service to send out time-sensitive information to large groups of customers or prospects.
Melanie Van Nuys, May 26, 2009
The Boyle Conundrum: Old Media vs New Media
May 26, 2009
My New York Times today (May 25, 2009) contained an announcement of a price hike. The hard copy of the paper contained a story by Bran Stelter that had an amazing quotation. I found the statement indicative of the pickle in which traditional newspapers and “old” media find themselves. The story was “Payoff over a Web Singing Sensation Is Elusive.” The story is on the first page of the business section, and you may be able to find an online version of the story here. No guarantees, of course. The article is about FreemantleMedia Enterprises’ inability to monetize Susan Boyle, a contestant on Britain’s Got Talent TV show. Ms. Boyle, “frumpy Scotswoman” according to the New York Times, is a Web sensation. Despite that popularity, no cash flows to the show’s owners. The key statement in the write up in my opinion was:
The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own.
Maybe litigation will provide the solution to the Gordian knot of “old media” and its business methods. Meanwhile, the price of the New York Times goes up and Susan Boyle videos get downloaded. Why not blame Google where a search for “Susan Boyle” returned nine million hits?
Stephen Arnold, May 26, 2009
Microsoft Advertising to Aim $80 Million Blast at GOOG
May 25, 2009
Abbey Klaassen’s “Microsoft Aims Big Guns at Google, Asks Consumers to Rethink Search” signals an escalation in the contention between Microsoft and Google. The money–$80 million—strikes me as a hefty chunk of change for the search and content processing sector. In fact, only a few companies engaged in search have annual revenues in that range. The subtitle of her story makes the view of the ad community clear: “Here’s why an $80M ad effort for a search engine, Bing, makes some sense.” You can read the story here.
For me, the key comment in the Ad Age story was this passage:
Consider that Google has conducted internal tests, according to people familiar with them, in which the company put its logo and treatment on another engine’s search results. Users still prefer the results with the Google logo, even if they’re not Google results. Or consider that a revamped Ask.com made its debut in 2007 to a glowing review from The Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg, who said it “holds its own with Google, and even beats the champ on some searches.” Two years later? Ask’s share of search is down 28%.
The last paragraph of the Ad Age article put a key point in the mind of this addled goose. The story said:
It doesn’t take a lot to switch people from one type to another and usually it’s a unique feature that gets people excited,” said David Karnstedt, CEO of Efficient Frontier and former head of sales for Yahoo. He reflected on his days at AltaVista, which Google supplanted. “Google got people excited because it got people and places right early on. That got people to really start to switch, and once developed the habit of using Google, it was hard to get them to switch back.”
My thoughts on this ad campaign reflect my view from the polluted pond in rural Kentucky in which I paddle; to wit:
- Brand has power. A new brand whether Bing or Kumo has to be built. That takes time. Time is running out because Google continues to increase its grip on the Web search market. Its brand is still quite strong despite the hassle over copyright and other issues.
- Google’s been plugging away at search for more than a decade. Microsoft has made numerous runs at the GOOG over the years. Now consumer advertising is the “solution”. Last time I checked, traditional advertising was losing its oomph because of demographic shifts, the decline of certain mass media, and the lousy economic climate.
- Google works. When the company experiences a glitch, the outage becomes a major news story. Google is now like a utility, and I think that a free utility that has become a habit may be tough to displace.
Google is, therefore, in the cat bird seat because it is good enough, has a 70 percent market share, and is free. Ads can’t change those facts even for $80 million. Microsoft needs to leap frog Google, not send messages to the same audience that Ask.com chases with its “search engine of NASCAR” promotion.
The addled goose’s prediction: great for agencies who get the $80 million in business. No substantive impact on search share. More is needed and quickly.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Amazon to DC
May 25, 2009
With the Army embracing Windows Vista and the Google moving appliances, Amazon has, if this news report is accurate, decided to chow down at the Federal feed bag. TechFlash here reported that Amazon wants to hire a government savvy manager. If you are tracking Amazon’s non book activities, you will want to read Eric Engleman’s “Amazon Targets New Web Services Customer: Uncle Sam”. Mr. Engleman wrote:
There are certainly lots of technology possibilities emerging with the incoming Obama administration, including the president-elect’s proposal to digitize the nation’s health care records (Microsoft and Google have projects to put personal health records online). Is Amazon lining up to tap federal dollars?
The answer may be yes.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2007
Firm Promises the Moon and Stars: SEO Magic
May 25, 2009
In case you missed this interesting article about instant SEO experts, you will want to click here and read “SEO Companies Springing Up Like Dandelions”. The Search Engine Roundtable includes some useful links, including one to a write up about how an instant business can be grown.
My approach to search engine optimization is to rely on content. But as the economy craters, organizations are desperate for their Web sites to throw the firm a sales lead and revenue life preserver. Some clever folks scent fear and are ready to offer services that promise a good night’s sleep, a high Google ranking, and a life of bliss and joy. Some SEO mavens focus on such basics as a site map and clean code. Others emphasize content. Some like Search Engine Partner shift to the moon, stars, and magic approach. Here’s an example of the firm’s explanation of its services:
In partnering with you, we will ensure your web site will be more accessible on the Internet in terms of first page rankings for specific keywords across the major search engines, specifically Google. We as team members of SE Partner along with our consortium of SEO firms look forward to taking your business to the next level. In considering partnering with us, please keep in mind that we also specialize in seo 2.0, first page rankings, and top ten placement (rank) in Google. We will be available at a moment’s notice! We guarantee to never outsource any of our work in any respect and promise that all of our work will be done in-house, in an ethical white-hat manor per Google’s webmaster guidelines, and in one of our offices in the United States, the UK, Israel, or South Africa. Nothing will be outsourced to India, China, Poland, or anywhere else, where they may not understand where your business is coming from and needs to be! The Bottom line is to get your small to medium business site on the first page of Google!
You can read more here. Bold stuff.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Wall Street Journal Documents Citizen Spies
May 25, 2009
If you already use online services to locate information via humans, you may find the information is “Gulags, Nukes and a Water Slide: Citizen Spies Lift North Korea’s Veil”. The story appeared with a May 22, 2009 dateline. The author is Evan Ramstad, and you may be able to view the article here. No guarantees when it comes to the “new” Wall Street Journal. For me,the most interesting passage in the write up was:
“We’re relying on the North Koreans to keep publicizing” Mr. Kim’s movements, Mr. Melvin says. “This leads to great discoveries.”
I find it interesting that traditional information methods are still a source of wonder and surprise.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Hiding Information and Blinding Spiders
May 24, 2009
Two stories reminded me that search won’t work if content is not exposed. The first story is the decision of a college newspaper to prevent its archives from being indexed by Google. The idea is to avoid embarrassing graduates. My thought is that the information should be indexed if it is available. To blind a search engine hides potentially significant and useful information. You can read that story here. Censorship is censorship.
But the second story was even more annoying. Bloomberg News, according to Gawker here, now suggests that its reporters neither link nor mention competitors’.
My view is that the value of linking is similar to a fax machine. A single fax machine is useless. Its value increased when there were lots of fax machines. Fax is dead but the same analogy applies to content.
Censorship and intentional limiting of links are two examples of a fundamental change in publicly accessible online information. Not good in my opinion. Tough to search when the spiders have their eyes poked out.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 2009
Copyright and the Real Time Microblog Phenom
May 24, 2009
Liz Gannes’ “Copyright Meets a New Worth Foe: The Real Time Web” is an interesting article. You can find it on NewTeeVee.com here. Her point is that copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and other bits and pieces of legal whoopdedoo struggle with real time content from Twitter-like services. She wrote:
If you’re a copyright holder and you want to keep up with your pirated content flitting about the web — well, good luck. The way the DMCA is set up means you’re always chasing, and the real-time web is racing faster than ever before. Analytics services are only just emerging that will tell you where your views are coming from on a semi-real-time basis. That’s especially true for live video streaming sites such as Ustream and Justin.tv. Justin.tv, in particular, has come under fire by sports leagues for hosting camcorded streams of live game broadcasts. The company says it takes down streams whenever it is asked to. But the reality is, often the moment has passed.
In short, information flows move more quickly than existing business methods. An interesting illustration of this flow for video is Twiddeo here. Government officials have their work cut out for them with regard to ownership, copyright, and related issues.
But…
As I read this article, I thought about the problem Google has at this time with real time content. Google’s indexing methods are simply not set up to handle near instantaneous indexing of content regardless of type. In fact, fresh search results on Google News are stale when one has been tracking “events” via a Twitter like service.
As important is the “stepping back” function. On Google’s search results displays, how do I know what is moving in near real time; that is, what’s a breaking idea, trend, or Tweet? The answer is, “I don’t.” I can hack a solution with Google tools, but even then the speed of the flow is gated by Google’s existing indexing throughput. To illustrate the gap, run a query for American Idol on Google News and then run the query on Tweetmeme.com.
Two different slants biased by time. In short, copyright problem and Google problem.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 2009
Twitter Search a Quitter
May 23, 2009
Louis Gray’s “Twitter’s Search Engine Is Very, Very, Broken” here underscored the plight of those engaged in information retrieval. Mr. Gray wrote:
The promise of Twitter’s advanced search capability is tremendous – letting you dice your queries by the sender and recipient, and even limiting the date range for said tweets, the location, hashtags or even emoticons. And at one time, it was a valuable resource. Now, depending on which account you’re viewing, the data set could be as small as a week, or oddly, in some cases, not available at all.
If I waddled my addled goose body from pond to keyboard, I could make the same assertion about any search and retrieval system with which I am familiar. In fact, I have been clear about the challenges of search and retrieval. I track about 350 vendors with my monitoring tools, and I could point to examples of problems with any of these companies’ systems.
So, flawed search is nothing new.
Some quick illustrations. You may be able to replicate these queries yourself, but some examples perform differently at different times.
First, Microsoft’s Live Search. Run this query: “educational materials”. Scan the results. My set is biased toward state sources and health. What’s up? I want links to outfits like NEA.org. Problem: context. Most search systems lack the technology to deliver context aware searches. Is Microsoft search “broken”? Not really.
Second. Yahoo’s shopping search. Run this query “dell mini9 ssd from the search box here and be sure to click on “shopping”. What do you get? Zero hits. Isolated instance? Nope, for certain queries Yahoo works pretty well, but for others it’s as off base as Microsoft’s Live Search.
Third. Google. Navigate to Google.com and enter this query: “eccs”. The acronym stands for “emergency core cooling system” and Google returns only false drops. Google fails this query test.
What’s happening?
The reality is that no search system works particularly well. Search is good enough, and in my opinion, that’s the state of the art. Twitter is no better and no worse than most free search systems. Will search improve? Slowly, goose lovers, slowly.
Stephen Arnold, May 23, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
