Google and Good Search Engine Optimization
June 2, 2009
I loathe search engine optimization wonks. I am on the fence about Google’s “Straight from Google: What You Need to Know” here. The title is ambiguous but the content is not. Think SEO the Google way. If you want to pump up your PageRank or goose (no pun intended) your site in a Google results list, this slide show is for you. After scanning the deck, I concluded that Google in a semi official way is trying to put some white lines on the information superhighway.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
Business Embraces Twitter. Shock and Awe
June 2, 2009
ReadWriteWeb.com posted a surprising bit of information on May 29, 2009. You will want to navigate here and read “Business People Say Twitter More Important than LinkedIn”. The addled goose found the information interesting. Mr. Kirkpatrick wrote:
A month-long poll conducted on business social network LinkedIn has uncovered some fascinating numbers concerning social media platforms and brand presence. The biggest surprise was that Twitter was deemed more important to brands than LinkedIn, and the poll was performed on LinkedIn.
The addled goose gets it. When this post is published, it’s Tweeted. The addled goose studiously ignores blandishments of LinkedIn. Too much malarkey and not enough thick, chunky substance.
Stephen Arnold, May 31, 2009
Free of AOL, Time Identifies the Future of Online
June 2, 2009
When you own an online loser, it’s tough for the organization to make bold statements about the future of online. Cast off the boat anchor and the writers are liberated. Check out this essay / report from Time here. The write up is called “10 Ways Twitter Will Change American Business” by 24/7 Wall Street but it’s Time for this addled goose. The idea was to get a bright journalist to identify the ways in which Twitter.com would affect an American business. The fact that Twitter.com has a fail whale deters not essay Douglas McIntyre. The ten examples are not that surprising, and I will leave it to you to analyze them. What struck me is that if Twitter.com was the future and had such compelling applications, why didn’t America Online jump into this new search sector with both feet. It’s easier to write about the future than deliver it in my opinion. One thing is clear to me. Finding the ten items is an exercise in patience. Start here.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
Documenting the Demise of Newspapers
June 2, 2009
The write up carries the name “Harvard.” Bow down. It is also branded Nieman. Another genuflection, please. And, to top it off, there is a reference to the Washington Post. I had to read this essay by Dan Froomkin, whose name is not a household word in the goose pond. You can find “Why “Playing It Safe” Is Killing American Newspapers” here. For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was this passage:
If we were to start an online newspaper from scratch today, we’d recognize that toneless, small-bore news stories are not the way to build a large audience — not even with “interactive” bells and whistles cobbled on top. One option might be to imitate cable TV, and engage in a furious volume of he-said/she-said reporting, voyeurism, contrarianism, gossip, triviality and gotcha journalism. But that would come at the cost of our souls. The right way to reinvent ourselves online would be to do precisely what journalists were put on this green earth to do: Seek the truth, hold the powerful accountable, expose the B.S., explain how things really work, introduce people to each other, and tell compelling stories. And we should do all those things passionately and courageously — not hiding who we are, but rather engaging in a very public expression of our journalistic values.
A couple of thoughts:
- Aggregation methods are the newspapers for the Web set
- Big publishing companies have experimented their hearts out for decades. Anyone remember the original Wall Street Journal Online service with BRS search? Didn’t work then, and the system doesn’t work now. The business model is the little crippler I think.
- Check out Google Wave. That’s a publishing platform in my opinion.
In short, good essay. Hose off the tumbrels.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
Bartz Reveals the Truth about Bing to Microsoft
June 2, 2009
In the oh-so-in group that comprises the All Things Digital conference, many interesting side stories unfold. You have to be there to get the real scoop. But the hot fudge, whip cream, and cherry on top go to those who get to fiddle with the detritus of a conference. I read “Bartz’s (S)mash Note to Ballmer: The Photographic Proof” here and realized that sometimes in the leave behinds are factoids of hard truth. First you need to read Kara Swisher’s article. Then look closely at the pink sticky note and look at the accompanying transcription. Set up: Carol Bartz, cruise directory of the SS Yahoo wrote to Steve Ballmer, captain of the $65 billion Redmond class war ship:
Steve, Forget it. Won’t Help. Ha. Carol
Addled geese are not at All Things Digital. Guests must leave dogs and other no hip creatures outside. I wasn’t there. But I can from my pond filled with Beargrass Creek pollutants offer Jacques Derrida like observations:
- The pronoun “it” lacks an antecedent. Because Mr. Ballmer spoke and demonstrated the Bing Kumo search system, I must assume that “it” is that search system.
- If the “it” is Bing Kumo, the statement “Forget it” introduces another ambiguity. Is the second “it” a reference to Bing Kumo. If so, Ms. Bartz is suggesting that Microsoft forget Bing Kumo. More colloquially, the phrase “forget it” said to me, “Dude, Bing Kumo cannot close the gap between Microsoft and Google in the Web search sector.
- The “ha” is also ambiguous. One can interpret this “ha” as an inside joke, discounting or disclaiming the implication that Bing Kumo is a loser. On the other hand, perhaps the “ha” means a Jay Leno Jaywalker “ha” where people laugh at others’ weaknesses.
In short, lots of ambiguity, but possibly a grain of truth. Here in Harrod’s Creek, the sticky note, the ambiguity, and the reference to getting one’s make up done underscores how far away the addled goose is from the real action in the world of Web search. Thank goodness there are neither make up artists nor pink sticky notes in these here parts. We don’t even have an in crowd unless you include the bikers who hit the River Creek Inn on Sunday morning before the church goers show up for brunch and a whistle wetting drink.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
Francois Schiettecatte, FS Consulting
June 1, 2009
Through a mutual contact, I reconnected with François Schiettecatte, a search engine expert with other computer wizard skills in his toolbox. Mr. Schiettecatte worked on a natural language processing project in the late 1990s. He shifted focus and was a co-founder of Feedster.com. He told that he had contributed to a number of interesting projects and revealed that he was working on a new search and content processing system.
Mr. Schiettecatte consented to an interview. I spoke with him on May 29, and I put the full text of our discussion in the ArnoldIT.com Search Wizards Speak collection. You can find that series of interviews with influential figures in search and content processing here.
Mr. Schiettecatte and I had a lively discussion and he offered some interesting insights into the trajectory of search and retrieval. Let me highlight two of his comments and invite you to read the full text of the discussion here.
In response to a question about the new start ups entering the search and retrieval sector, Mr. Schiettecatte said:
You can apply different search approaches to different data sets, for example traditional search as well as NLP search to the same set of documents. And certain data set will lend themselves more naturally to one type of search as opposed to another. Of course user needs are key here in deciding what approaches work best for what data. I would also add that we have only begun to tackle search and that there is much more to be done, and new companies are usually the ones willing to bring new approaches to the market.
We then discussed the continuing interest in semantic technology. On this matter, Mr. Schiettecatte offered:
More data to search usually means more possible answers to a search, which means that I have to scan more to arrive at the answer, improved precision will go a long way to address that issue. A more pedestrian way to put this is: “I don’t care if there are about a million result, I just want the one result”. Also, having the search engine take the extra step in extracting data out of the search results and synthesizing that data into a meaningful table/report. This is more complicated but I has the potential to really save time in the long run.
For more information about Mr. Schiettecatte’s most recent project, read the full text of the interview here.
Stephen Arnold, June 2, 2009
A Believer in Microsoft Bing
May 31, 2009
Shareholders in Microsoft may hold a parade for Larry Magid. He wrote “Don’t Count Microsoft Out in Search” for the San Jose (oops Silicon Valley) Mercury News. You can find the story here. Mr. Magid sees Bing as a potential contender in the Web search wars.
The premise of the story is that Microsoft’s most recent weapon in the battle for Web search eyeballs has a fighting chance against Googzilla. So, in the battle between Bing and the Google, Mr. Magid is urging odds makers to keep Microsoft in the game.
Mr. Magid reported:
It would be a gross exaggeration to call Bing a Google killer, but that’s OK. Google doesn’t have to die for Microsoft to succeed in search. Besides, Ballmer made it very clear that he doesn’t expect Bing to overtake Google in the foreseeable future. Microsoft, if anything, is persistent. It took three tries before Microsoft Word was worthy of becoming the dominant word processing program, and it wasn’t until version 3.0 that Windows began to get serious traction. To differentiate itself from Google, Bing is not only visually more attractive, it’s also more informative. Functioning as what Microsoft is calling a “decision engine,” rather than simply linking you to sites, Bing searches often end with information directly from Bing. For example, if you type in the name of a city you get local weather, hotel prices and other information without having to click anywhere. And, depending on the content licensing rules of sites that Bing draws from, it can sometimes display content directly — from Wikipedia for example — without the user having to click through. It even has a built-in shopping engine that, when you search for a product, shows you images, offerings from multiple merchants as well as product information, customer reviews and expert reviews.
My view is that a company with a seven to eight percent market share is what we in Kentucky would call a long shot. Sure, Derby winners come from the back of the pack to win the Run for the Roses. But in the Web search sector, there are some non-horse feathers facts with which to deal:
- Microsoft has approached search as a series of vertical content slices. There’s not much evidence that vertical search slices can narrow the Googzilla sized gap between Google’s market share and Microsoft’s market share in Web search. It’s not even clear if people will navigate to a vertical search system directly. My research indicates that people navigate to Google and type in the name of the service or function they want. Then Google spits out the url. Google is the finder; Bing may be the site receiving referrals from the Google. A bit of tweaking could change this quickly, might it not?
- Microsoft, Yahoo, and other firms have tried to get traction in Web search. What’s happened is a heck of a lot of repositioning. Web search companies jump into SEO or seek refuge in the enterprise market, indexing services for publishers, or brand themselves as business intelligence vendors. So far, that’s worked for some companies, but for many Web search firms, the outfits are road kill on the information superhighway. Google has been nuking these deer and possum with semi-truck efficiency.
- Google, in a lousy economy, has been * extending * its lead in the Web search sector. It will take more than $100 million in advertising to narrow the gap between user behavior and Bing adoption. What may happen is that Bing like the Microsoft butterfly will morph into some other creature. Microsoft’s best bet for crippling Google may be rain dance to bring thunderstorms to three amigos who run Google. A management blow up would create some new opportunities for Web search competitors.
Bing Kumo is a long shot in the Web search Derby. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 2, 2009
Search Archaeology
May 30, 2009
I find it amusing to look at articles about search, content processing and text mining. Perhaps I am tired or just confused. The past to me stretches back to cards with holes and wire rods and to the original NASA RECON system. For Computer Active, the past stretches all the way back to Lycos. You may find this revisionist view of history interesting. Click here to read “Bunch of Fives: Forgotten Search Engines.”
Let me comment of the five search engines, adding a bit of addled goose color to the authors’ view of search:
- Cuil.com. Cuil is a product of a Googler (Anna Patterson), her husband, and some other wizards. The company had a connection to Google. Dr. Patterson’s patents are still stumbling out of the USPTO with Google as an assignee. Xift, Dr. Patterson’s search system, was not mentioned in Computer Active. It was important for its semantic method and it exposed Dr. Patterson to the Alta Vista team. Alta Vista played some role in Google’s rise to success and its current plumbing. Cuil has improved, and I thought I saw a result set including some Google content before the system became publicly available. I use Cuil.com, and I am not sure if “forgotten” is a good word for it or its technology.
- MSN Live. I have lost count of Microsoft’s search systems. Microsoft search initiatives have moved through many iterations. The important point for me is that Microsoft is persistent. The search technology is an amalgamation of home grown, licensed, purchased, and reworked components. The search journey for Microsoft is not yet over. Bing is a demo. The rebuild of Fast as a SharePoint product is now in demo stage but not yet free of its Web and Linux roots. More to come on this front and, believe me, Microsoft search is not forgotten by Google or others in the search business.
- Alta Vista. Yep, big deal. The reason is that Alta Vista provided the Googlers with a pool of experienced and motivated talent. The job switch from the hopelessly confused Hewlett Packard to the freewheeling Google was an easy one. Alta Vista persists today, and I still use the service for certain types of queries. What’s interesting is that Alta Vista may have been one of the greatest influences on both Google and Microsoft. Again. Not forgotten.
- Lycos. We sold our Point system to Lycos, so I have some insight into that company’s system. The key point for me is that Fuzzy and his fellow band of coders from Carnegie Mellon sparked the interest in more timely and comprehensive Web search. Lycos was important at a sparkplug, but the company was among the first to add some important index update features and expanded snippets for each hit. Lycos has had a number of owners, but I won’t forget it. When we sold Point to the outfit, the check cleared the bank. That I will remember along with the fact that architectural issues hobbled the system just as the Excite Architext system was slowed. These are search as portal examples today.
- Ask Jeeves. I can’t forget. One of the first Ask Jeeves execs used to work at Ziff. I followed the company’s efforts to create query templates that allowed the system to recognize a question and then deliver an answer. The company was among the first to bill this approach “natural language” but it wasn’t. Ask Jeeves was a look up service and it relied on humans to find answers to certain questions. Ask.com is the descendent of Ask Jeeves’ clunky technology, but the system today is a supported by ace entrepreneur Barry Diller who, like Steve Ballmer, is persistent. The key point about Ask Jeeves is that it marketed old technology with a flashy and misleading buzzword “natural language”. Marketers of search systems today practice this type of misnaming as a standard practice. Who can forget this when a system is described one way and then operates quite another.
Enjoy revisionism. Much easier in a Twitter- and Facebook-centric world with a swelling bulge of under 40 experts, mavens, and pundits. These systems failed in some ways and succeeded in others. I remember each. I still use each, just not frequently.
Stephen Arnold, May 31, 2009
Connotate Update
May 30, 2009
Connotate is a content aggregation service. Two days ago a reader sent me a link to a story about Connotate on the MyCentralJersey.com Web site. The article “New Brunswick Software Company Tracks Web Info for Clients” here by Jared Twasser was informative and provided an interesting insight into the nine year old company. Mr. Twasser wrote:
Molloy [a Connotate senior manager] said Connotate’s technology is different than search engines, such as Google, that scour the Web searching for keywords. “What we do is we’re able to understand a page at a much deeper level,” he said. “We’re able to understand a page on an element level, not just the whole page, but we can understand objects on the page.” The system works because the user can train the software to find specific information … such as prices, job postings or press releases — on a given Web site. The software was developed at Rutgers University and the company was founded by two Rutgers professors and a former research programmer in 2000.
I found this interesting for two reasons. The notion of understanding content is very much in the news with the firestorm of articles about Microsoft’s smart search system Bing. Second, the idea for parsing content in almost a decade old. More information about the Connotate system is here.
My question, “What is new about Bing’s parsing?”
Any answers, gentle readers.
Stephen Arnold, May 30, 2009
Finding Info about Tsunami Named Google Wave
May 30, 2009
If you are want to ride the Google Wave, you need to get up to speed. I found a couple of resources that may be useful to you. I don’t recommend the Google Web site or the Web log posts. These are breezy and are not as comprehensive as some of the third party write ups. I looked at a number of descriptions today. I would recommend that you read Ben Parr’s Google “Wave: A Complete Guide” here. Then you can sit back and check out the official video. You can find an easy link on Google Blogoscoped here or look at the Google Channel on YouTube. Once you have this information under your belt, head on over to my Overflight service here and read the posts about Wave on the Google Web logs. If you are into code instead of marketing frazzle, click here. I want to reiterate what I wrote earlier. The Wave swamped the new Microsoft Web surfer, Bing Kumo.
Stephen Arnold, May 30, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
