LexisNexis, Its Data and Fraud
May 3, 2009
Robert McMillan’s “LexisNexis Says Its Data Was Used by Fraudsters” here caught my attention. The story reported that “LexisNexis acknowledged Friday [May 1, 2009] that criminals used its information retrieval service for more tan three years to gather data that was used to commit credit card fraud.” Mr. McMillan added that “LexisNexis has tightened up the way it verifies customers.” The article noted that LexisNexis “was involved in other data breaches in 2005 and 2006.” Interesting. So 2005, 2006, 2009. Perhaps the third time will be the charm?
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Unusual Customers for Microsoft Hotmail
May 3, 2009
Short honk: The Washington Post reported an interesting use and even more intriguing users found Hotmail email reliable and reasonably secure. You must read “Al-Qaida Used Hotmail, Simple Codes in Planning” by Pamela Hess here. The notion of monitoring email appeals to me, and it is clear that a lack of monitoring seems to have come to light. It is also possible that monitoring was in place and did not work.
Ms. Hess wrote:
Al-Marri sent e-mails to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s hotmail account _ HOR70@hotmail.com _ addressed to “Muk” and signed “Abdo.” The details of that code were included in an address book found in an al-Qaida safehouse in Pakistan.
Ms. Hess reported that the Hotmail users tried to get Yahoo to work but were not able to achieve the desired function:
Al-Marri initially tried to use a Yahoo e-mail account to contact Mohammed, but it failed to go through. So he switched to Hotmail as well. When al-Marri arrived in the United States, he created five new e-mail accounts to communicate with Mohammed, using the 10-code to send him his cell phone number in Peoria.
The Post included a photo of one of the individuals who used Hotmail for “secret” messages. Interesting. I am thinking about what Ms. Hess reported. The idea that Microsoft worked is fascinating as is the issue with Yahoo Mail.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Data Managers as Search Engine Experts
May 3, 2009
An unhappy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Information Management’s article “When Data Becomes [sic] Metadata” here. Right off the mark, the word “data” is a plural, so the headline contains a subject verb agreement editor. My thought is that the editors at Information Management were rushing to meet a deadline. Okay. The deeper issue in the story attributed to Steve Hoberman was this passage:
Data managers will be relied upon as experts in search engine technology. We will be asked how search engines work and will be held accountable for analyzing and modeling Web 2.0 components such as tags and ontologies. Users will expect similar results and response times as their search engines for all of their reports and queries. Therefore, there will be an increased focus for us on the physical data model to ensure rapid query response time to match search engine response time.
Yikes. I am not sure what a data manager is. I know for certain that there are not too many search “experts” running around who can deploy a system that works, conforms to the requirements, and remains on time and in budget. I can name five people, and I don’t think any one of those individuals would describe himself or herself as a “data manager”.
More troublesome is the leap from competence in data management to expertise in search. Hogwash. The reason organizations are struggling with information retrieval is often rooted in miserable data management methods. The write up means well but is, in my opinion, likely to set the stage for yet another search and content processing train wreck. This time the engineer is not a consultant from a second or third tier advisory firm in New York. The hands on the controls is a person who is a “data architect” or a “business intelligence professional”.
Who next will receive the title of “search expert”? Perhaps the person who sets up a trade show exhibit at a conference that includes vendors of photocopy equipment?
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
Ray Ozzie of Microsoft on Newspapers
May 2, 2009
PaidContent.org ran a story based on Ray Ozzie statements. You can read Joseph Tartakoff’s “Microsoft’s Ozzie on His Company’s Web Strategy” here. What I found interesting was this statement attributed to Mr. Ozzie who was commenting about the future of newspapers:
There is a new business model with anything that can be delivered digitally,” Ozzie said. “Look what’s happening with news. I’m not certain what the new business model really is but certainly the old business model is impacted … It’s not clear that as these new models come into play whether revenue or profit pool in a given industry is equivalent in the new world as in the old world. Could very well be that the business model is sound in that there is a business but not the size of the business. If journalism is something we care about we’re going to have to find new ways to subsidize that.”
Is Microsoft advocating the newspapers, like GM and Chrysler, be supported by the government via subsidies? Is he underscoring the hopelessness of the present newspaper companies?
The reference to business models interests me because Microsoft’s own business models seem to be sputtering. I wonder if Microsoft will jump into the news business and provide the much-needed cash infusion needed to keep traditional news operations heated in the winter and air conditioned in the summer.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Answering Questions: Three Semantic Hot Rods
May 2, 2009
Short honk: ReadWriteWeb.com published “The Robot Made Me Do It: Comparing Three new Cyborg Q&A Services” is a useful write up here. Marshall Kirkpatrick provides descriptions of Aardvark, Hunch, and Swingly. Each of these services uses sophisticated content processing methods to answer a question typed in a search box. My question: “How many users are able to type a suitable question in a search box?” Q&A technology has a great deal to contribute to search but, in my opinions, as plumbing. Worth downloading and tucking away.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Lousy Sales, Trust Your Search Engine Marketing Consultant
May 2, 2009
Short honk: Remarkable assumptions make this short article quite interesting. The title sets the stage: “Why It’s Important to Trust Your SEM Company in a Down Economy” here. The author Scott Buresh is a search engine marketing consultant, and he addresses an issue that struck me as counter intuitive – trust a marketer. Hmm. Not only is it important to trust a marketer in a lousy economy. You need leads. Do you use your network? Do you make phone calls? Nope, you trust your search engine marketing consultant. Mr. Buresh wrote:
It’s probably true for most businesses that there are fewer people actively searching for their products and services due to the economic climate. Companies reasonably approach this situation thinking, “Why should we pay the same amount in marketing that we’ve traditionally been paying when our current target market has shrunk?”
The points seems reasonable to me, but Mr Buresh has a different viewpoint:
Although the budget you allocate for a search engine marketing company and its services may be fixed, it’s likely that many of your competitors have lost their budgets, opening up the playing field and potentially allowing you to garner more of the business that’s still out there.
You get the idea. I don’t trust search engine marketers in a good economy. In a down economy, I put my billfold in my AMSEC safe and hide the key.
Stephen Arnold, May 2, 2009
Twitter Bashing
May 1, 2009
Short honk: If you hate Twitter, you will love this criticism of Twitter. It appeared on the MadAtoms.com Web log here. The author of “The Devolution of the Internet” by Farley Elliott is entertaining and insightful. Among the weaknesses of Twitter, Mr. Elliott highlighted:
… perhaps the most disgusting part of Twitter is it’s most basic: it is a chatroom. A quick check of the calendar reveals that it’s not 1995. Yet twitter allows in the same riffraff that early chatrooms attracted, but without any of the moderation, or the ability to spend more than 140 characters wording up trolls and goons.
A keeper for sure.
Stephen Arnold, April 30, 2009
Microsoft Has a Top Search Term. Google.
May 1, 2009
The Guardian dropped its Google voodoo doll and pins and picked up a story about Microsoft’s Live.com and the service’s most popular search term. The story ran in the dead tree outfit’s Web log, called PDA The Digital Blog, which is quite trendy and quite a mouthful. The title of the story is “Most Search Term on Microsoft’s Live Search is … Google”. You can read it here. The story, which I found somewhat hard to follow with odd comments such as “More after the jump” inserted in paragraphs in the middle of the text, provides a smattering of statistics and a reference to “a Live Search overhaul” later this spring also puzzled me. I found the write up interesting for two reasons:
First, many people use a default search engine as a portal. It is easier I have been told to type the name of the service in a search box than keying the full location in the browser’s address bar. With lots of Internet Explorers in front of people, it makes sense that a widely used search service like Google would be one of the top terms in any browser.
Second, the data displayed in the write up show (if indeed they are accurate) that only Microsoft is not a top destination on either Google or Yahoo top search listings. I would conclude that people will use Microsoft to go run their queries on other services. Not good news for Microsoft in my part of the goose pond.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
SearchMe Changes
May 1, 2009
SearchMe, http://www.searchme.com, promotes itself as “true, blended multimedia search.” You get video, images, music, web pages, Twitter results and more organized by relevance. It’s a visual slideshow interface, so you see a miniature web page instead of having to click through a link. Results returned for “Iron Chef Japan” varied, including a Flickr picture, a Yahoo! video, an About.com listing for Japanese food and the Fine Living channel profile of the show. Results for “NASA shuttle launch” were less impressive, returning the NASA home page, a CBS news article and a CNN news article, but no videos. I didn’t see any social media results on either search. The web site functions like Viewzi, which I talked about here, but doesn’t have the various entertaining display options. Searchme also has a best-selling iApp and is configured for several mobile platforms, which gives it a leg up on other visual search engines.
Jessica Bratcher, May 1, 2009
Web Site Search: More Confusion
May 1, 2009
Diane Sterling, e-Commerce Times, wrote a story that appeared in my newsreader as a MacNewsWorld.com story called “The Wide Open World of Web Site Search”.
. You can find the article here. The write up profiles briefly several search systems; namely:
- SLI systems here. I think of this company as providing a product that makes it easy to display items from a catalog, find indexed items, and buy a product. The company has added a number of features over the years to deliver facets, related searches, and suggestions. In my mind, the product shares some of the features of EasyAsk, Endeca, and Mercado (now owned by Omniture), among others.
- PicoSearch here is a hosted service, and I think of it as a vendor offering indexing in a way that resembles Blossom.com’s service (used on this Beyond Search Web log) or the “old” hosted service provided by Fast Search & Transfer prior to its acquisition by Microsoft. Google offers this type of search as well. Google’s Site Search makes it easy to plop a Google search box on almost any site, but the system does not handle structured content in the manner of SLI Systems, for example.
- LTU Technologies here. I first encountered LTU when it was demonstrating its image processing technology. The company has moved from its government and investigative focus to e-commerce. The company’s core competency, in my view, is image and video processing. The system can identify visual similarity. A customer looking at a red sweater will be given an opportunity to look at other jacket-type products. No human has to figure out the visual similarity.
Now the article is fine but I was baffled by the use of the phrase “Web site search”. The idea I think is to provide the user with a “finding experience” that goes beyond key word searching. On that count, SLI and LTU are good examples for e-commerce (online shopping). PicoSearch is an outlier because it offers a hosted text centric search solution.
Another issue is that the largest provider of site search is our good pal Googzilla. Google does not rate a mention, and I think that is a mistake. Not only does Google make it possible to search structured data but the company offers its Site Search service. More information about Site Search is here.
These types of round up articles, in my opinion, confuse those looking for search solutions. What’s the fix? I think the write up should have made the focus on e-commerce in the title of the article and probably early in the write up included the words “e-commerce search”. Second, I think the companies profiled should have been ones who deliver e-commerce search functions. None of the profiled companies have a big footprint in the site search world that I track. This does not mean that the companies don’t have beefy revenue or satisfied customers. I think that the selection is off by 15 degrees and a bit of a fruit salad, not a plate of carrots.
Why do I care?
There is considerable confusion about search. There are significant differences between a search system for a text centric site and a search system for a structured information site such as an e-commerce site. One could argue that Endeca is a leader in e-commerce. That’s fine but most people don’t know this side of Endeca. The omission is confusing. The result, in my experience, is that the reader is confused. The procurement team is confused. And competitors are confused. Search is tough enough without having the worlds of image, text, and structured data scrambled unnecessarily.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
