Search and Hyperbole: Even the SEO Crowd Is Jaded
April 25, 2009
You must read Dan Sullivan’s “How to Overhype Your Search Engine” here. The title is not in line with the story as I interpreted it, but it includes two hot words: “overhype” and “search engine”. The author explains the basic public relations steps to get coverage of a Web search system. If you want a checklist of what you want Bryce or Buffy to do, follow Mr. Sullivan’s checklist. The second part of the essay tackles “over hyperbole” (is that a bound phrase?) and seems to get into more subjective aspects of search; for example, “stealth”. If a search engine is in stealth, no one should know it is there. Therefore, a “stealth search engine” by definition is a poorly kept secret in my addled goose view. The beef in the essay is broiled for the search engine developed by a real live math guy, Dr. Stephen Wolfram here. Dr. Wolfram fares slightly better than Microsoft, a company that is almost too easy to make a case study for unsuccessful search management.
My take on this essay is the following:
- Search hyperbole is now part of the landscape. The claims and assertion that a specific system will revolutionize search or “kill Google” is tiresome. In certain parts of the world, “killing Google” is going to be difficult. In Denmark, for example, more than 90 percent of referral traffic comes from Google based on my examination of a number of high traffic sites Web logs.
- Mr. Sullivan notes that Google is an exception. I am not sure that I line up on his side of the gymnasium. Google faces some challenges in China, Korea, and Russia. Each country has a dominant search engine and Google is working to gain traction. So, there are three or four examples of successful Web search systems, not one. A thorough study of the business models and technology of Baidu.com, Naver.com, Yandex.com, and probably some about which I have no knowledge are indeed “out there” and doing reasonably well. Google is an exception, but its approach to search is based on a combination of methods that work reasonably well, but Google’s secret sauce is its platform’s ability to scale at a relatively reasonable cost and handle petabyte flows of data. The search is a combination of what’s popular with some clever math added to season the pudding.
- Over the years, one of the principal venues for introducing Web search systems have been search engine optimization conferences. I may be mistaken, but Mr. Sullivan has been involved in the two highest profile SEO conferences, which are in my opinion, platforms for incredible claims and marketing that reminded me of some consumer product trade shows.
Three search engines doing quite well and keep Google at bay.
My conclusion is that substantive discussion of search and content processing is now quite difficult. Everyone is an expert. Even search systems with clever technology must position themselves as software that does everything. When the SEO guru identifies too much hyperbole as a problem, I am convinced that not only does a problem exist but it is too late to make substantive improvement. In short, hyperbole is more important than what a search system actually does.
Stephen Arnold, April 25, 2009
Demographics and Their Search Implications: Breathing Room for Online Dinosaurs
April 25, 2009
ReadWriteWeb.com’s “The Technology Generation Gap at Work is Oh So Wide” pointed to a study that I had heard about but not seen. A happy quack to RW2 for the link the the LexisNexis results here. RW2 does a good job of summarizing the highlights of the research, conducted for this unit of Reed Elsevier, the Anglo Dutch giant that provides access to the US legal content in its for fee service. You can read Sarah Perez’s summary here.
I wanted to add three observations that diverge from the RW2 report and are indirectly referenced in the WorldOne Research 47 page distillation of the survey data and accompanying analysis. Keep in mind that the research is now about nine months old and aimed at a sample of those involved in the world’s most honorable profession, lawyering.
First, the demographics are bad news for the for fee vendors of online information. As each cohort makes it way from the Wii to the iPhone, the monetization methods, the expectations of the users, and the content forms themselves must be set up to morph without paying humans to fiddle.
Second, as I zoomed through the data, I came away convinced that lawyers’ perception of technology and mine are different. As a result, I think the level of sophistication in this sample is low compared to that of the goslings swimming in my pond filled with mine run off water. The notion that lawyers who are younger are more technologically adept may be little more than an awareness of the iPhone, not next generation text and content processing systems.
Third, the overall direction of the survey and the results themselves make it clear that it will be a while before the traditional legal information sources are replaced by a gussied up Google Uncle Sam, but it will happen.
My conclusion is that LexisNexis got the reassurance it wanted from these data. Is that confidence warranted as law firms furlough or rationalize staff, face clients who put caps on certain expenses, and look at the lower cost legal services available in the land of outsourcing, India.
Stephen Arnold, April 25, 2009
Digitizing Medical Records
April 24, 2009
Business Week’s “The Mad Dash to Digitize Medical Records” here by Chad Terhune, et al is interesting. The business publication points to the money that the Obama administration will attempt to make available for “health” gets pride of place in the article. The reporters then leave the money to summarize some of the challenges digitizing things medical face, what Business Week calls “red flags”. There’s a nod to “pharmacy errors”, issues with correcting problems, and product testing. In short, the article gathers up issues and provides quotes to make the point that digitizing medical records is going to be exciting.
Let’s step back. Digitizing any data is challenging and fraught with problems. The medical information wagon train is beginning to roll because:
- Information processes cost a great deal of money
- The giants of technology are on the trail of a big thing; for example, Google, Microsoft, Siemens, and others from insurance, hospital holding companies, and Tom the plumber who can program in perl
- There is Obama money.
What’s the future look like? I think medical information in general and patient records in particular will be in a state of confusion for quite a while. The fact that big companies are signing up partners and moving forward with individual agendas dictating the actions guarantees challenges.
At some point, the options begin to coalesce, not because of a single reason but that’s the way online information works. Many different activities and then a hybridization that leaves us with two or three ways to achieve an outcome. Microsoft has demonstrated this hybridization with its dominance of the desktop. Google has demonstrated its hybridization in Web search.
Medical information will be a bit different because people can die. So the stakes become quite a bit higher from the outset than those stakes were when MS DOS was rolled out or when Google indexed public Web sites and made the index available without charge to anyone with an Internet hook up.
The story of medical records, medical information, evidence based medicine, and related informatics issues makes this a big deal. Did I mention the government? Lots of regulations. Did I mention national self interest? Some nations are definitely into medical information. Did I mention the money? There’s a lot of money in health and medical plays. Business Week explains the problems, and I suppose the regulations, the interests of certain nations, and money are self evident truths. Game changing interaction on the horizon is my take on this subject.
Stephen Arnold, April 24, 2009
Say One Thing, Do Another with Google Online
April 24, 2009
The Guardian, a UK newspaper publisher and diversified information company, reported here that “Conservatives to Buy Google Keyword Ads in Live Rebuttal’ of Budget Speech.” The Guardian reported that some politicos are okay with criticism but shovel money into Google’s advertising programs. The newspapers write up underscores the utility of the GOOG. If the politicos get the desired results, my thought is that Google will have some UK officials who see the positives that result from using Google services.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Google Local Push in Australia
April 24, 2009
I don’t care too much for print directories. The Google has a formidable directory initiative. I found the story in The Standard here interesting. Kathryn Edwards’ “Google to Boost Local Businesses with AdWords Offer” here wrote:
Google Australia Wednesday announced it will offer a free A$75 (US$53) search marketing campaign to help more than one million Australian small and medium businesses. According to the search engine giant, more Australians than ever before are researching products and services online, before venturing into a shop, with Monash University research showing that this trend makes up 50 per cent of Australian shoppers.
Google is offering a helping hand to get businesses to shift into a higher gear for online marketing. Will this type of booster program find its way elsewhere. If the Australian program takes off, the Google may become the de facto online information source for small and mid sized businesses. Bad news for print directory businesses.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Sun Google Security Support
April 24, 2009
Now that Sun Microsystems has been rescued by Oracle, the news about Sun’s tailoring some of its security services to support Google Apps slipped into the media stream. Sun has tweaked its identity services so that it plays more nicely with MySQL. You can read more detail here in “Sun Ties Identity Software to Google Apps Premier, Amazon Cloud Platform” in Network World here. Sun’s support for Amazon’s cloud services hedges Sun’s bets. My view is that tension will rise between Oracle, Sun Microsystems’ and Google once the honeymoon ends. My research suggests that Google will be pulled deeper into0 enterprise data management. I don’t think the Googlers will be able to pass up an opportunity for more enterprise revenue.
Stephen Arnold, April 24, 2009
Google Korea Gets Spicy
April 24, 2009
Asia Media here ran an interesting story. The title was “Google Korea Head Blasts Real-Name Requirement”. The publication reported:
The country has obliged Internet users to make verifiable real-name registrations to post comments on Web sites with more than 100,000 daily visitors since April. Google, which is reluctant to bend its principles only for Korea and set a precedent that might affect its business in other countries, chose to avoid the requirements by disabling users from uploading videos and comments on the Korean language site of YouTube (kr.youtube.com), its online video service. However, since the changes are only applied to YouTube’s Korean sites, users could easily upload content by setting their country preference to other countries. This has clearly miffed the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), the country’s broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, with KCC chairman Choi See-joong threatening a review of whether Google is violating the local law with its YouTube decision.
Is Google getting annoyed that mere governments are putting Googzilla traps in the company’s path? My view is that this incident may indicate an increase in the temperature within the Google pressure cooker. What will happen when the torrents issue pops up in Europe? I think there will be more activity as Google’s desires bump into nation states’ desires.
Jean de la Fontaine allegedly said, ““Everyone believes very easily whatever they fear or desire.” I think beliefs are colliding, not technology.
Stephen Arnold, April 25, 2009
Microsoft and Alleged Anti Competitive Actions
April 23, 2009
Slashdot pointed to this European Commission document that contains some interesting information about Microsoft’s alleged anti competitive behavior. You can download the PDF file here. The Slashdot item is here. I don’t know much about anti competitive behavior, but I do know about anti goose behavior. Download the document. Read it. Make up your own mind. A group invested significant time to assemble this 33 page document with some blistering prose.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Google and Media: iBreakfast Synopsis
April 23, 2009
Editor’s Note: I gave a short talk at the iBreakfast meeting on April 23, 2009. The organizer—Alan Brody—asked me to prepare a short write up for the audience. I did not have much time, so I pulled together some text from my new book, Google: The Digital Gutenberg plus some information I had in my files. Here is the rough draft of the write up I provided Mr. Brody. Keep in mind that I will be making changes to this text and may be changing some of the examples and wording. Constructive criticism is invited.
“Google is best known as a Web search vendor and an online advertising system. Google as a publisher is a new concept. How many of you know about the financial problems facing newspapers?
It may surprise you to know that Google offers a number of revenue generating opportunities to publishers. These can be as simple as the AdSense program. A publisher displays Google-provided advertisements on a publisher’s Web site. When a visitor clicks on an ad, the publisher receives a share of the revenue. A rough rule of thumb is that every 250,000 unique visitor clicks per months translates into about $200,000 in revenue. Over the course of a year, the Web site yields as much or more than $2.0 million in revenue to the Web site owner. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Another opportunity is for a partner to organize video content, take responsibility for selling the ads, and using the Google system to make the content findable. Google also handles the delivery of the content and the monetizing. The partner who uses Google as a back office can negotiate revenue splits with Google. This is a relatively new initiative at Google and disclosed in a Google patent document. (US2008/0275763 “Monetization of Digital Content Contributions”.)
But there’s more to Google than AdSense and ways for innovative content providers to make money. Much more.
I want to run through some public facing content services and provide a somewhat different observation platform for you to look at Google and the opportunities it offers those who see a potential pot of gold in Mountain View.
First, Web logs. There are more than 100 million of these “diary” or “blog” publications. Some are commercial grade; for example, TechMeme. Others are ephemera and rarely updated. Google publishes more than 70 Web logs about itself. Google owns Blogger.com. Google operates a blog search service. Google has made it possible to hook blogs into Google’s Web page service Google Sites, which is a commercial grade online publishing system.
Second, Knols. A Knol is a unit of knowledge. More practically, Knol is an encyclopedia. Articles are contributed by people with knowledge about a subject. The Knol publishing system borrows from the JotSpot engine purchased by Google from Joe Kraus, the founder of the old Excite.com service. Knols can hook into other Google services such as YouTube.com and Google’s applications.
Third, Google Books. Books is the focus of considerable controversy. What I want to point out is that if you navigate to the Books site and click on a magazine cover, Google has created a very useful reference service. You can browse the table of contents for a magazine and see the locations on a map when a story identifies a place.
Finally, directories. Google operates a robust directory service. It has a content intake system which makes it easy for a person to create a company listing, add rich media, and generate a coupon. If you are in the Yellow Pages business, the Google Local service seems to be encroaching. In today’s wireless world, Google Local could become the next Yellow Pages 21st century style. Here’s a representative input form. Clean, simple, easy. Are you listed?
The White House has gone Googley as well. Recovery.gov makes use of Google’s search and other technology to some degree. The White House uses Google Apps to accept questions and comments for the president. Google’s communications tools appear to be playing an important role in the Obama White House.
What’s been happening since the Google initial public offering in 2004 has been a systematic build out of functions. The core of Google is search and advertising. But the company has been adding industrial-strength functions at a rapid clip. The pace has put increasing pressure on the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo, not just in search but in mindshare.
The challenge Google represents to newspapers in particular and to traditional media in general is an old story. When Gutenberg “invented” printing (at least in the eyes of my Euro-centric history teachers), scribes were put out of work. New jobs were created but the dislocation for those skilled with hand copying was severe. Then the Industrial Revolution changed cottage industries because economies of scale relegate handwork to specialists who served the luxury market. Another dislocation. Google is a type of large scale disruptor. Google, however, is not the cause of the disruption. Google is the poster child of larger changes made possible by technology, infrastructure, and user demands.
Here’s a representation of how one created a newspaper from the early 17th century to roughly 1993, when the Web gained traction. Notice that there are nine steps. Time, cost, and inefficiency are evident. Now here’s a depiction of the Google Local or the Google Blogger.com service. Two steps. Disruption is inevitable, and it will be painful for those unable to adapt. For some, yesterday’s jobs and income levels are no longer possible. This is a serious problem, but Google did not cause it. Google, as I said in my 2005 monograph The Google Legacy, is a company skilled at applying technology in clever ways. Google doesn’t invent in the Eureka! myth. Google is more like Thomas Edison, an inspired tinkerer, a person who combines ideas until one clicks. That’s the reason for Google’s beta tests and stream of test products and services.
Google applies its technology to work around the inefficiency of humans. When I worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton, then at 245 Park Avenue in the old American Brands Building, I spent my days, nights, and weekends preparing reports. Here’s a figure from Google patent document US: 2007/0198481.
Google continues to push products and services into different business sectors. These waves can be disruptive and often the cause of surprising reactions. A good example is the Associated Press’s view that Google is the cause of problems in daily newspapers. The AP overlooks Craigslist.org, questionable management practices, the rising cost of traditional printing and distribution. Google is successful; therefore, Google is the cause. Its technology is the root of the present financial evil at the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Detroit News.
What Google represents is a platform. For those who choose to ignore Google, the risk is similar to that of the people under this rock. If the rock moves, the people will have little time to move to safety.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Google Base Tip
April 23, 2009
Google Base is not widely known among the suits who prowl up and down Madison Avenue. For those who are familiar with Google Base, the system is a portent of Googzilla’s data management capabilities. You can explore the system here. Ryan Frank’s “Optimizing Your Google Base Feeds” here provides some some useful information for those who have discovered that Google Base is a tool for Google employment ads, real estate, and other types of structured information. Mr. Frank wrote:
It is also important to note that Google Base uses the information from Base listings for more than just Google OneBox results. This data may also be displayed in Google Product Search (previously Froogle), organic search results, Google Maps, Google Image Search and more. That adds up to a variety of exposure your site could potentially receive from a single Google Base listing.
Interesting, right? Read the rest of his post for some useful information about this Google service.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
