Twitter Search Fail
March 17, 2009
For Twitter bashers, here’s a post for your collection. Navigate to BusinessInsider here and read “Twitter Search Not All That Useful at #SXSW”. For me the most interesting comment was:
But the #sxsw problem raises an interesting issue for real time search: If the firehose of information is already unmanageable, how will anyone make sense of anything if Twitter becomes as big as Facebook? Interestingly, both Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT) have recently dismissed the idea of incorporating real time search into their offerings.
Yep, sounds a bit like the dead tree publishing crowd explaining that online was a trivial technology. Might be an opportunity for those less eager to dismiss real time text flows in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, March 17, 2009
Subsidies: One Way to Save Dead Tree Outfits
March 17, 2009
Patricians deserve subsidies. After centuries as patrons and arbiter of taste, now publishers have hit upon a sure fire way to generate revenues–subsidies. The TechDirt article “Content Companies Demand Subsidies from ISPs… While ISPs Demand Subsidies from Content Companies” caught my attention. You must read the story here. The point is that content companies want those in the digital food chain to pay them. Those in the digital food chain want the content companies to pay them. Is this a stalemate. I found this comment interesting:
The ISPs think that it’s the network that is the most important thing, and the content providers should be paying their way to use it. Meanwhile, the content companies think that it’s their content that makes the networks valuable, so the ISPs should be paying extra to offer their content. In reality, they’re both wrong.
I am not sure Internet service providers are off base. If I put my content on a third party system, I expect to pay for that service. I am a publishers of the lowest order, but I pay a couple of ISPs. I don’t have a problem with that. The notion that an ISP should pay a content provider to provide a service for the content provider rubs me the wrong way. When I pay, I have control. Subsidies for content providers are little more than vanity plays in my opinion. If I pay someone who writes for me, I own the content. I don’t expect anyone to subsidize me. Third parties can buy my time or pay me for a report, but I am not comfortable with a subsidy and those who want subsidies strike me as an order of entitlement diptera.
Stephen Arnold,
Voice Web Sites: New Frontier for Search
March 16, 2009
The Economic Times (India) reported that IBM has developed a technology for voice only Web sites. The story “IBM Develops a Technology That Will Allow Users to Talk to Web” here reported:
“People will talk to the web and the web will respond. The research technology is analogous to the Internet. Unlike personal computers it will work on mobile phones where people can simply create their voice sites,” IBM India Research Laboratory Associate Director Manish Gupta said.
The notion of a spoken Web in interesting. The question I have is, “What technology will one use to search these sites?” I find that as I age, certain frequencies become difficult for me to hear and certain speech patterns become unparseable for me. Has IBM a breakthrough technology to address the challenges of searching voice only Web sites?
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
Google OS: Nightmare in Redmond
March 16, 2009
ComputerWorld’s Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reported here “Google OS Will Be on Netbooks by Year’s End”. Google has insisted that it does not have a Google operating system. I believed what I was told and used the phrase “Google operating environment.” Now it seems that I was dead wrong, if Mr. Vaughan-Nichols’ report is accurate. He wrote:
I predict that by December [2009], we’ll see not only Asus selling Android-based netbooks, but at least a half-dozen other vendors doing so as well. In bad times, businesses have to be smart, and Android on netbooks is a smart move indeed.
Google, of course, remains inscrutable. The company provides the Lego blocks. Google lets others in the playroom build whatever they want. A Google OS would add to Microsoft’s revenue concerns. If this ComputerWorld report is on the money, a nightmare in Redmond may await–low cost, search, contextualized ads, and good enough software with the cloud as a big fluffy cushion.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
A Look Inside a Search System
March 16, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me three links to posts by Vic Cherubini. Much of the detail will not be of interest to non tech readers, but I think a quick look at these three articles will provide a useful window into the complexities of search. Keep in mind that there are some trophy generation consultants running around saying, “Search is easy. Search is stable.” Baloney. Baloney. Baloney. Don’t believe me. Navigate to these posts and scan them:
- On Building an Efficient, Indexed Search Engine With a Word Proximity Algorithm here
- On Building an Efficient Search Indexer here
- Update: On Building an Efficient Search Indexer here.
These write ups make clear the effort required to avoid bottlenecks in essential components of a search system. Keep in mind that more complex systems require intricate ballets of numerical recipes, memory, and storage devices. Still think search is simple? The minor error Mr. Cherubini handles in a professional way is probably one that only a small number of Beyond Search readers would recognize and know how to remediate. Simple, right? Beware consultants manufacturing baloney from ignorance, please.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
Microsoft and Pirated Windows
March 15, 2009
I saw a link to Dan Hong’s “Microsoft Pardons Users of Pirated Windows: Defrauded Customers May Be Eligible for Free Windows XP Pro, but with Some Strings Attached” and wondered, “Is this a kinder, gentler Microsoft?” You can read the story here. Some youngsters and young at heart oldsters see piracy, which is theft, as A OK. According to Mr. Hong, “Microsoft is offering users a chance to redeem themselves for having purchased—unwittingly—computers or software containing counterfeit versions of the Windows XP operating system. All customers have to do is turn in the alleged perpetrators.” The offer is valid through July 30, 2009. If true, I find this interesting. Presumably Microsoft has worked out a method for determining which reports are valid and which are spoofs. I assume that those falsely accused may express some concern about the approach. Lawyers working on this project for Microsoft are probably quite happy with the program.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
New York Times: Groping for Cash, Heading for a Crash
March 15, 2009
Here we go again. I read “New York Times Mulls Online Subscription Fee” in Silicon Alley Insider” here. Mr.. Blodget offers some ideas. In than rolling out what did not work before, the Times needs new ideas. The financial crisis has not passed. I am subscriber, and I see the paper becoming a secondary source for me. I rely on Amazon for book reviews. The stories in the paper turn up in my newsreader 24 hours before my hard copy arrives. I no longer pay much attention to the magazine section. The wacky design annoys me. Mr.. Blodget was correct when he wrote:
An incremental $50-$75 million a year will buy the company more time to sell assets, restructure its business, and pacify its creditors, but it won’t save the place. The only way to do that, in our opinion, is to radically cut costs.
Nuclear winter arrives and settles in.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
Search Roll Up with CMS and eDiscovery
March 14, 2009
Two roads once diverged in a yellow wood. Now three roads merge into one muddy path. Why? Read on.
I read Barb Mosher’s “The Converging Paths of Search, eDiscovery and Enterprise CMS” here. My first pass through the article was swift. Then I went back through the write up thought about the Autonomy approach to growth: acquisitions, most recently in the eDiscovery sector. The article tackles end to end plays practiced by Open Text. The conclusion stressed that convergence is the path forward. On the surface, this view is supported by received wisdom and the actions of some high profile companies.
My view is somewhat different. First, I think search for some companies is indeed a dead end. The search technology is growing long in the tooth, and companies looking for solutions want to try newer approaches. One example is Google’s success with its Google Search Appliance, a system that certain large vendors find easy to criticize. The system may be simplistic, but the GOOG provides a potent way to make the GSA sit up and roll over. Furthermore, with about 25,000 appliances sold, the GOOG is the largest vendor of search solutions in the world. Other systems with newer technology that some big name vendors are selling in a lousy economy at a steady pace; for example, Coveo, Exalead, and ISYS Search Software.
Putting search, content management and eDiscovery in one system means a miserable path forward for the organization taking such an approach.
So what do big guys with no organic do to grow? Answer: buy promising opportunities. The fuel behind some of the acquisition activity is an inability to grow within a core market in an organic way. A short cut is needed. With some PR spin and a boatload of journalists looking for an angle, the notion of convergence gets a new lease on life.
Enterprise software is a complicated business. No company wants to have one system handle multiple tasks. The complexity of information and the context for certain content functions requires some granularity.
Searching for People
March 14, 2009
I ran across a useful summary of sources of information about people. The write up was the work of JR Raphael, and the story “People Search Engines: The Newest Web Privacy Threat” here. Mr. Raphael runs through some vertical search systems, providing tips to get useful results. The write up about Spokeo was useful. He mentioned one site with which I was not familiar, Rapleaf. His conclusion reminds the reader to be aware of what information is available. I downloaded and saved the story. Unfortunately, the publisher–an outfit called PCAdvisor–cluttered the pages with pop ups and annoying advertisements which made it a chore to read a useful article. I don’t think PCAdvisor is going to win me as a loyal reader with baloney getting in the way of the sirloin in its write ups. Too bad.
Stephen Arnold, March 14, 2009
Web Search Scoreboard
March 14, 2009
I got a lot of grief at a conference last year when I said, “Google has won the search game.” The conference organizer was annoyed because sponsors don’t want to hear that their money was wasted. Too bad. The stats about market share have understated Google’s dominance of Web search. I have seen data that pegs Google’s share at 80 percent and higher as long as 18 months ago. Believe me. The source of the data was solid and based on counts, not samples. Well, now the samples are reporting that the GOOG’s market share is in the 60 to 70 percent range. Imagine my surprise when I read ” Microsoft U.S. Search Share Hits 12-Month Low” here. The angle is not that Google has won. ComputerWorld’s approach was that Microsoft has not just lost share but Microsoft is falling further behind despite its effort to close the gap. The ComputerWorld story supports my assertion that Google has won. Game over. Search is a digital service that is a natural monopoly. What’s amazing is that Microsoft thinks it can gain traction by buying or integrating Yahoo’s search service. In my opinion, Google will continue to operate like a giant magnet, pulling traffic to itself. A leapfrog play is needed, not a me too play.
Stephen Arnold, March 14, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
