Newspaper Death Wish
February 28, 2009
Owen Thomas’ “Here’s Hoping Google Does Kill the Newspapers” here is a mix of good news and bad news. The good news is that different communication and distribution methods are breaking free of the constraints of the dead tree crowd. For one, his analysis makes it clear that electronic Gutenbergs like Google News do a better job for me and probably many other geese paddling in the data flow. The bad news is that Google is not the prime mover. I don’t disagree with Mr. Thomas’ analysis. For me, the most interesting comment in the article was:
Unlike the record industry, though, which for a good couple of decades had an enormously successful distribution medium in the CD, the newspapers have never come up with an electronic version of the news that is at once profitable for them and popular with consumers. Their Web sites are at once too large to shut down and too small to sustain them. The only newspapers seriously considering pay-to-read schemes are also-ran operations like Newsday. The right answer is embracing new sources of traffic (and hence revenue) like Google News — not shutting them off.
My view is that Google is the poster child–maybe poster Googzilla–for a shift between the “old” serial approach to information epitomized by the traditional publishing and media operations and the “new”–the digital Gutenberg that has emerged slowly at first and now, like an energetic two year old, is pushing and probing everything in its environment.
No, Google is not the cause. Google is just one example of the types of organizations that are transforming many sectors of the information world. I don’t think Google has what it takes to respond to the new products and services that are now squirming and wriggling on the periphery of its sprawling barony. Google, for example, is a corporate “customer” of Twitter. Google is not Twitter. I’m not sure Google has the moxie to acquire Twitter, which is a sign of ageing. Just as a professional athlete finds recovery taking longer and longer after a hard match, Google just can’t act with its old agility.
Change is upon us. Google is not the cause, nor is Google the bad Googzilla. Google is a metaphor for more change. The key point in my mind is that traditional media companies continue to demonstrate that it is easier to quit than change. Cancel a conference. Publish less frequently. Close the doors and turn off the lights.
Change is coming, and it will be upon us quickly. Google is easy to see. The newcomers are not so easy to spot but the newcomers are coming.
Stephen Arnold, February 28, 2009
Register Reports Microsoft Cloud Database Plan
February 28, 2009
SQL Server comes with a search function. SQL Server also is the muscle behind some of SharePoint’s magic. With the move to the cloud, Microsoft’s database plans have been a bit of a mystery to me. The Register provided some useful information and commentary about SQL Server in “Microsoft Cloud to Get ‘Full’ SQL Server Soon?” here. The Register reported that Microsoft may offer two different data storage options. Details are murky but Microsoft seems content to offer multiple versions of Vista. SharePoint comes in different flavors. Microsoft offers a number of search options. I find it difficult to figure out what’s available and what features are available in these splinter products. If the Register was right, then the same consumer product strategy used for shampoo and soup may be coming to the cloud. I find multiple variants of one product confusing, but I am definitely an old goose, somewhat uncomfortable in the hip new world of branding and product segmentation.
Stephen Arnold, February 28, 2009
Social Media Experts Who Don’t Use Social Media
February 28, 2009
Earlier today someone took exception to my use of the post Civil War buzzword “carpetbagger.” I remember my great great grandmother using the word when I was young. I loved the word then and I want to keep it fresh. The word came to mind when I read Tom Foremski’s “Can You Advise about Social Media If You Don’t Use It?” here. Mr. Foremski in a nice and gentle way explores an instance of a public relations professional advising clients about Facebook and Twitter without using these services. Mr. Foremski said, “There was no sense in continuing that conversation because her position is nonsense, imho.” Yep, Mr. Foremski provides another example of a consultant who is, in my opinion, practicing the century old craft of carpetbagging. How widespread is this? As the economy heads south, I see more and more “experts” embracing the world’s second oldest profession–consulting. I must admit that I earn my living as a consultant. I may be an addled goose, but I am not silly enough to profess to understand something I don’t use. You won’t get much advice from me about social media. For that, chase down one of the new age carpetbaggers.
Stephen Arnold, February 28, 2009
Dorthy.com Search: Somewhere near a Rainbow There Is a Pot of Gold
February 28, 2009
Another Google killer is moving from the lab to my laptop. The new search system is called Dorthy, and it makes use of whizzy new technology. I haven’t seen the system in action, but the write up in eWeek here presents an interesting description of the system. Among the points I noted were:
- NLP and semantics
- User asks a question as opposed to typing a key word or two or picking a topic from a list
- An online community angle.
Sounds tasty. In my experience, there may be one or two sticking points. First, users seem to be willing to type two or two and a half words to get information, but an increasing number are happy to let the system display a list of choices. Google’s engineers have disclosed “I’m feeling doubly lucky.” The system “knows” what the user is likely to want and presents the results. No search required.
Second, the natural language processing and semantic engines are not new. In fact, most search systems incorporate some type of smart software, semantic plumbing, and even a touch of NLP. You can give these systems a whirl by navigating to Ask.com, Hakia.com, and, yes, even Googzilla itself.
When I get a chance to play with the system, I will provide more information. What interested me is that I just wrote about a silly assertion that search is stable and features are dropping away like feathers from a molting parakeet. What do you know? Another new search engine with three hot features. My hunch is that Dorthy.com is more in touch with the times than the naïf who sees search as simple, stable, and a been there-done that technology.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Google News: Nails in the Dead Tree Coffin
February 27, 2009
Short item. Painful to dead tree publishers. Reported in Search Engine Roundtable here: “Google News Adds over 20,000 News Sources.” The SER writer asks, “Does quality suffer?” Answer: No, it becomes easier for an analyst to identify anomalies. Save the next Sunday hard copy newspaper if one of the wizards of journalism runs this story. Probably will be a memento or even a collector’s item. Thonk. Thonk. Thonk. Know what that onomatopoeia means? It’s the sound of Googzilla pounding nails into the dead tree sector’s coffin in my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Defining Social with Usage Data
February 27, 2009
Jim Zemlin’s “Facebook’s In House Sociologist Shares Stats on Users’ Social Behavior” here sheds some light on what makes Facebookers tick. As with any statistical summary, one must consider the margin of error, the sampling method, and the selectivity one brings to the presentation to data. In short, these data are not definitive, just suggestive. Nevertheless, several items bounded from the page to splash in the mine run off pond where the addled goose paddles.
First, these data substantiate what I dug out in 1999 when I poked into the behavior of engineers and scientists who used bulletin board systems. Not Facebook and Twitter grade technology, but close enough for this Web log comment. In short, in 1999 those who used the fledgling social systems did to reach a relatively small number of “friends”. What did the Facebook data suggest? The article said, “…while many people have hundreds friends on Facebook, they still only communicate with a small few. Or to quote the author of the article, “Humans may be advertising themselves more efficiently. But they still have the same small circles of intimacy as ever.” This is good news for investigatorial types because skills learned in the real world may transfer to monitoring social behaviors. Where there are clicks, there will be connections especially over time.
Second, photos are a big deal. The Facebook function that notifies a friend when a new pix is on a watched person’s page is a key driver of interaction. I am fascinated by this finding because the visual hook sets deep, lasts, and really pulls attention. I think there are some interesting ways to make use of this finding, but I am sure the trophy generation wizards are busy inventing new Facebook and Flickr services to exploit this chink in the users’ armor.
Third–and this is quite magnetizing for me–users of social networks are in “broadcast” mode. As the article said, “People who are members of online social networks are not so much ‘networking’ as they are ‘broadcasting their lives to an outer tier of acquaintances…” The idea of one way messaging–microcasting–provides some predictive worms upon which this addled goose can chew.
More Facebook data, please.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Twitter Use… Rewires the Brain
February 27, 2009
I think the Daily Mail is one of the London newspapers able to mix serious news, football coverage, and zippy headlines with aplomb. The article “Social Web Sites Harm Children’s Brains: Chilling Warning to Parents from Top Neuroscientist” here reminded me that I am not the only addled goose waddling around the mine run off pond. The article said, “Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively ‘rewire’ the brain.” For me, the most interesting comment was:
My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.
The Times (London) ran a story with the headline “Canadians Can Read Your Mind” here. This article reports an 80 percent hit rate for technology that works like your mom when you had something to hide.
Now juxtapose what the Baroness said with the Canadian mind reading “thingy” and what does the addled goose conclude? Search by thinking. No more keying queries. The Twitter rewiring and the Maple Leaf gizmo deliver what today’s users want. Information delivered like baby food for the brain.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Google: Market Share Up, Market Share Down
February 27, 2009
I don’t know if comScore is right or wrong. Figure a plus or minus 10 percent. The data reported in the stats section of ZDNet Web logs here said Google had a 77 percent market share in December 2008. Slap on the 10 percent and I get a range of 67 to 87 percent market share. Pretty good but Microsoft and Yahoo could be seen as nibbling away at Google’s lead. Is Google the top dog? Is Google losing ground to challengers?
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
When Search Bites Your Ankle
February 27, 2009
Search means Google. I suppose one can be generous and include Live.com and Yahoo.com search in the basket even though search is, for most people, Google. When I read “Malware Tricking Search Engines, and You Too” here, I auto inserted Google whether or not the author wanted me to. The point of the write up is that bad nerds figured out a way to spoof Facebook users, for example. This is a bit like snookering the seven year old neighbor’s kid at Halloween in my opinion. The idea is that
if you Googled “Error Check System” you were pushed links to malware-infested sites. The recent GMail outage produced a similar problem; Googling “Gmail Down” got you lots of malware.
My question is, “Where does the responsibility rest?” Is the operating system outfit responsible? Is the search vendor responsible? Is the Web site responsible? For me, the most interesting comment in the story was this stunner:
the end result was to push rogue anti-malware to the user. This really does seem to the star of the malware world in that it directly brings in money.
Two comments: Maybe the author would like to have a malware Oscar like award for this “star of the malware world.” And, yep, make the user responsible. Most computing device users really know what’s what with their systems. Great idea. The buck stops where? At my 84 year old father. Right. He’s able to spot malware just fine. I bet he does this as well as your mother and father do.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Search Market Stabilizing: Beam Me Up, Scotty
February 27, 2009
A happy quack to the reader in the UK who sent me a link to a quite remarkable story by Phil Muncaster. The title? “Enterprise Search Market Stabilising” here. The article is a rewrite of a news release about another wizardly view of the market for search in an organization. You will want to read the write up yourself to see how public relations and dead tree media interact to create what in my opinion is a silly view of the market for search and content processing systems. The article asserted:
As part of our Cross-Check analysis, we noted that enterprise search vendors have spent much of the past year digesting acquisitions and stabilising their offerings,” wrote CMS Watch … in a blog post. It is perhaps a sign of the times that vendors are debuting fewer new features, and focused more on stabilising their current offering, selling smarter, and keeping customers happy.
Whoa, Nelly! Google sales professionals assert, “Search is easy.” Now the Google Search Appliance does make deployment and basic searching as easy as 1-2-3. Customizing, hardening, and deploying a redundant system is closer to working through Zeta function math, not counting kindergarten operations.
Yep, search is stable. Search vendors are no longer introducing new features. Wrong. Search is volatile and vendors are pushing new features and functions into the market in order to build sizzle and keep customers from defecting to “the other guy”. Image source: http://gallery.art4heart.info/data/media/1/Time_confusion.jpg
What’s going on in this write up is a misreading of the present search sector. Twitter search is the sector leader in real time search. Google has been unwilling or unable to respond. Now organizations are getting interested in real time search. New? Yes. Destabilizing? You bet. Volatile? Absolutely. And new players are coming on the scene with the regularity of box cars clanking down the tracks down by the mine run off ditch.
As an addled goose, I will tell you that I don’t know what a cross check analysis is. Cross check how? Cross check what? This sounds like an azure chip consultant play to simplify a complex situation that is only partially understood. In my opinion, simplification of search is a task only one unfamiliar with search, content processing, and text analysis would undertake. How complicated is search right now? Consider these factoids:
- IBM has multiple search initiatives as well as partners. The company has a non presence in search yet search is a key component from DB2 to the WebSphere system. What’s this mean? Beats me. I know one thing. IBM has something afoot, and based on my long experience with Big Blue, the company is convoluted in its approach to hot solution sectors. Yep, this is a simple approach to search.
- Autonomy has acquired Interwoven for $770 million. The deal disrupts the eDiscovery market which is already spinning with the Guidance fumble. That company used its own system and failed to “find” documents in its own eDiscovery process. With a search vendor spending the equivalent of its annual turnover for a content management company in the eDiscovery business is exciting. But add to that fact that eDiscovery systems flopped when Guidance couldn’t make its own system work and you have a bit of wobbly in my opinion. Seems complicated to me in terms of what Autonomy will do with Interwoven. Seems complicated to me in terms of the relationship of general search with more specialized stuff like eDiscovery. Muff the bunny. Do the perp walk. High stakes I would assert.
- Oracle has gone missing in enterprise search. What’s up? The answer is that Oracle is playing its cards close to its vest. What does Oracle’s low profile mean? Oracle is a big player in the database world and search is a key issue. Oracle’s intent will become clearer in 2009, but until then, the Oracle situation complicates the lives of Oracle licensees, partners, and third partner vendors. The big question is, “What will Oracle do in the enterprise search space?” What if Oracle snags a big player and chokes down the high valuation and debt? Does this type of big play stabilize? Not in my opinion. The hypothetical moves adds to the uncertainty for customers and licensees.
- Life is pretty darn complicated for the SurfRay customers. That company is in financial limbo. The users of Mondosoft, Speed of Mind, and Ontolica are in a tough spot. Maybe complicated is not the correct word? Maybe uncertainty? Both notions connote discomfort to me. I have a list of seven search vendors who are in a tough financial bind. More uncertainty. More turmoil. Potential energy waiting to be released without much warning.
Simplification is useful as long as reality is part of the cross check. Simplification that is wrong can be risky. Simplify as a consultant and the result could be litigation.
The pithy article included this assertion: Vendors are “debuting fewer new features” [sic] doesn’t jibe with the information that flows to the duck pond here in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky; to wit:
- In the series “Search Wizards Speak” each of the more than two dozen people have identified new features in their systems and software. These range from connectors to sophisticated “beyond search” functions such as mash ups
- Individual vendors have been aggressive in expanding into non search sectors such as business intelligence. A quick read of the interview with Attivio’s Sid Probstein in this Web log provides a glimpse of this dynamism
- Open source vendors continue to innovate, including Lemur Consulting and its FLAX product. The Lucid Imagination system is stuffed full of new Lucene- and Solr-centric features.
So, we have some first person interview data that suggests the feature assertion is addled, even more addled than this goose I assert.
Second, what’s this stabilizing assertion? Baloney in my opinion. Plain baloney or more properly bologna. Again, the evidence is that enterprise search if far from stable. Facts, in short supply in this write up, may be as thick as fleas on a stray dog in the referenced study, but consider these items:
ITEM: Siderean Software, Delphes, TeezIR, EZ2Find.com, and other vendors have pulled in their horns to the extent that I am not certain the companies are still taking orders. I have indications that other vendors have been constrained by the economic downturn and may be retreating as well. Do the customers know about these retrenchments? Maybe? Maybe not. But I can tell you that this introduces considerable instability within individual companies and among the financial backers of these firms.
ITEM: New companies are cropping up with surprising frequency. I received email from an old pal Ramana Rao about his new venture. There’s Kosmix. I can point to other important search upstarts like Sprylogics in Toronto, or Evri in Seattle, the search less, understand more folks. I have documented some of the more interesting new features in this Web log. Read the articles and draw your own conclusions about flow of new entrants and the features these companies are offering.
ITEM: The Microsoft roadmap for FAST and its enterprise search platform does little to address the flux resulting from [a] the police matter regarding Microsoft FAST in Oslo; [b] the cost of integrating certain FAST ESP functions into existing SharePoint installations; [c] the cost of licensing the appropriate FAST modules; and [d] the availability of trained engineers to make the SharePoint – ESP hook up work in a client environment. Seems unstable to me, but you may have another view.
ITEM: The Google is disrupting enterprise search by allowing to pull for its mapping and applications to suck the Google Search Appliance and other Google search technology into organizations. Vendors are quick to point out that the Google Search Appliance is not the “final” solution, but the Google is having a disruptive effect. Asserting stability when Googzilla is getting sucked into companies is like explaining quantum theory with Newton’s math. Won’t work.
To wrap up, buy the study referenced in this assertion filled news story. Dig in. Enjoy.
My view is that search is in flux. Search is complex. Search is pivotal to an enterprise’s survival. Buzzwordology strikes me as inappropriate for this particular moment in time. Facts, experience, knowledge, and a willingness to work through complexities–that’s what’s needed in my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
