Sagoon: Good Results Search Engine
January 29, 2009
India is jumping on the search engine bullet train. Sagoon.com is up and running in a beta version. Using its custom spider, the engine taps semantic search and natural language processing. Sagoon gets its results from its own index, Yahoo Boss, and other larger search companies. (Google?) Just like Yahoo! and others, Sagoon.com offers news, web, directory, classifieds, etc. The company is also hard at work on a digital advertising system, though right now it’s making use of Google Sponsored Links. A search showed comparable results with Google, though not identical and not near as numerous: Sagoon, 2,118,192; Google, 8,360,000. It’s info boiled down without Google’s bells and whistles. “Sagoon” derives it name from the Sanskrit word “Shakuna”, which means “auspicious or ushering good results”. That’s got to be good luck, right? It will probably need it, the GOOG already has a presence at http://www.google.co.in/. The goslings at Beyond Search have added this system to our watch list. Updates as we get them.
Jessica W. Bratcher, Jan. 29, 2009
Dead Tree Publishers, Dead
January 29, 2009
PaidContent.org ran David Kaplan’s “General Print Mags Are Dead” here. I had to shorten the article title because it was tough for me to figure out the “@”, the “Wolff”, and the “Best Advice”. On re reading the article, an information trade association called SIIA (the 2009 version of the Information Industry Association) sponsored a panel. On that panel various wizards, mavens, and pundits discussed print magazines. One speaker–Michael Wolff, an author–alleged said, “General print is dead.” Tough for me to disagree with that statement. You can read observations made by other traditional media flag carriers. What surprised me is that it has taken until January 2009 to figure this out. I don’t agree with the notion that magazine publishers should stop “letting Google win.” Exactly what is a magazine publisher going to do. When you fire staff writers and squeeze what one pays stringers (which happened to me today), what are these companies going to do about Google? Build their own Googleplex. Sue Google some more. Strong arm advertisers to buy a full page ad in magazine with several dozen pages? Pout? Leap frog Google technically? I bailed out of traditional publishing in the early 1990s when Bill Ziff began selling the Ziff Communications’ properties. Google is the new digital Gutenberg and has been for many years. Waking up to today’s economic reality is a useful step forward, just a decade too late. I am willing to wager $1.00 that the Washington Post does not believe that Google is a new medium. What do you think? Check out Google Channels before responding, however.
Stephen Arnold, January 29, 2009
Yahoo in the Red in the Fourth Quarter
January 29, 2009
The San Jose Mercury News posted a short item whose headline tells the tale: “Yahoo Swings to Loss in 4Q” here. Sales were down. The company lost in October, November, and December 2008 $303 million. The fourth quarter is often one of the stronger for a commercial enterprise. The company faces mounting technology pressures and Yahoo may not be able to control costs for software and systems. Over the years, various Yahoo gurus have communicated to me is quite superior tones that Yahoo was better than some of its competitors. I did not believe it. Maybe now these gurus will look at Google’s performance, Google’s market share, and Yahoo’s own disarray and take action to address the technology weaknesses of Yahoo. Unless the plumbing is fixed, the company is not going to be able to make the type of progress that its stakeholders expect. Plumbing is important in search and online services. Bad plumbing equal uncontrolled technology costs. MBAs don’t believe it. I am not too concerned about MBAs. I am concerned about pundits who emphasize changes Yahoo should make that are cosmetic. Forget the lipstick. Get the infrastructure repaired.
Stephen Arnold, January 29, 2009
Picking Google’s Security Boil
January 28, 2009
Johnny Doe (original name!), writing on Wiseperception.com here, takes a rough finger nail and digs into Google’s security scab. The core of the article is information gathered by an Austrian professor named Hermann Maurer. After my Google 2.0 study appeared, I received several queries from folks in Europe wanting me to provide information about Google that was negative. I refused. I read patent applications and technical papers. Not Herr Dr. Maurer. The academic is asserting that Google has data about users and can assemble those data into profiles. No kidding. The news, Herr Dr. Maurer, is old. The privacy and security boils on Googzilla’s snout are pretty obvious as well. For me the most interesting comment in this article was:
He [Herr Dr. Maurer] also speculates on the possibility of Governments paying Google for information on an opponent, or to block their citizens’ access to servers. “If Google did this they wouldn’t be doing anything illegal. They have this information, they are a company, why not sell it?” Maurer says.
Great idea. The only problem is that Google remains sufficiently disorganized that government officials have trouble getting a Googler to return their calls. My thought is that Europe is going to be a giant thorn in Googzilla’s paw with regard to privacy. Microsoft and other competitors have avoided tackling Google head on on this matter. Looks like the good Herr Doctor won’t be a shrinking violet. Herr Dr. Maurer may be the first of European Google watchers to poke Google’s security boil.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
Amazon and A9’s Limitations
January 28, 2009
I don’t think too much about Amazon. It’s A9 search engine remains an okay system, but it has morphed into an ecommerce search system. Search innovation seemed to stop when Udi Manber headed to the GOOG. Amazon took A9 down a very different path that includes stop overs in Clickriver and Open Search (yep, that iVillage and About.com content is exactly what I need). You can even find out about job openings at A9.com, which surprised me. Check out the jobs. One is for someone to tackle relevance. Good idea. Those Yahooligans are available. Some defecting Xooglers are available. Amazon could even tap the Powerset wizards. With companies nuking nerds, it’s a buyer’s market. I use structured information if I know the name of the author or a book. If I want books “about something”, the system is not too helpful in my opinion. In fact, the interface fights with the search box. For example, I wanted to look at Kindle titles which were new releases in a specific category–Greek history. No luck. The interface on the Kindle, as miserable as it is, is more informative than the one on the Amazon Web site. Let’s hope that the Kindle Web page gets some attention when version 2 of the Kindle becomes available. (Fewer weird buttons would help too.)
Amazon blipped my radar today when I read Eric Savitz’ “Amazon: The World’s Most Expensive Internet Stock?” here. The point of the article is that Amazon has a high price earnings ratio. Skipping the MBA double talk, this means that you pay a lot and may not get much back in the way of dividends.
When I scanned Mr. Savitz’s Wall Street story, I seemed to recall seeing references to investments by Bezos Expeditions. What’s interesting is that twice in the few days, I saw references to this investment outfit having taken stakes in search vendors: Mahalo.com and ChaCha.com. If my recollection is correct, this is suggestive that A9 can’t deliver the type of “social” search that seems to be some pundits’ entrant in the Google tug of war.
Forget these alleged investments. Let’s focus on A9:
- When will the system permit winnowing to be released new titles from real new titles on Kindle?
- How can I find bargains without recourse to a third party tool?
- When will the system support concept metadata so I can locate books “about” a topic without the trial and error fiddling I have to do now?
- Why not fix up A9 with some social features?
Maybe A9 is a bit of money pit? If anyone has information about the new features of A9 that I have overlooked, let me know.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
Another British Library Fear
January 28, 2009
Nick Farrell’s “British Library Fears Loss of History” reminded me that libraries are struggling for relevance in a Google-centric world. You can find his Register story here. For me the most interesting comment was:
The British Library has established a department dedicated to the collection of all these digital materials which are stored on your computer in the same way that it stores books, newspapers, documents, maps, personal letters.
I find categorical affirmatives quite amusing. The UK is collecting email and mobile data. Now the British Library wants “all” of a couple of types of digital information. Right now, the only outfit in a position to capture “all” information is Google, not a country, a company.
Libraries find themselves asked to provide shelter, job hunting, and coffee shop duties. One library expressed an interest in mobile furniture and off site book storage. The idea was that users of the library did not need some books right away.
The fear is well founded. Google will allay that fear in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
The Most Agile of the Dead Tree Outfits Trimming Digital Staff
January 28, 2009
A happy quack to the reader from Australia who alerted me to some News Corp. staff reductions. Greg Sandoval reported here that News Corp. chopped some staff. What caught my attention was that the trimming took place in digital units, including MySpace.com and Photobucket.com. What’s the problem? In my opinion, its a business model issue. Suck a start up into a giant outfit and there’s culture, technology, and financial shock. What’s the dead tree fix? Fire those who work in the digital units. Change the business model or dig into technology? Nope, dead tree outfits know best.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
More Pay for Traffic Plays
January 27, 2009
Mahalo.com is a social search system. The idea is that humans get involved. Humans, although more expensive than software, can handle certain tasks with greater understanding. Software still makes mistakes. Humans make some doozies as well. In search, I am on the fence about the efficacy of humans versus algorithms. More precisely, I am on the fence about the specific role of humans. In the good old days of commercial databases, humans were the way to go. The costs of people are high. Once software is locked and loaded ongoing operations can be budgeted and, in my experience, certain costs stabilized. I trade off software for humans now, but I don’t agonize over the decision. Costs control is a big deal to me.
Jeff Meiser’s “Mahalo Spices Up Information Sharing with Cash Incentives” here adds a new spin to the human intermediated Mahalo.com search service. Like Microsoft’s pay plans for Live.com search, Mahalo.com is urging searchers to “pay a few bucks” for the answer. The for fee question and answer model is what Find SVP (Paris and New York) was been doing for a long time. I’ve lost track of that company, but I recall that the sales effort to line up “gold accounts” was significant. Find SVP was a good idea in the early 1980s but the cost of sales and the cost of human researchers was brutal.
The whole pay for information sector has been under siege for many years. Dialog made people pay to ask a question and look at abstractions (Type 5 outputs). The problem was that the answer may not have been in the output. There was no easy way to run down some information in 1980 so people paid. As soon as free options became available on the Internet, the bottom fell out of some commercial information services. You can see some of the financial burden if you look at the 10 Ks for traditional information companies in the commercial database business. Certain sectors are flat. Thomson has exited some of its information businesses. A wise move. Reed Elsevier is trying to increase revenues and hold down costs of information operations that involve humans. Tough job. Blue chip consulting firms run pay to ask question services as well. To make this work, the client has to be convinced that the answers come with a pedigree. So humans can improve certain information operations but humans cost a great deal. Add sales and subject matter experts together and you get a Bermuda Triangle of costs.
Mr. Meiser’s article doesn’t dig into the past with pay for answers. That’s fine. He does include information about finding answers on Facebook and Twitter. He provides some color about the smart money that is behind Mahalo.com. For me, the most interesting comment in the article was:
Since no single player has emerged as dominant using the question-and-answer search model in the U.S., Mahalo sees a unique opportunity to become the industry leader.
I am all for optimism. I recall reading some open source information from Googzilla on this function. My hunch is that Mahalo.com may find itself under pressure if the GOOG makes available some of its nifty automated question answering methods. At that point, question and answer services that charge and have humans in the mix will face a long, tough road to success.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
Video Sites and Search
January 27, 2009
ZDNet posts interesting statistical data, a bit like the old Predicasts’ File 16 data on Dialog minus the type charges. On January 23, 2009, Alex Moskalyuk summarized the comScore video site traffic data. You can view his original post here. I took a look at the data and did some quick fiddling around. I was interested in how much additional traffic one of the video sites listed would have to generate to pull even with YouTube.com in the month reported in the table. Here’s my rework:
| Property | Viewers, 000 | Share | Traffic Needed |
| Total Internet | 146,064 | 100.00% | — |
| Google Sites | 97,928 | 67.045% | — |
| Fox Interactive Media | 58,115 | 39.787% | 39,813 |
| Yahoo! Sites | 39,956 | 27.355% | 57,972 |
| Microsoft Sites | 34,979 | 23.948% | 62,949 |
| Viacom Digital | 27,109 | 18.560% | 70,819 |
| Hulu | 22,456 | 15.374% | 75,472 |
| AOL LLC | 22,442 | 15.364% | 75,486 |
| Turner Network | 20,735 | 14.196% | 77,193 |
| Disney Online | 13,028 | 8.919% | 84,900 |
| Time Warner – Excl. AOL | 12,564 | 8.602% | 85,364 |
| Source: comScore | |||
What’s interesting is that Hulu.com, to pick one video site that gets a lot of hype as a YouTube.com competitor needs to attract 75,486,000 more visitors to match YouTube.com’s traffic. What surprised me what the strong showing of Fox Interactive Media. Fox needs only 39,813,000 more visitors to reach parity with YouTube.com. I don’t watch video but it seems that Google’s 67 percent market share in video may not be as solid as its 70 percent share in Web search. The gap in video is narrower at least for Fox.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
ChaCha: Social Search Dances for Big Money
January 27, 2009
About 2.5 hours north of the hollow where the Beyond Search goslings write Web log posts is Indianapolis, Indiana. A suburb of Indianapolis is Carmel, Indiana, population 40,000. Carmel has a search engine, and that search engine has “secured $11 million of a $30 million Series C round.” One of the investors is Bezos Expeditions which brushes up against Amazon. Good news for ChaCha.
ChaCha.com is a question-and-answer system. The company reports that it has three million people on record as having tried the system. In terms of traffic, here’s Google Trends for Yahoo.com, Ask.com, and ChaCha.com.
Here’s the interface:
To get the results, the user then creates an account shown below:
The company sends the activation code to a mobile phone. For me, the system reported unknown mobile device.
After working around that problem, the system did not have an answer to my question, “What is a Google Search Appliance?”
I have this company in my monitoring list. Right now, I don’t feel comfortable offering too many “from the hollow” comments. With more money, ChaCha.com should be able to raise its profile and demonstrate its business model to me.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
