Knol: One More Thing
January 26, 2009
The GOOG’s Matt Cutts, writing on his personal Web log, offers up a parental “Four Things You Need to Know about Knol.” Gentle reader, the story is here. I assume the use of “you” by Mr. Cutts meant me. I looked at his points from my goose-like perspective.
I liked the idea that Google doesn’t favor its own products and services. The assertion may be accurate in terms of Knol but if you search for “enterprise search” you get some results that place Google as the seventh hit in the results list this morning. There’s an ad for a Google Webinar. This supports the assertion that Google is not favoring Google services.
Second, he points out that Knol is “doing fine”. This is a bit like Amazon talking about “objects” in its cloud services. The problem is what’s an object and what’s “fine” mean. Knol has about 100,000 articles. I assume that 100,000 is fine. If so, then why is there a Knol for Dummies campaign underway here?
Third, the Knol team is moving. I agree. Subtle changes creep into Knol; for example, the notion of “authoritative” has obviously been tweaked by the Knol team. Mr. Cutts enjoins me to “write a quick article or put some information on the Web.” My question is, “What’s authoritative mean?’
In short, the “four things” are interesting. The one thing that my research Knol is / was supposed to do was provide inputs to the Google knowledge bases. “Some information” does not match up with the disclosures in Google’s public documents–for example, US20070038600–about its knowledge bases.
Knol certainly warrants observation. More on Knol appears in my forthcoming Google study, The Digital Gutenberg.
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
More on Google and Control
January 26, 2009
Search Engine Journal’s “Unable to Change Googlebot Crawl Rate via Google Webmaster Tools” provides some insight into Google’s ability to implement variable controls. The article addresses the situation in which a Webmaster wants Google’s indexing robot to “crawl faster”. For some Webmasters, the Google administrative controls don’t work. Ann Smarty provides some information about this situation. She ignores one reason of which I thought: Google wants to control what happens with regards to indexing a specific site. The GOOG’s ability to implement fine grained controls makes clear what Google’s resources for control of its sprawling infrastructure is revealed in this write up in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
Google and Video Playing Technology
January 26, 2009
I don’t pay much attention to online video. The trophy generation and the short attention span types do. Google tried its hand at its own video player and then shifted to Flash. If you care about video, you may want to check out Google’s invention disclosed in US20090024923. The abstract for this said:
Embedded Video Player Abstract A system, method and various user interfaces provide an embedded web-based video player for navigating video playlists and playing video content. A Web site publisher can create and store a video player with customized parameters (e.g., player type, appearance, advertising options, etc.) and can associate the player with a playlist of selected videos. The stored video player is associated with a player ID in a player database and can be embedded in a Web site using an embed code referencing the player ID. A user interface for the embedded player provides controls for controlling video playback and for controlling the selection of a video from the playlist.
Why is Google noodling a player? Two reasons. Why help out Adobe? Get more control over the experience in the browser or composite application. Google wants control to have some response to this type of situation. The video push is a real deal. Google has a cluster of video inventions, which signals to me an initiative.
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
Information Technology Experts
January 26, 2009
With the proliferation of clueless management, information technology carpet baggers have had a willing if uninformed clientele. I know. You want to tell me that your clients are well informed and understand your expertise. You may even have a core competency. But when you get to be my age, you learn you don’t much at all. What you do know is changing quickly. With each passing day, my knowledge loses currency and I become dumber. Not surprisingly I have, like the turtles that once lived in Beargrass Creek, become cautious, slow moving, and conservative.
What happens when clueless clients encounter carpet baggers? I will get to that in a moment. I want to make sure you know what a carpet bagger is. According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, a carpet bagger is “a Northerner in the South after the American Civil War usually seeking private gain under the reconstruction governments.” When I use the term, I put a spin on the connotation; namely, “a nonresident or new resident who seeks private gain from an area often by meddling in its business or politics.” I also spell the word with a space between carpet and bagger to remind myself that these were cheap briefcases in the 19th century.
Image source: http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w127/CAITIpix/carpetbagger.jpg
Consultants who are carpet baggers may not recognize that their firm and its employees are practicing this type of work. Today 20 year olds don’t want to hear from an intellectual turtle in Kentucky that their analysis of a situation might be uninformed. Better to terminate the deal. I fired a client in Manchester, England. My radar lit up, and I jumped off that reed boat.
I read the Bloomberg story here with the chilling headline “Price Waterhouse Auditors Arrested in Satyam Inquiry.” The story does a very good job of explaining how two Pricewaterhouse Coopers’ professionals were arrested for “conspiracy and co- participation”. We have an allegedly crooked information technology consulting firm and allegedly crooked financial consultants. What’s that mean for customers of these two outfits? Here are my thoughts:
- Complex technology requires that an organization’s senior management understand the business problem, the technology that will be used to resolve the problem, and the risks involved. A failure to assume this responsibility makes it easy for trophy-generation consultants and nice guys like Mr. Madoff to practice their allegedly dark arts.
- As complexity of software and systems increases, the likelihood of improper behavior seems to me to go up. Look at the dust ups over content management and enterprise search systems that don’t manage content and can’t locate information. A specific example is the US government’s decision in one matter to terminate two companies’ contracts. I am not sure what subsequent legal hula hooping took place.
- Some vendors’ willingness to allow marketing to be science fiction and technology a work in progress seems to be spreading. Clueless clients or lazy procurement teams just want to be told that a system will do the job. Whether that system can or will do the job is of little concern. Turnover and other uncertainties often mean that there will be no consequences for flops.
I have been around too long to think that any change will take place to inject the clueless managers with knowledge. Hopefully the present financial crisis will allow the those with knowledge and a desire to behave in a responsible manner to make some gains. In the meantime, it’s probably a good idea to recalibrate your use of Satyam’s services and PricewaterhouseCooper’s advice.
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
The Zune Effect
January 26, 2009
Activenetwork has a short news item “Frankly Speaking: For Microsoft, the Pain Is Just Beginning” here. The short item’s headline stated what few want to believe. The snippet included this sentence, “…It’s big because it means Microsoft has begun to hit bottom… Microsoft has never learned the lessons of the original IBM. My thought was that this statement is not 100 percent accurate. Microsoft’s combination of multiple initiatives, technical tangles, and market missteps deserves a name. I suggest “the Zune effect.” Apple trundles happily along. The Zune effect. Google chugs forward. The Zune effect. A working definition, “A mix of bad timing, technology issues, and misreads of the market set the stage for a rough journey.” Thoughts?
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
Word and C#: Now That’s User Friendly
January 25, 2009
This item is not directly about search, but it has to do with content creation. Close enough. The headline that stopped me in my web footed tracks was, “Take the Pain Out of Creating Word Documents by Using C# and XML” here. To be a little fair, Chris Bennett is writing to developers. But the inclusion of a reference to Microsoft Word almost guarantees that non developers will see his write up. The idea is to put a chunk of code on a server that converts whatever is on a Web page to a Word file format. He provides a clear explanation. I particularly liked the detail for the “transformation method” but you may not be as keen on reading scripts as I. You can convert an XML into a Word document using XSLT. My thought was provide the XHTML or XML and a link that spits out a PDF. You will see this approach in action when my new Google patent search system becomes available. One of the new vendors of super fast search technology will provide the stallion for my service. Watch for more details. We’re shooting to release in the first week of February 2009. No C# required either. Free service. More Google open source information. With world finally discovering Ramanathan Guha, I thought it would be useful to provide access to documents for a method that’s approaching the age of four. We don’t want the pundits to rush too quickly toward understanding Google. That effort would take time away from figuring out how to convert a Web page to a Word file.
Stephen Arnold, January 25, 2009
Autonomy’s Lynch: Governance Market
January 25, 2009
I have been confused by the words used by search wizards to describe what their systems do. As each wave of search and content processing technology crashes against the corporate beach head, the buyers surf, watch, or flee. The waves recede and after a while another wave builds and heads towards the beach head. An endless cycle think I. Governance, short for risk, is now an official buzzword.
CIO Magazine (UK version) ran an interview with Sir Michael Lynch, senior wizard at Autonomy, the Cambridge-based information systems company. I have praised Autonomy for two core attributes that other vendors cannot quite duplicate. First, a sense of what the market wants to buy or hear. Second, the ability to close deals in business sectors where other competitors have either failed or have a smaller presence. Perhaps it is drinking the water of the River Cam? Whatever the reason, Autonomy has been outflanking outfits like the scrutinized Fast Search & Transfer, dozens of newcomers, and some high-profile players like Endeca.
In Martin Veitch’s interview with Sir Michael here, I noticed several interesting comments. Let me highlight two so you have to read the original and not rely upon me as your Kentucky intellect (heaven help you!).
Point one: content management is a discipline that’s going to change. Autonomy, I opine, wants to lead the charge. Interwoven provides the helmet and the lance. Autonomy provides the knights, the battle gear, and the charger named IDOL. CMS has been one of those quasi software inventions that start out small and then multiply like gerbils. You have lots of gerbils, but they are not too useful in my opinion. Then the CMS consultants–almost always members of the trophy generation who think of content as a Web page–run up their bills. Autonomy, as I understand Sir Michael, wants to gallop into the CMS vendors and clear the field.
Point two: worries about multiple products and services that do similar functions are not the issue. The focus is on growing revenue. Autonomy will pick its friends and then makes sales. Over time, the duplication of products and services will sort themselves out. That strategy seems to have worked with IDOL and Verity’s K2.
The more interesting question to me is, “Which search and content processing vendor will challenge Autonomy in this new sector?” Any suggestions?
Stephen Arnold, January 25, 2009
Web Ownership: You Know the Answer
January 25, 2009
I get a kick out of articles with titles like “Will Google and Microsoft Own the Web?” You can read an exemplary version of this question in PCWorld here. The article is a bit different from the question in my opinion. The core of the story is a view expressed by Sun Microsystems’ Jonathan Schwartz that the Web is drifting away from the openness of bygone days. Keep in mind that Sun has fallen from grace in the eyes of Wall Street, and the company has begun hooking Microsoft’s technology into Java. What’s bubbling under the veneer of this article is the dominance of Google. Forget Microsoft, Facebook, and MySpace. (If you want to believe that Facebook is the real Google killer, read this story. I just don’t buy the argument, however.) None of those companies is in a position to become the Internet in North America, big chunks of Europe, and a number of other countries as well. Instead of coming right out and saying, “Google is in a position to become the Internet, we get the tap dancing around the elephant in search. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
Schwartz argues that developers should avoid the “hostile territory” altogether. Instead of the browser, he says, developers should build applications using Sun’s new JavaFX technology. But this seems somewhat disingenuous, considering that JavaFX is so far almost entirely the brainchild of Sun, and is therefore less open than any browser. But there are other reasons to be concerned about Google’s stake in Firefox and Chrome, too. Some privacy advocates worry that Google’s influence over the browser market gives it access to too much user data, which the company collects for the purposes of its massively lucrative online advertising business.
Good point. Just about seven or eight years too late based on my research.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
Another Sort of Correct Google Analysis
January 24, 2009
I have to learn to keep my goose head down, shutting out the world beyond the pond filling with coal mine runoff. When I poke my beak out of the nest, I see headlines like this one: “What Would It Take to Beat Google?” The author is Don Reisinger, a person who contributes to CNet. You must read his analysis here.
The assumption for this write up is that Google is a search company. Advertising is intertwined with search. Because of Google’s dominance in search, Google has blended services. It is ubiquitous. It has a brand. It has cash. These are the barriers Google puts in front of competitors.
In general, Mr. Reisinger summarizes the received wisdom about Google. I think that received wisdom is a bit like taking a wrong turn and ending up where you wanted to be. Luck, instinct, brilliance–doesn’t matter. The result is the “right” one.
I think Google’s success in search and advertising is one manifestation of the firm’s broader achievement. Until analysts begin to dig into the details of Google’s infrastructure, most competitors will be wary of Google but make a fatal misstep. The competitors will assume that Google can’t impinge on businesses where search and advertising are not the keys to success. That’s where received wisdom will get an analyst in trouble. Google does pose a threat to business sectors outside of the search and advertising cone.
How? I cover a few of these sectors at risk in my forthcoming Google: The Digital Gutenberg.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
Microsoft Cedes Data Center Leadership to Google
January 24, 2009
I was surprised that there was not more coverage of Microsoft’s cut backs in its data center plans. Microsoft has been building data centers like the $650 million facility in San Antonia. I had heard about engineering innovations that would make these new data centers economical to build, maintain, and operate. I poked around a few technical papers and concluded that Microsoft was still saddled with the legacy of decisions made as long ago as 1999. I will put links to my writes about Microsoft’s data center writes up at the foot of this news item. Frankly I didn’t buy what I was hearing and reading about these leapfrog data centers but I am keeping an open mind. However, the financial reports from Microsoft have not been what Wall Street wanted to hear. Accordingly, this story “Microsoft Postpones Iowa Data Center” here, in my opinion, cedes leadership in data centers to Google. Microsoft is like a runner who drops out of a 5,000 meter race. The Google wins. If you think I am off base, make sure you check out these previous articles before you tell me that I am even more addled than I admit:
- Architecture in 1999 here
- Architecture in 2006 here
- Microsoft capital expenditures here
- Architecture in early 2008 here
What my research revealed is that in 1998 Google was behind Microsoft. Microsoft hired some AltaVista.com engineers but went a different direction. Google hired some AltaVista.com engineers and choose a different path. I document this in detail in my 2005 The Google Legacy. That decision allowed Google to pull ahead and eventually create the gap that exists today. Now Microsoft is taking a breather allowing Google to widen its lead. Google wins the data center race in my opinion. Microsoft now must win in software.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
