Google and Time
January 5, 2009
Time is a big deal at Google. Only a few Web search outfits manipulate time in a useful way. The GOOG has a couple of patent documents that disclose some of the company’s methods for dealing with this slippery notion. You can see one example of a historical time graph by navigating to Google.com. If you are outside the US, you have to click navigate to a country news page, click on US, and then launch your query for there. Even that may not work for everyone. Here’s what you see for the Googley query “Albert Einstein”. You have to scroll to the bottom of the page.
In this example, Googzilla is including book results and related searches to help the curious in their quest for information about the special theory of relativity.
Stephen Arnold, January 5, 2008
SharePoint: Don’t Automate, Do Stuff by Hand
January 4, 2009
The SharePointer (a place of sharing pointers) published “MOSS Variations: Page Properties that Do Not Get Propagated to Target Variations” is a useful article for two reasons. First, it solves a mystery that the geese at Beyond Search have encountered. Second, the write up shows what’s wrong with SharePoint. Why automate a function when you can do the work manually? Makes sense to some, I guess.
The author of the useful article here is Tehnoon Raza, a Senior Support Escalation Engineer at Microsoft. I love that title. At Beyond Search we will definitely add that to our SharePoint expert’s title. Now to the good stuff. Mr. Raza’s article explains that when you propagate a source site to its variations, the copy does not copy everything. The work around is easy. Create a custom column and manually insert these items for each page you want to propagate:
- URL Name (seems important, right?)
- Title
- Description
- Schedule Start Date
- Schedule End Date
- Audience Targeting
- Contact
- Contact Name
- Contact E-mail Address (another important item, right?)
- Contact Picture.
I did not notice an explanation that made much sense to me, an addled goose. You may be more in tune with the Microsoft way. My thought was, “Why not copy the properties?” No problem when there is one page. The recommended approach begs for a script when there are two or more pages. Maybe I’m missing something, but this strikes me as sort of clunky. Oh, hold on. Tess, our SharePoint expert, has a comment. She says, “It’s something a box would definitely not do.” Wow. Harsh.
Stephen Arnold, January 4, 2009
Mobile Search
January 4, 2009
One of the ZDnet Web logs presents snippets of data. I read “Top US Web Sites Accessed over Mobile Phones in October 2008” here. I then went back to the chart and looked at the data more carefully. What did I overlook in my first scan? The combined traffic of Google Search, Gmail, and Google Maps was twice that of the number one most used mobile site–Yahoo. So what? In my addled goose brain, the dominance of Google in mobile is moving toward the same “game over” type of market share Google has in Web search. Who is going to knock off the GOOG. Yahoo? I am not sure what Yahoo will be doing. Microsoft? Again, I am in the dark. I have given up trying to figure out who is in charge of search. The revolving door spins too quickly for me. AOL? Snort, snort. Weather, sports, news? Nope, the GOOG has nifty technology to make its traditional offerings more interesting by creating its own information. Maybe I am reading this Nielsen data incorrectly? If I am, let me know.
Stephen Arnold, January 4, 2009
Google Now Officially Microsoft-esque
January 3, 2009
Matt Asay’s headline caught my eye. “Google’s Microsoft-esque Landgrab for IE’s Market Share” discusses the erosion of Internet Explorer’s market share. I commented on this so I won’t review the implications of this market share decline. I want to focus on the word “Microsoft-esque.” I respect CNet, and I think its editors make a effort to choose headlines that are accurate and catchy. The use of the word “Microsoft-esque” makes official that the old order has been by passed. Microsoft snookered IBM. IBM today is a weird amalgam of “to be” software and consulting. The company generates about $100 billion in revenue so its brain trust knows how to make money. But IBM is not on my short list of companies to watch in 2009. Microsoft is now a version of IBM, outpaced and out maneuvered by Google. Google, therefore, is the “new” Microsoft. If CNet sees Google as “Microsoft-esque”, so do I. The hitch in the rope is that I don’t think Google is a Microsoft. Google is different creature, and its competitive impact is disruptive in a way that is different from Microsoft’s in the 1980s. I like “Microsoft-esque”. I just think it is misleading. The GOOG is fission compared to Microsoft’s lubrication function. The differences are more subtle than market grabbing.
Stephen Arnold, January 3, 2009
Browser Share Drop for Microsoft Is Bad News
January 2, 2009
The netbooks have arrived in rural Kentucky. Beyond Search now has two of these devices. Nothing beats the IBM mainframe in my opinion, but even old geese have to adapt. Netbooks can run applications, but we find ourselves using portable applications and services available via a WiFi or the Verizon wireless service. Once Firefox is up and running, we have found that over time cloud-based services such as Google Apps are good enough. As fond as we are of the MVS/TSO approach to computing, the browser or browser like environments seem to be the future. Victor Goinez’s “Internet Explorer’s Share of the Browser Market Fell below 70% in November” here struck us as bad news for Microsoft. The article contains a nifty graphic showing the vendors’ respective market shares too. Data reported second or third hand can be wide of the mark. Let’s assume that these figures are spot on. So what? In our opinion, a decline in Internet Explorer share of the market means that other vendors have sucked some oxygen from the Microsoft ecosystem. Microsoft can keep on breathing, but the company needs to address the problem. Other browser developers may ramp up their attack on IE, which has lagged Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera in some key features. If the shift is evident to computer users in rural Kentucky, the more informed folks in more intellectually astute areas will be even more aware of the importance of the browser and browser like environments. Chrome, in our opinion, only looks like a browser. Chrome is a software airlock that connects a computing device to the Google mothership. If Chrome succeeds in snapping its airlock on more computers, Microsoft’s share of the browser market may continue to experience labored breathing.
Stephen Arnold, January 2, 2008
Google Trend Identifier
January 2, 2009
in 2008, Google rolled out a free trend and key word research tool. If you have not experimented with it, navigate to Insights for Search here. You can enter one or more words and phrases, click search, and see a nifty graphic of the “popularity” of your terms over time. I took a break from my forthcoming study about Google and publishing to run this query: Autonomy IDOL”, “Google Search Appliance”, “SharePoint search”. The data come from Google’s log files. If you are a fan of one of these enterprise search systems, you may protest the data displayed below directly to the GOOG, not me. The result was a shocker to me:
I have snipped only the chart. You will find a number of useful features available, including:
- Data by categories, time, and geography
- News items related to your query
- Identification of terms that are moving up and those that are moving down.
For me, this system is important because it shows that Google can blend several different types of information from various Google subsystems in a homogeneous service. As 2009 gets underway, companies wanting to compete with Googzilla have to match and, if possible, leapfrog its services. Companies selling key word tools or charging big bucks for trend data may have to view Google as an increasingly disruptive force in their market patch.
Stephen Arnold, January 2, 2009
Google Books: Advantage to Whom
January 2, 2009
The Register on December 31, 2008, published Chris Castle’s “Is Google’s culture grab unstoppable?” here. The article is in two parts and does a good job of summarizing Google’s deal to sidestep the copyright issues with Google Books. For me, the most interesting comment in the article was:
Regulators should care who controls the Google Books registry because it can easily reach out to other content. Google is well on its way to dominating all search and advertising, and now maybe a significant share of online content. Google’s ability to accomplish transparent accounting is definitely in doubt.
In my opinion, Google is going to be difficult to manage, channel, or control. And not just in books.
Stephen Arnold, January 2, 2009
Google 2009 Lego Blocks
January 1, 2009
Do you want to know what the Google will do in 2009? If the answer is yes, you will want to navigate to TechCrunch’s article about the top 10 Google services here. Take a gander at the traffic for each of these. Then click to Simply Google here and review the listing of Google’s products and services. You can find this list here. Now to see the future, pick a high traffic site from the TechCrunch list and pick six Google services as you Lego blocks. How can you combine these six products and services on one of Google’s high traffic sites to create a YAGPOS (Yet Another Google Product or Service)? In 2009, Google will be mixing and matching what exists and deploying these combo services on its high traffic sites, pushing these hybrids into the enterprise via the Google Search Appliance, or converting a plain Jane service like Google Product Search into a procurement manager’s dream system. Oh, no recoding required. Ramp up time? A day, maybe two. Has anyone see a T shirt with this message WWGD?; that is, What Will Google Do? Google will convert companies who don’t compete with the GOOG into competitors in 2009. The change will be sudden and surprising. Google’s Lego block approach to new products and services will be surprising. Proud parents Larry and Sergey will beam with the outputs of their progeny.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2009
eBay’s Challenge in 2009: Googzilla
December 31, 2008
In my September 2007 study Google Version 2.0, published by Infonortics Ltd. in Tetbury, Glou. here, I commented on Google’s eCommerce capabilities. I included a diagram that outlined one of the scenarios that was taking shape as I did the research for that report. The idea was for Google to ignore Amazon and focus on a weakening eBay. Without fanfare, Google would attract sellers. Then Google’s “as is” back office capabilities were known mostly by AdSense participants who received accounting reports and checks from the GOOG without much fuss or hassle. Flash forward to 2009, and we see more of the Google eCommerce strategy becoming visible. First, Google uses the Amazon service to deliver music to its Android based mobile devices. And, Pete Barlas, Investor’s Business Daily, summarized data about Google’s growing influence in eCommerce. You can read “Google’s Product Search Catching Up Fast with Shopping Rivals” here for a short period of time. (Yahoo News stories often go dark quickly, so you may have to hunt around for this December 29, 2008, news story.) For me, the key comment in the article was:
Google Product Search had 11.8 million unique visitors in November. That’s up a whopping 786% from the year-ago period — the biggest one-year increase by far of any online comparison shopping service, says market tracker comScore.
Mr. Barlas includes other useful nuggets in his story; for example, the display of “sample searches” to intrigue shoppers. But I wanted to add two comments about this Google service not discussed in Mr. Barlas’ article:
First, eBay is a wounded duck. The signals of discontent have been flashing for a while. Fees have gone up. The issues about fraud and PayPal’s customer service continue to spark discussions among eBay users. The shift to fixed price items produces a more predictable shopping experience, but Amazon and now Google offer more efficient mechanisms. The eBay model is wearing out. When I look for a computer part, I have to wade through pages of irrelevant listings. Try a search for NC6000 and you will see hundreds of batteries and components. There is no way to limit the scope of the query to a working laptop computer.
Second, Google moves slowly and on numerous fronts at one time. As a result, it is easy to ignore a Google activity. Competitors like eBay have not figured out how to identify key Google moves, track them, and put defensive actions into play. Google seems to be floundering along with lava lamps and Odwalla juice and then the Google’s shadow falls across the eBay business. Surprise. Google has been a player in eCommerce for six or seven years. Now, Googzilla is in the front yard. Eeek.
In Google Version 2.0, the investments Google made in R&D make it clear that there are six business sectors in which Google is making similar strategic moves. Eeek is not a satisfactory response. By the time research data shows the shift is underway, the damage is done. Remediation is difficult, expensive, and likely to be ineffective. In my opinion, 2009 will be a pivotal year for eBay.
Stephen Arnold, December 31, 2008
Spreadsheet Fever: Information Overload Cost Estimate
December 31, 2008
Trophy kids with MBAs seem to have migrated from banking to consulting, or at least some did. When I read “Info Overload Costs $900 Billion, Blame Mr. Rogers” in Ars Technica here, I laughed–a while in fact. The Ars Technica story reported findings from a study generated by a New York azure chip consultant. As you may know, there are blue chip consultants like McKinsey and Bain. Then there are azure chip consultants. These are outfits hoping that the intellectual wavelength shifts to allow their firms to jump to the blue chip level. With studies like the one referenced by Ars Technica, it will be a while before the recruiters for the blue chips beat a path to the wizards behind the Information Overload Calculator here. You must visit the link, plug in your values, and get your rock solid cost estimate. The outfit behind the Calculator is Basex here. The firm’s tag line is a great one indeed: “Management science for the knowledge economy.” From my mud floored office in Harrods Creek, the “knowledge economy” does not look too peppy at this point in time. As a survivor of the original Booz, Allen & Hamilton meat grinder, I am also skeptical of “management science.” In my opinion, “management science” is an oxymoron, but what do I know. Earlier today I learned to great fanfare that Microsoft is a software company. Man, what an insight was that revelation. Ars Technica handles the write up of the Calculator with journalistic objectivity. The comment in the article that interested me was this one about search:
Another big time sink, says Spira [an expert cited by Ars Technica] , comes from the need to sort through reams of data to find the particular piece of information a worker needs. He claims that about half of web searches fail—other estimates put the figure closer to 30 percent—and that almost half of what those users regard as successful are really partial failures, because the information recovered is outdated or inaccurate. Part of the solution, Spira argues, is better search algorithms. “Most search is done now by keyword,” says Spira, “and that’s a terrible way of searching—by itself. It’s not terrible when it’s done in conjunction with taxonomies. But if I can’t narrow down my search, how does the search engine know what my goal is?”
You can figure out whom the Ars Technica reporter is interviewing. For me, this is one more trip down the return on investment garden path. Estimates of time wasted are not useful in my opinion. I worked on a year long study of innovation for a Fortune 50 company for a year. I watched quite a few geniuses and wizards in action. I recall thinking that these guys and gals fiddled around a lot. One wizard at a large defense company told me that ideas came while she slept. She worked on “work” on weekends. During the work day, she fiddled around. The product emerging from this clear example of wasting time was the machine gun ammunition clip for a high speed cannon.
The leap to search is a common mental jump among trophy and entitlement thinkers. The idea of remembering, analyzing, and synthesizing data over time is a novel one. Check out the article and copy down the data. I think quite a few azure chip outfits will be recycling the data or inventing their own content free calculators. In my view, using the Calculator wastes just wastes time.
Stephen Arnold, December 31, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
