Fake Reviews a Growing and Tenacious Problem in Social Media
April 20, 2012
Ah, sentiment and lies. Next Gen Market Research blogger Tom H. C. Anderson interviewed data mining expert Bing Liu in anticipation of his day-before workshop for the Sentiment Analysis Symposium in New York City early next month. He has titled his interview, “Practical Sentiment Analysis and Lies.” Interesting.
Professor Liu teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the Computer Science Department. His work on text analytics and detecting online ratings fraud was recently featured in the New York Times. Anderson posed Liu with questions on the upcoming workshop as well as on his work in general.
The words that caught my eye were in Liu’s response to the issue of detecting fake reviews:
“Social media is here to stay. Its content is also being used more and more in applications.
Something has to be done to ensure the integrity of this valuable source of information before it becomes full of fake opinions, lies and deceptive information. After all, there are strong motivations for businesses and individuals to post fake reviews for profit and fame. It is also easy and cheap to do so. Writing fake reviews has already become a very cheap way of marketing and product promotion.”
Important though the issue might be, Liu admits that ratting out fake reviews is a huge challenge. Almost impossible to identify simply by reading them, misleading missives must be discovered through secondary information, like aggregate reviewer behavior and the physical origins of a post. Apparently, a reliable method has yet to be developed.
So, let this be a reminder of something my Dad used to tell me: now, perhaps more than ever, you can’t believe everything you read.
Cynthia Murrell, April 20, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
A Useful Discussion of Baidu
April 20, 2012
Knowledge is power, and when reading the article, The Google of China: The Secret of Baidu’s Runaway Search-Engine Success – TIME one realizes that Wang Zhan definitely used his wisdom to acquire knowledge since creating Baidu. It is no small wonder that this popular Chinese search engine is on top of the game.
“In applying the principle to his product design this means “putting the user experience first.” It follows the rule that all its products have to stay simple and easy for the consumer to use.
“It doesn’t cost anything for a person to switch from one search engine to another. If you do something wrong, the user can just leave in one instant,” Wang explains. “This is not like changing your telecom service provider, where you have to change phone numbers.”
American based providers could take a few notes from Mr. Zhan’s book of ‘search engine’ enlightenment. Utilizing updated technology daily, they still keep things simple and convenient for the user. The entire concept seems almost like the company would be in opposition against itself. However, with his plan of action, Zhan has managed to make Baidu the primary search engine in China. They really do not have any competition, unlike the over saturated markets in the US. The sited article provides us a useful discussion of Baidu.
Jennifer Shockley, April 20, 2012
Sponsored by TheTrendPoint.com
Microsoft Rolls Out Its Version of CloudSearch.
April 19, 2012
When Amazon publicized their big move with CloudSearch, no one was surprised that the technological behemoth Microsoft announced they’d be moving the Bing API into the Azure Marketplace. What exactly does this mean? The article, Microsoft’s answer to Amazon’s CloudSearch: Bing on Azure Marketplace | ZDNet gives us a little insight into what the future holds for Bing users.
“The Windows Azure marketplace is the site where Microsoft and third party vendors can sell (or offer for free) their data, apps and services.
Microsoft officials said the Bing API Marketplace transition will “begin in several weeks and take a few months to complete.” Via a post to the Bing Developer blog on April 12, officials did say that Microsoft plans to make the API available on a monthly subscription basis”
Microsoft’s effort to monetize ramping up API technology will probably lead quickly to success. The fees incurred have already been made public, as stated in the article Microsoft ends free Bing Search API, moves to paid service on Azure Marketplace. It seems they’ll be keeping things affordable so as not to overwhelm current Bing users, while providing faster, more efficient services.
“The company has released what it describes as “approximate” pricing for the service: $40 per 20,000 queries per month. Microsoft has not at this time said if there will be any introductory or free tier for low volume users. Though this rate compares favorably with Google’s search API pricing-$5 per 1000 queries—Google permits 100 queries per day for free. Microsoft’s translation API similarly has a free tier, allowing translation of 2 million characters per month without charge.”
There will be more competition for the premises crowd with Microsoft, Amazon and Google all three in the game. Though the basic services offered differ slightly, this will be a drastic change for Bing’s business users. They will eventually have to reconfigure their current systems to accommodate the Azure Cloud as stated in the article, Microsoft Got A Bright Idea From Amazon: Selling Search As A Service – Business Insider.
“Another bummer for developers who use Bing is that they will have to go back and rejigger their apps to use the cloud paid service”
Amazon may not have been the first to come up with the paid API idea. With the swiftness that Microsoft jumped into the ‘all in one’ provider revolution, one has to ponder how long the Azure API had been in the works. The article Microsoft to Begin Charging for Bing Search API Usage further explains and confirms the big moves taking place in API.
“This is sure to be a controversial move for some heavy users of the API, but it does show that Microsoft is going ‘all-in’ on Azure, consolidating its APIs under the product.”
There is no doubt this new API evolution will be causing some changes in the future. The smaller players like Searchblox will be required to work harder in order to compete in the upcoming API war. However, new opportunities will be arising for open source providers like Lucid Imagination, as the changes start to unfold.
Jennifer Shockley, April 19, 2012
Ooyala Personalizes Video Advertising
April 18, 2012
As online video viewing continues to gain popularity, advertising tailored to users is an important factor for content producers.
Video technology company Ooyala helps brands personalize videos and profit from sharing content. An article from VatorNews, “Ooyala Launches Personalized Video Discovery Platform,” shares more about the product which aims to keep viewers glued longer by monitoring viewer habits based on length of videos viewed and content viewed. Ooyala’s product would suggest follow-up content of a similar length and related content. The article states:
“In pre-release, with select customers, Ooyala found that the tailored content was already driving a four-fold increase in consumer engagement, meaning longer viewing periods, more videos completed and ultimately improved monetization.
I sat down with Bismarck Lepe, Ooyala’s co-founder and president of products, the other day and he explained to me that as more people shift the time they are watching video content to online methods, people are going to gravitate to the services that have the best elements of television with the personalized aspects of on-demand viewing.”
This sort of tailoring makes for happy customers, discovering content that is enjoyable to them, and happy creators, seeing more revenue dollars in return. Video is a vital part of bringing consumers to sites, and an effective system like this is crucial in improving the streaming experience.
Andrea Hayden, April 18, 2012
Real Journalist Ignores Future of Many Real Journalists
April 18, 2012
Years ago I worked for Bill Ziff, yep, the magazine guy. In the late 1980s and in the early years of the 1990s, magazines worked. But today magazines are no longer the slam dunk. In 1989 it took about $1 million to get a new title off the ground. If you had lots of titles, the costs were still punishing but there were economies of scale.
I read “Is a Blogger a Journalist?”, published in a property once owned by Mr. Ziff. The write up contains this passage:
Hopefully this un-American precedent will be reversed shortly. Meanwhile, the public should be outraged. Furthermore, for years, many writers have advocated for the idea that the Bill of Rights is outdated in the modern era and that journalists per se should be regulated. These people should be strongly rebuked. If we do not protect our rights, we lose them.
Sounds good. My thoughts are:
- The distinction between a “real” journalist, a run-of-the-mill journalist like those riffed from the Courier Journal a couple weeks ago, and bloggers is a fuzzy one indeed. Fuzziness leads to ambiguity, of which there are seven types.
- When “real” journals find a way to make money like the News Corp., the notion of behavior becomes somewhat plastic. Alleged criminal behavior seems to surface when some of the “real” journalists’ methods come to light. The run-of-the-mill journalists try to build a following or eek out an income doing whatever. I had one writer tell me he made more spreading mulch than producing content for my non-real information services.
- The folks who consume content do not know when a story is “real”, “shaded,” or flat out incorrect. The ability or willingness to dig in and determine facts, no matter how slippery, is eroding. The rush to “smart software” which tells a person what he or she needs to know is the next wave in information.
Bottom line: Say, hello, to murky. Do you know if the search results you get from Bing, Google, or Yandex are “accurate”? I didn’t think so. Assumptions are much easier than figuring out what is going on with “free” content no matter who produces it. I have not decided if I will post the paper I am giving at the Text Analytics Conference in San Francisco next week. The subject? Manipulating predictive systems by exploiting persistence, simplification, and sampling.
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Want to Slip Around the Systems Department? Go Cloudy
April 18, 2012
Silicon.com presents an interesting view of why cloud computing is of interest to executives in “Business Execs ‘Use Cloud Computing to Dodge the CIO’.” Um, shouldn’t different departments be trying to work together instead of flouting one another? Perhaps that’s too naïve. Or too logical.
Writer Steve Ranger points to research from Forrester which found that two thirds of CIOs now believe their business sees cloud computing as a way to circumvent IT. Two Thirds! The article tells us:
“Cloud computing is being used as a way for businesses to dodge the IT department and get services delivered more quickly. But as well as giving the CIO sleepless nights, this attempt to side-step the IT department is causing additional cost and complexity along the way.”
That’s one way to manage: go around the “problem”. Another silver bullet play by the uninformed. These executives may, however, find that they are shooting themselves in the feet. Datamation finds “Cloud Computing: Bigger and Better—But Still Flawed.” In that piece, Robert McGarvey explores the way cloud computing has failed to deliver, and the way it is playing out differently than previously conceived. He writes:
“Cloud computing, so far, has not lived up to expectations — it’s slow, it has troubles housing huge enterprise critical data, and it is perceived as insecure.”
We recall that Google at one time was working to find end user and information technology conduits into the enterprise. We are not sure how well this works. Google, after 13 years in business, generates only about five percent of its revenue from sources unrelated to online advertising. If Amazon jumps into the enterprise sector with more than cloud search, we think the developer angle Amazon takes may be more welcome than the “go around” approach.
Cynthia Murrell, April 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Goldman Sachs in Hot Water Again
April 18, 2012
Info sharing the MBA way: The Washington Post announces that “Goldman Fined $22M for ‘Willfully’ Violating Law on Information-Sharing, SEC Says.” Apparently, the SEC had a problem with the weekly “huddles” with favored clients that Goldman Sachs held from 2006 to 2011. The article reveals:
“The agency did not accuse Goldman of insider trading, but it essentially said the firm created an environment in which systematic trading based on advance information could have gone unchecked. In this case, the information was the ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ recommendations and other stock analysis by the firm’s own employees. “Goldman agreed to pay a $22 million penalty to settle the agency’s administrative case and a parallel action by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra), an industry self-regulatory group. Goldman also agreed to be censured and to change its policies and procedures, the SEC said.”
Well, that ought to do it; I’m sure the firm has learned its lesson.
Finished laughing? In fact, Goldman has faced plenty of these measly (to them) fines for missteps, and it just keeps stepping. In this case, though, the announcement comes on the heels of the bad press caused by former employee Greg Smith’s resignation statement he had published in the New York Times. (If you haven’t read it yet, check it out here. It’s a doozy.) Will the timing matter?
Goldman Sachs keeps finding itself in hot water, but don’t worry. I’m sure its executives will be just fine in their insulated golden life rafts. I wonder if MBAs know what the buoyancy of golden life vest is.
Cynthia Murrell, April 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Conflicting Facebook Studies Should Be Taken With a Grain of Salt
April 17, 2012
Search Engine Watch’s Miranda Miller recently reported on some interesting brand trends resulting from Facebook’s switch to the Timeline in the article “Conflicting Facebook Brand Page Studies Highlight Universal Truths in Online Marketing.”
According to the article, there have been conflicting reports regarding fan engagement with the new Facebook timeline. Simply Measured’s study found that fan engagement increased 14 percent; content engagement was up 46 percent; and interactive content engagement skyrocketed 65 percent. EdgeRank Checker, on the other hand, concluded that brand pages are seeing a drop in engagement, regardless of whether they’ve switched to Timeline. Plus they had a much larger sample group of 3,500 pages compared with Simply Measured’s measly 15.
After sitting several other conflicting studies that are bound to make your head spin, Miller encourages readers not to drink the Kool-Aid:
“We can use their data not at face value as the be-all-that-ends-all or cornerstone of our own strategy, but as a benchmark for our own pages. It could mean as much to you as the catalyst for a full audit of your own accounts, or as little as a piece you skimmed over in 30 seconds and might only recall as, “I heard something, somewhere about that… 190 percent or something, what was that…”
Okay, Facebook helps reveal “universal strategies”. We’re believers in universal strategies from the commons, are you?
Jasmine Ashton, April 17, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Amazon and the Poobahs
April 15, 2012
I read “What Amazon’s Ebook Strategy Means.” Interesting but a few degrees off center. The main point seems to be that one cannot believe corporate executives. A second point is that corporate executives in publishing should abandon efforts to protect content with digital rights management schemes.
Good start. I find that public statements by anyone require some untangling. “Meaningful use” comments from Administration officials is an example of the difference between what may be meant, what one understands, and what is actually going on.
I also like the definition of three terms. I understand disintermediation. That’s what has happened to corporate libraries when “point and click” interfaces made MBAs and English majors into expert online searchers. There was a cost savings angle too. Even better. I am semi-okay with the definition of monopoly. However, in the online world, monopolies emerge because of economics, human motivation, and the nature of systems to enjoy nodes. Big nodes are often good. Little nodes are okay, but it is tough to make them pay off unless there is a business angle. The point is important because traditional publishing represents nodes from a different time. Online nodes are here, and they squeeze, subsume, and erode nodes from a different era. I don’t think the Vanderbilts and JP Morgans of the past were into this nuance, but if these gentlemen were alive today, the business nuances would be acted upon.
I am not so sure about eh word “monopsomy.” Most buyers follow habitual behavior. This is an aspect of online which is little appreciated. The idea is that once a person online has fallen into a groove, getting out of that groove is tough. No matter how much criticism is aimed at Apple iTunes, try to get most users to change. For that “one click away” baloney. So monopsomy is a five dollar word which simply does not apply to online and user habit.
Armed with these terms, the article asserts:
If the major publishers switch to selling ebooks without DRM, then they can enable customers to buy books from a variety of outlets and move away from the walled garden of the Kindle store. They see DRM as a defense against piracy, but piracy is a much less immediate threat than a gigantic multinational with revenue of $48 Billion in 2011 (more than the entire global publishing industry) that has expressed its intention to “disrupt” them, and whose chief executive said recently “even well-meaning gatekeepers slow innovation” (where “innovation” is code-speak for “opportunities for me to turn a profit”). And so they will deep-six their existing commitment to DRM and use the terms of the DoJ-imposed settlement to wiggle out of the most-favored-nation terms imposed by Amazon, in order to sell their wares as widely as possible.
Several observations:
First, I sure wouldn’t want to try and figure out how to make traditional publishing work in today’s world. I left that sector in the 1990s because the writing was on the wall. Shrinking margins, a shift in media channels, and the quest for blockbusters spoke to me. I am not sure traditional publishing is much more than a chase to find the one book that sells. James A Twitchell documented this a long time ago in Carnival Culture. The blend of online and the carnival are a potent combination.
Second, Amazon itself is vulnerable. The shrinking margins and the increasingly aggressive and somewhat clever behavior tells me that Jeff Bezos and his merry band know that extraordinary measures are required. The race is to capture users and leverage habitual behavior before another company does. The shortest distance between a book reader and habit is low ball prices. The WalMart approach is part of the Google Android play. Buying customers is a time honored retail method. YouTube is buying an audience with free content. Amazon is buying an audience with cheap Kindles and maybe once again cheap books. But Amazon has to pump up the revenue, control costs, and lock in its customers. Tough job.
Third, the content landscape has already shifted. Literacy in the US is a goner for large segments of the populace. Whether it is the tiny sound bite articles in Men’s Journal or the emergence of books which are collections of items, books are becoming something a relatively modest percentage of the 320 million people in the US consume. The same pressure which newspapers and magazines experience applies to book publishers. Look at the emergence of videos instead of white papers. Scary, cheap, easy, and very non-book.
What’s habit got to do with this? Traditional publishers have their habits. Buy low, sell high, and hope for a blockbuster. Online habits are different. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are big nodes and each node fosters habitual behavior among its users. Traditional publishing, therefore, is a subset of an online node. Subsets, in may cases, are expendable or have to become luxury items. The online nodes become the arbiters of taste, fashion, and what’s hot, good, or visible. Publishers have this role but for a rapidly decreasing segment of the online universe.
Chasing blockbusters is a tough business. Cutting costs and avoiding financial catastrophe is also a tough job. I am not sure either the publishers or Amazon is up to the task. And DRM? Changing habits is difficult. Isn’t it better to form the habits and use the systems and methods of capitalism than offer advice from the sidelines? The context of online has changed the rules. The old business models are interesting but less useful in the world of online.
Stephen E Arnold, April 15, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
More Real Journalist Antics: A News Corp. Innovation?
April 8, 2012
Here’s more about the work methods of “real” journalists from the alleged “real” news. BBC News declares, “News Corporation firm NDS Accused of ITV Digital Hack.” BBC Panorama is accusing rival NDS of misconduct back at the turn of this century which resulted in the downfall of ITV Digital.
Panorama says NDS leaked the codes to smartcards that allowed users pirate ITV Digital’s services through a Web site called Thoic, putting the paid-TV broadcaster out of business. Thoic’s Lee Gibling charges that NDS paid him to publish the information for that very purpose. NDS internal documents seem to support the claim, according to the article.
NDS, of course, insists it did no such thing; in fact, they were actually working to *stop* piracy. The NDS response asserts:
“Like most companies in the conditional access industry – and many law enforcement agencies – NDS uses industry contacts to track and catch both hackers and pirates. This is neither illegal nor unethical. And, to ensure that all activity remains completely within legal bounds, NDS staff and their contacts operate under a clear code of conduct for operating undercover.
“These allegations were the subject of a long-running court case in the United States. This concluded with NDS being totally vindicated and its accuser having to pay almost $19m in costs.”
So, who is telling the truth? Unfortunately for NDS, its parent company News Corporation is currently suffering from a lack of credibility after last year’s phone hacking scandal. I imagine we will be hearing more about this issue as it unfolds. This online and technology approach to information is fascinating.
Cynthia Murrell, April 8, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
