Online and Medicine: Responsibility Falls on Customer
February 19, 2012
Sunday morning in Harrod’s Creek. Reasonably quiet for now. Gun fire will crackle when the sun rises. Police sirens will howl as some Commonwealth residents crash their cars after a late night run on the Bourbon Trail.
These are consequences of human choices. Guns do not fire themselves. Automobiles, at least so far, do not drive themselves.
Two stories caught my attention, and the way in which an “issue” was handled by writers and their publications make clear the odd handling of human intent.
First, navigate to “Infants’ Tylenol Recalled.” The hook is that a large company, Johnson & Johnson, manufactured or caused to be manufactured a medicine which can do harm not good. I do not know if the story is accurate, but it contains an interesting passage:
Company officials say in some cases the flow restrictor was pushed into the bottle when inserting the syringe. The recall applies to one-ounce bottles of grape flavored Infants Tylenol Oral Suspension. There have been no adverse events from the problem according to McNeil.
So no adverse effect to a child given Tylenol. Okay, the company is not chastised, nor is the article placing blame. On the surface, it seems that the company facing the allegation took action were it not for this statement: “Recall-plagued Johnson & Johnson is pulling all infant Tylenol off the U.S. Market.” So somewhere in this recall story people made decisions and people did the alleged action to put infants at risk.
Now point your browser thing at “Google’s Privacy Invasion: It’s Your Fault.” The story addresses the allegation that either Apple or Google took competitive actions. The online customer, in my opinion, is a clueless about the risk of certain online actions as is an infant taking medicine. Note what the “real” journalists at InfoWorld offer:
No, let’s put the blame where it belongs, on us, the users of the Internet. We rely on free services like Gmail while insisting on “privacy,” a term that we probably can’t even define to our collective satisfaction. We accept terms of service contracts and privacy policies that explain in excessive detail how we will not get privacy, how our information will be used, and then we object.
So instead of privacy, let’s talk about control. You do have some of that, still. Make some choices about how your information will be used–because it will be used–instead of accepting default settings.
Okay, online customers are at fault. Why are both stories giving the entities facing these allegations such gentle treatment. Humans make decisions at companies which have an impact on consumers who assume, trust, or expect products to work without a problem.
I find this interesting because as products and services become more complex, those using the problems are making decisions which deliver customer satisfaction. Maybe customer satisfaction is not a priority? Maybe journalists are finding it easier to ignore or shift the blame?
Fascinating. When one tries to search for information about these matters, the content which surfaces is not about the deeper problems. When content is removed or shaped, the “facts” of an issue become secondary to the spin. “Consumers, it is your fault” becomes the reality. I don’t believe this assertion for one New York minute. And pharma companies? Yikes.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Faking Out the Panda: Crazy Notions
February 19, 2012
More baloney from the desperate world of tricking Google. Search Engine Journal offers an “Easy Way to Understand Google’s Panda.” Writer Melissa Fach reproduces here an infographic with this introduction:
There are so many myths out there about Panda and what it means. This infographic from Single Grain makes it very easy for you to understand what Panda is, what can hurt your site, link building tips and offers suggestions on what to do if your website was affected.
This graphic actually seems to do what it claims, and the pandas in it are quite cute. However, we maintain that trying to outsmart the Panda is a waste of time and energy, and adds no value to the Web community. Better to focus on providing original, quality content that actually brings value to your site’s visitors.
Nothing tricky about that. Why not just write interesting and useful articles? We just do our thing at Beyond Search. Geese, not pandas too.
Cynthia Murrell, February 19, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Rapidhog Has the Answers
February 15, 2012
We’ve found another information aggregation service that taps into the “collective wisdom” of the Web. Rapidhog is a place where folks can buy and sell knowledge. Its About page states:
Rapidhog connects the people who need to know and the people who do know to create a community of information exchange. The site allows people to freely ask questions and obtain answers while allowing those who answer to earn money for their help. It will also allow those who have information they find helpful such as video tutorials and walkthroughs to offer those to our members at a cost.
My question is about quality control. How do I know the person to whom I’m giving a few bucks to answer my question isn’t just making something up? Or, more likely, performing the Web search I could have done for free and probably in less time than it took to post my query?
With the Associated Press focusing on certain aggregation services, those offering new types of roll up services may want to check their rear view mirror.
Cynthia Murrell, February 15, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
A Fairy Tale: AOL Was Facebook a Long Time Ago
February 8, 2012
The Wall Street Journal amuses me. A Murdoch property, the newspaper does its best to minimize the best of “real” News Corp. journalism. I appreciate objective editorials which present oracular explanations of meaningful events in the world of “real” business.
A good read is “How AOL—Aka Facebook 1.0—Blew Its Lead” by Jesse Kornbluth. What is interesting is that this is a report from a person with Guccis on the ground. According to my hard copy edition, February 8, 2012, page A15:
Mr. Kornbluth was editorial director of America Online from 1997 to 2003. He now edits Headbutler.com.
I did a quick search on Facebook 3.0—aka Google—and learned from no less an authority than the Huffington Post the Mr. Kornbluth edits a blog which is a “cultural concierge service.” He is a “real” journalist and has been a contributing editor for Vanity Fair and new York, and a contributor to the New Yorker, the New York Times, etc.”
The addled goose is still in recovery mode, sort of like a very old restore from the now disappeared Fastback program. Thinking of old software and AOL, I think in 1999America Online was in hog heaven in terms of stock price. I recall shares coming in the $40 to $100 range. The accounting issues of 1993 were behind the company. The merger with Time Warner was a done deal by mid January 2000. The $350 billion was a nice round number. The New York Times marked the 10th anniversary in its “analysis” on January 11, 2010, with the story “How the AOL-Time Warner Merger Went So Wrong.”
Now I learn that AOL was Facebook 1.0. I had forgotten about AOL’s chat rooms. When I think of chat rooms, I recall CompuServe, but I was never into AOL despite the outstanding marketing campaign with the jazzy CD ROMs that seemed to be everywhere. Here’s Mr. Kornbluth’s Facebook parallel:
Google Shift: Lamenting the Inevitable
February 5, 2012
The addled goose is recuperating. In the interstices between biological auto mechanics and the outputs of patient-hungry pharmaceutical companies, I browse content which gets lots of clicks. In the Lady Gaga Era, Mark Zuckerberg may not have her sense of fashion, but the lad does generate headlines. Not surprisingly, with the rise of the $100 billion Facebook and the Apple quarterly reports, one expects some reflection of the changes the Internet has manifested in the last five years. Remember. We are talking Internet time, which may not be dog years, but five years is a hefty chunk of a plugged in, tuned in, and wired up “expert.”
Here’s an example of a commons. Nice, right? A happy quack to Engage for a great visual metaphor.
For the goose, however, it is the same old cycle. I am tempted to trot out that college favorite Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his fascinating The Difference Between Fichte’s and Schelling’s Systems of Philosophy. But I shall instead reference “It’s Not Whether Google’s Threatened. It’s Asking Ourselves: What Commons Do We Wish For?” Though somewhat more colloquial than Herr Hegel’s titles, the thought is an interesting one. The core of the idea is that that old Googzilla just ain’t what she used to be. Here’s the passage I noted:
I’m focused on trying to understand what the Internet would look like if we don’t pay attention to our core shared values. And it’s not fair to blame Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or app makers here. In conversations with various industry folks over the past few months, it’s become clear that there are more than business model issues stifling the growth of the open web.
The author has hooked this statement to what are described as “core values.” Hmm. The idea is that there is a greater good involved if the Internet (an undefined concept because I presume everyone knows what the word means) should embody “no gatekeepers,” “an ethos of the commons,” “no preset rules about how data is [sic] used,” and “interoperability.”
These are interesting points but the fact is that as I write this in my addled state on a dreary Sunday morning in the intellectually bankrupt Commonwealth of Kentucky, I wish to point out:
- Core values are tough to slap on the folks whom I know. I imaging venturing into a more intellectually enlightened place, getting folks to agree on care values might be tough. I am thinking about rounding up some bright lights in Syria, for example.
- There are gatekeepers, lots of them. The gatekeepers include various governmental entities, outfits like Jike.com, Google and Twitter, and more coming on the bandwagon for “control” every day or so.
- The “commons” is another fascinating concept. My recollection is that the chestnut from English history is that the commons were trashed. A more up-to-date interpretation appears in the quirky Science Creative Quarterly’s “Tragedy of the Commons Explained with Smurfs.” If smurfs struggle, imaging what folks in Harrod’s Creek will do. By the way, the chief visual characteristic of this part of Kentucky is fences. Forget Robert Frost. Fences are a big deal for financial, social, and technological reasons.
- I find the notion of “no preset rules” intriguing. The fact is that there are many rules about how data are to be used. The fact that people do not follow the rules makes clear that the notion of sharing certain values does not fit in 2012. Most people have zero concept of the data which are available from commercial outfits and even less understanding of what makes systems like i2 and Recorded Future work so well. In today’s world, rules are put in place so that when there is a “justifiable cause”, action can be taken. Preset rules are the main business of those running governmental entities.
The “old” Internet has become a memory. My mother, God rest her soul, would use the past as a way to make the present come up short. I remember her telling me that when she was in school in the 1930s, students and teachers were somehow better than the teachers I had in 1950. I understand the importance of remembering the past. Opening an long unused box containing knickknacks my mother treasured can release molecules which take me back to the time when she was reminding me to pick up my socks.
The reality, however, is that as much emotion as memories convey, the real world is different and changing. Pining for the “old” Internet is an indulgence which is mentally satisfying on some level. Adopting a parental tone is part of today’s “mindset.” See, for example, Cognition in the Wild by Edwin Hutchins.
What’s this have to do with search? Here you go, gentle reader:
- Free, public search systems and some commercial online systems do not return objective, accurate information.
- Walled gardens are a consequence of the economic environment in which organizations exist. The fuzzy, warm notions of “freemium” seem quaint in the world of the 99 percenters.
- The evolution of online is toward consolidation and what I call a “logical monopoly.” The reason has to do with users who are reluctant to change once something becomes a habit. The other driving force is economic rationality. Who can afford to create a competitor to any of the monopolies which have formed or are now coalescing in online?
The net net is that some folks may not like today’s online world. Get used to it is my suggestion. The goose prefers pond water unsullied by mine drainage runoff. Guess what? Those pristine ponds are history, just like the good, old Internet.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Reuters about Google Complexity
January 27, 2012
If a company knows about complicated corporate set ups, it is Thomson Reuters. I found the write up “Analysis: Wall Street Puzzles over Google’s New Direction” interesting because it shows what Thomson Reuters thinks about a company which is less complicated that Thomson Reuters. In fact, both Thomson Reuters and Google may share more characteristics than some imagine. For example, Thomson Reuters is a YouTube partner. And Thomson Reuters’ latest innovation is a print magazine for “consumers” at the World Economic Forum. Google has a magazine as well. It is Think Quarterly. At least Google does not describe the magazine as a consumer product, preferring to tackle themes such as speed, people, innovation, and data. which is a plus. I must admit I never thought of George Soros as a consumer, but I live in rural Kentucky. What do I know?
Thomson Reuters has a very complicated organizational set up and very confusing product and service names. You can check out both of these facets of the shot gun marriage of professional information and “real” journalism at http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/.
So what does Reuters say about Google? Google “has become an increasingly tricky business to grasp.” Here’s the passage which caught my attention:
If Page’s bets pay off, search could represent just one of several large and thriving businesses as Google recasts itself as a full-fledged “media and services” company.
Since replacing Eric Schmidt last April as CEO, the Google co-founder has aggressively tossed out underperforming and non-essential projects and products. The idea is to put “more wood” behind the company’s most important arrows, he has said.
Among those arrows are Google+, the eight-month old social network; Android, the smartphone operating system; and YouTube, the video Website it bought six years ago for $1.65 billion.
Clearly, these have been very successful ventures. Android has become the world’s No. 1 smarpthone operating system, surging past Apple Inc’s iOS, the software that powers the popular iPhone. YouTube is delivering 4 billion video views per day. And 90 million users have signed up for Google+.
What is less clear is how much money Google can eventually generate from these largely free services, such as from advertising sales.
For Google to keep growing, it needs access to a wider range of content on which it can place ads and make money, particularly as the tech landscape shifts and consumers’ Internet habits evolve.
What I find interesting is that this analysis applies directly to Thomson Reuters. One can argue that Elektron, Eikon, and the Thomson Reuters health care business are equally big bets.
Fascinating how one troubled company can write about another troubled company. Which outfit is in better shape: Google or Thomson Reuters? My view: Google. One way to solve that content problem may be for Google to buy an outfit like Thomson Reuters.
Stephen E Arnold, sponsored by Pandia.com
An Unlikely Open Source Supporter: LexisNexis
January 24, 2012
We are constantly searching for solutions to Big Data, and LexisNexis says its new HPCC Systems is much faster and better equipped than the well-known Hadoop technology.
The company developed the processing data platform to handle its own research business and wants to expand to other markets. However, that goal may be difficult to achieve following in open source Hadoop’s shadow. The competition is not stopping LexisNexis from attempting to add open source technology, according to the ComputerWorldUK article, “Hadoop Challenger LexisNexis Wants to Add Open Source Developers.” The article asserts:
The company has opened sourced the HPCC platform, and says it is challenging Hadoop in benchmarks. The company says there are now about 1,000 HPCC Systems developers worldwide, most of who have been trained since the platform was opened sourced in June, By contrast, a Hadoop developer conference last summer drew a crowd of some 1,700.
LexisNexis is finally embracing open source? Don’t want to rush do we? Clearly, the company faces a difficult battle here attempting to follow in Apache’s footsteps. It just might be a little late in the game. But a little open source jazz for marketing? Seems okay and trendy.
Andrea Hayden, January 24, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
January 2012 and a 2009 Meet Up: Spoof or Goof?
January 1, 2012
The idea of accuracy is on my mind. I did a quick look at what our Overflight service “saw” in the last eight hours, and I noticed “SEO Meet Up and Its Future Potential.” The source for the document is Ontosearch which has the subtitle “Ontology Search Engine.” Since I don’t know what an ontology is, I was interested in how I might search such a system.
Get your goof T shirt from Zazzle. Image source: http://www.zazzle.com/ya_dun_goofd_tshirt-235540199656793547
I noted this passage in a write up that seemed to be reporting on a meet up in Mubai, India, in August 2009. Since it is now 2012, the idea that “news” flowing from an event held two years ago caught my attention. Here’s the passage I noted:
Keeping the potential of a SEO analyst in mind and in general the SEO vertical, a SEO meet up was organized in Mumbai on the 1st Aug 2009. Scores of SEO specialists, content experts, web designers etc. met to discuss the changing landscape of the web, and latest trends in the SEO services. This meet up was undoubtedly an eye opener for everybody and they left with a plethora of understanding. They also discussed the future of SEO. The web world has made a transition from the traditional Web 1. to Web 2.. And there are already talks of Web three. in the pipeline. The future is semantic indexing and collaborative development. A excellent SEO must have the flexibility to recognize and implement the nuances of making use of a semantic technology to link different sites and come across a way to promote his own. So adaptability and openness are going to the keys of Web 3.. Agility and continuous improvement would be the hallmark of Web three..
Hmmm. I think this is too sophisticated for an addled goose. Is this a spoof or goof? My view is that this is an example of content which looks as if it were the product of a person who graduated from a junior college. Then again, when an addled goose cannot figure out”agility”, I think we have another example of fancy words and meaning free content. Are Bing and Google fooled? I think so.
A quick review of other posts on the Web site reveal other write ups which baffle. If you are looking for information about a taxonomy, Pandia and ArnoldIT will publish in 2012 a monograph on the subject. No spoof, and we hope that we don’t goof. That’s a useful New Year’s resolution: Write about sources, ideas, and developments which sort of make sense “ontologically”, of course. I think it is time for content to “relevel up”, a phrase used by a political candidate.
But not for the owner of the domain in Timur, Indonesia.
Stephen E Arnold, January 1, 2012
Google and Reading Books Offline
December 26, 2011
I recall writing a short analysis of the methods Google used to prevent a person from reading an entire book on one of the Google services. There were both patent documents and technical papers. The methods were interesting and seemed to be difficult to work around. We learned that with a little coordination and a number of different “helpers”, it was possible to get most pages in a book, but even that method was far from fool proof.
Imagine my surprise when I read “Google Books for Chrome Gets Offline Support, One Less Excuse for Not Reading the ‘Classics‘”. According to the write up:
the Google Books app for Chrome now caches your titles for local reading. To download a book, just hover over the cover in library view and select “make available offline” from the pop-up. Then, even when you can’t get your Chromebook connected, you’ll be able to sit back and relax with a classic novel or seedy romance tale.
With libraries facing push back from publishers for lending eBooks, I found the Google service interesting. Will the addled goose read classics on his Chromebook? Nope, the goose is not a Chromebook user. Our question, “What’s next?” Might the Google allow reading public domain books on any device running Chrome? Might the Google “rent” a title because the methods for knowing who has what exists? Is Google now following Amazon? Worth watching as Google moves to redefine itself for 2012.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Chicago Sun-Times to Charge Online
December 19, 2011
In order to generate revenue from online content, a vendor must have a critical mass of digital information. Some of that information can be fluff, but a chunk should be what’s called “must have” content. Newspapers perceive themselves as having “must have” content. Most don’t and those with must have content have burned the fudge.
As most readers (including our two or three) have started getting their news online instead of reaching for the paper in the morning, print newspapers have been suffering.
Signs of this change are obvious in Chicago; The Chicago Sun-Times will begin charging customers to view content on their websites. In the Huffington Post article “Chicago Sun-Times Pay Wall: Paper to Charge Online Readers,” Sun-Times Media Chairman Jeremy Halbreich states, “It is certainly award-winning content and we need to find new ways to support it.” The article also tells us:
The announcement arrives one day after another round of layoffs at the paper, which Halbreich called the ‘final piece’ of 18 months of staffing reductions, Crain’s Chicago Business reports. Sun-Times Media has handed down hundreds of layoffs over the past two years.
In the same article, Sun Times movie critic Roger Ebert says he is upset with the pay wall concept and I agree. Ebert claims that instead of his reviews gathering dust in a pile, they are being read globally and daily online. Charging for online content will only cause readers to stray elsewhere to sites where they can get unlimited free information. Right now, the Sun Times is exempting mobile apps from the fees, which I think they should reconsider as an alternative to the pay wall. But I’m just a mere Kentucky gosling, I may be off on my business advice.
The big goose is not uncertain. The newspaper is likely to earn more from a bake sale than trying to replace the print based ad model with a pay wall. The big goose is, of course, Stephen E Arnold, our beloved leader.
Andrea Hayden, December 19, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
—
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
