Is Amazon Building the Next Big Thing?
April 25, 2012
The Network Thinkers (TNT) blog believes it has discovered “The Next Big Thing:” social via Amazon. The write up posits that the information Amazon gathers from Kindle readers, which goes beyond “customers who bought this item also bought. . .” to include highlights and notes folks have made in their e-copies. The article asserts:
“It is what we specifically find interesting and useful in those books that reveals deep similarities between people – the hi-lites, bookmarks and the notes will be the connectors. Our choices reveal who we are, and who we are like! Today, Amazon introduces you to similar books. Tomorrow, they will introduce you to similar readers.”
Intriguing. What makes this post more interesting, though, are the comments; ideas presented as new strike some as covering old ground. “Anonymous” notes:
“Eh, not really that under the radar? Kindle.amazon has been recommending readers with similar profiles for quite some time. But more people take photos or have jobs than read books, so the scale will be less?”
Though his or her voice is tenuous, Anonymous makes a good point: book readers seem to be a dwindling breed (sigh), so the Kindleverse is unlikely to rival Facebook or LinkedIn anytime soon. Myspace, maybe.
Cynthia Murrell, April 25, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Another Play for “Real” Content
April 25, 2012
Magazines have always been popular reads, and when Ezines broke out on the web, their popularity quickly spread as a way to enjoy reading without cluttering up your coffee table with old paper editions. Now according to, YouTube co-founders are working on a magazine publishing service called Zeen yet another online magazine is getting ready to hit the World Wide Web. We learned:
“It looks like you’ll soon be able to discover and create “beautiful” magazines online. In the last 24 hours, YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, who now run AVOS, posted a “Coming Soon” page on the website Zeen(a take on the word zine, which commonly refers to a narrowly focused self-published magazine). There are plenty of websites that allow you to create your own zine, so it should be interesting to see how the YouTube co-founders, who also own the social bookmarking service Delicious, plan to separate themselves from the rest of the pack.”
The world of online reading is vast offering readers fictional and reality based content. The internet has been flooded over the past decade with a variety of different blogs and ezines. You have to wonder if Zeen will be the beginning of an Ezine evolution, or just provide more publications to an ongoing fad in an over saturated industry. Is this just another play for ‘real’ content?
Jennifer Shockley, April 25, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
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
Trapit: Search without Search
April 18, 2012
Trapit at www.trap.it is an automated finding system. Software “watches” what a user reads and then performs a “more like this” function. The results are not a laundry list. The presentation is similar to that used in Flipboard and Pulse. The idea borrows from iPhone and iPad apps with some DARPA money stirred into the mix. The inventors or implements worked at SRI, the blue chip technology consulting firm which used to be the Stanford Research Institute. the company is getting a little PR push, but it has been in business since January 2010.
You can read the CrunchBase profile at Chattertrap. Heavy weight real journalist John C. Dvorak covered the company in his “Trapit, the Non-Search Engine” article at PCMag.com. TechCrunch characterized the company as a Siri sibling. The reason is that Trap.it and Siri share some artificial intelligence methods.
The big news is that in January 2012, the company landed $6.2 million in addition to the US government money.
These “we will tell you what you need to know” systems are going to become more prevalent. These “smart” systems are ideal for information grazers who have neither the time, desire, or expertise to perform old fashioned research.
Will a user know when a potentially important article has been filtered out of the stream? Nah. Won’t matter. Today’s MBAs and former middle school teachers are too busy to dig for info, verify it, and assemble their own synthesis. And magazines produced the old fashioned way have zero chance to gain traction with certain demographics.
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
One Real Journalist Disagrees with Another Real Journalist. News?
April 17, 2012
Recursive journalism has arrived. Gigaom takes on a legend in “Why Bob Woodward is Wrong About the Internet and Journalism.” It seems Woodward, of Woodward and Bernstein fame, believes the Internet can’t hold a candle to good old-fashioned journalism. He has stated:
“The truth of what goes on is not on the Internet. [The Internet] can supplement. It can help advance. But the truth resides with people. Human sources.”
Writer Mathew Ingram disagrees. He does sincerely give investigative journalism its due, citing Seymour Hersh’s recent report in the New Yorker on the U.S. government secretly training MEK fighters from Iran at a base in Nevada as a current example of its value. But he also treasures the collaboration made possible by the Web. As he points out, the Collateral Murder video might never have seen the light of day without the Internet.
Woodard, Ingram charges, yearns for the day when journalism was a solitary pursuit.
The article concludes:
“That view may be a lot more romantic, and it serves the purposes of journalists who see themselves as a special breed, with special powers that normal mortals don’t possess. It also serves the purposes of newspapers and other traditional media entities, which would like to be the sole source of all value in the media ecosystem. But it doesn’t really serve the purposes of journalism or society as a whole.”
Ouch. When real journalists collide, the result is recursive admiration. Is this real news?
Cynthia Murrell, April 17, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Exclusive Interview: Paul Doscher, President of Lucid Imagination
April 16, 2012
The Search Wizards Speak features Paul Doscher, the new president of Lucid Imagination. Mr. Doscher joined Lucid Imagination in December 2011. He had been president of Dassault Exalead USA prior to assuming the top spot at fast-growing, customer- and community-centric Lucid Imagination.
I spoke with Mr. Doscher when he was working for the Dassault Exalead organization. When he shifted to Lucid Imagination, I spoke with him about his views of open source search. After that brief initial conversation, I met again with Mr. Doscher and probed into his views about the impact open source search is having on traditional for-fee, proprietary search systems.
When I asked about the shift from proprietary search systems to open source search, he told me:
Today organizations need the flexibility to adapt and make changes. A proprietary solution may not permit the licensee to make enhancements. If a change is made, the proprietary search vendor may “own” the fix and will add that innovation to its core product. The licensee who created the fix gets nothing and may have had to pay for the right to innovate. As corporate information technology struggles to keep up with escalating business information demands and an ever increasing mountain of growing content of all types, open source search provides a cost effective and efficient way to develop applications to address the challenges and opportunities in today’s enterprise.
Mr. Doscher has strong views about how licensees of enterprise search systems have learned about costs, the time required to deploy a system, and the effort needed to keep a search system up and running. I asked him about Lucid Imagination’s approach to a search engagement. He said:
Our approach to an engagement is to listen to what our customers need, prepare an action plan, and then deliver. In a sense, our approach is the type of involvement that many software companies have stepped away from. We have an enthusiastic group of engineers and professionals who work with clients to meet their needs.
The full text of the interview appears on the ArnoldIT.com Web site. For more information about Lucid Imagination’s open source search system, you will want to explore the company’s Web site and its blog. In addition, an interview with one of the founders of Lucid Imagination, Marc Krellenstein, and with Eric Gries, a former executive at Lucid Imagination, is available in the Beyond Search archives.
Stephen E Arnold, April 16, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
New Open Source Search Information Service Available
April 16, 2012
Open source search was not a viable option for the enterprise in 2003 when ArnoldIT started work on the first Enterprise Search Report. Stephen E. Arnold wrote two more editions before he decided that proprietary search solutions were becoming “look alikes.” In the ArnoldIT 2011 study, The New Landscape of Enterprise Search, Stephen E Arnold and his editorial team decided not to cover open source search solutions because the sector was moving rapidly and no large players had emerged. Now almost a year after the New Landscape of Enterprise Search, the pace of innovation has increased significantly and there are some significant commercial open source search ventures in the US and elsewhere.
The ArnoldIT editorial team, which consists of librarians and technologists, recommended that we begin the task of identifying important articles to determine if there were sufficient mass to warrant a Beyond Search type of publication focused on open source search. We concluded that there was an increasing flow of information about open source search. Therefore, we want to share this information with others who have an interest in what is shaping up to be a disruptive force in information retrieval.
We want to help document that there is a new approach to enterprise search. The solutions involve the cloud, toolkits, and ready-to-run services available with a mouse click. The vendors pushing forward range from companies which have an established profile in the business community; for instance, IBM and Lucid Imagination. There are some open source search solutions which are not widely known in certain organizations; Xapian and Summa Summix come to mind. In between there are dozens of open source search, content processing, and hybrid services.
ArnoldIT recently completed a study of open source search option. After finishing our research for a client, we decided to move forward on a new information service. OpenSearchNews.com will discuss big data search solutions, including Amazon’s CloudSearch service, Basho Riak, and Constellio. If you are not familiar with these solutions and have an interest in search, you will want to check out OpenSearchNews.com.
The new microsite, now publicly available, publishes Monday through Friday and provides critical commentary, information about products, and highlights additional sources about open source search. The information service will report about the companies, trends, and products which offer an alternative to the seven figure solutions from proprietary enterprise search solutions. The approach of the service will be similar to that taken by researchers who want information that provides essential facts and links to high-value sources of information. The service will provide up-to-date news and analysis about the dynamic market for open source search and will publish Monday to Friday at www.opensearchnews.com. Additional information about the new information service is available on the site’s About page. Keep in mind that we don’t do “real” news. We have more in common with researchers and analysts than those who work for organizations embracing the tenets of Mr. Murdoch.
Recent stories include:
- Enterprise Adoption of Solr Lucene Rises
- In the Future, Enterprise Search Will Be a Service
- Lucid Works 2.0 Attracts Enterprise Suitors
Emily Aldridge, the editor of the publication, is an MLS and expert searcher who demonstrated exceptional capabilities in tracking down information about products and projects with names like Hounder, Oxyus, and Piscator.
Emily Aldridge, editor of the new information service, said:
“Open source search has become a fast-growing segment of the enterprise search and big data markets. The number of companies competing in this segment is growing. Large commercial enterprises are embracing open source and providing useful software to anyone who wants to use it. Two good examples are the contributions of Lucid Imagination and LinkedIn. The Danish government has supported an open source search initiative which provides search features for libraries looking to provide a patron with a single search box for a range of content in different collections.”
The information service will cover cloud solutions, open source search appliances, and mention commercial services which have open source software under the glossy exteriors of products and services from Amazon and IBM. We will also cover related subjects such as proprietary cloud search services. Comments will be accepted, and like other ArnoldIT information services we hope to combine useful information with some pointed observations.
Like Beyond Search, we will roll out new features and functions over time. We plan to use Google’s AdSense to help offset the cost of producing the service. If you want to learn more about the publication, contact us at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com.
Don C. Anderson, Senior Engineer, ArnoldIT, April 16, 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
The Wall Street Journal Calls Motorola a Toy
April 12, 2012
I think the Wall Street Journal is owned by the News Corp. I have a tough time keeping track of real journalists these day. Here in Kentucky, the local newspaper is nuking folks who cost too much and place a burden on certain benefit plans.
I did find the headline “Google’s $12 Billion Toy” interesting. You can locate a copy of the story in the hard copy and environmentally unfriendly version of the Wall Street Journal in Section B1, pages 1-2. There is an electronic version online at this link. Don’t hassle me if it goes dark like so many traditional publishers’ content.
The main point is not about wire tapping, bribes, or nepotism. Nah, the subject of a real journalistic foray is Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility Holdings. The angle is that Google has a “toy.” Now I used to like toys. Today I am more into gadgets. In fact, calling Motorola Mobility a toy is out of step with what those interested in technology find enthralling. Toy is an object with which children play, an amusement, a trifle, a diminutive thing, etc. My hunch is that by calling Google’s owning Motorola Mobility a toy, the Wall Street Journal was suggesting that Google’s management is childish, immature, and in need of a distraction. The juxtaposition of $12 billion and toy is a stylistic touch that may land the real journalist a gig writing for Jimmy Kimmel or the zany crowd at Saturday Night Live. Comedy writing might be a good back up for real journalists if more layoffs arrive at the big time, real newspapers. With the story’s arrival from a unit of the News Corp., I am just not sure whether the viewpoints about Google’s business acumen are serious or some of that “Google is not our pal” attitude which appears to surface from time to time.
Here’s the passage I noted:
Google’s competitors weren’t as charitable, with one rival executive privately dubbing the undertaking a “hairball.”
Hmm. A hairball. But which competitor?
But I particularly enjoyed this statement:
And that may be the scariest part of all for Google’s investors. The company really believes it can be all things to all people.
My view is that a company which is taking action may not be perfect, but it sure as heck is a more satisfying approach to business than the public removal of senior managers, allegations of bribery and unauthorized listening to voice mail, and the disclosure of alleged secret lunches with government figures.
I feel more comfortable with Google than with some of the antics of real journalists and their owners. Just my opinion from rural Kentucky.
Stephen E Arnold, April 12, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Beavers and Real Journalists Do What They Do
April 6, 2012
I find this amusing and a good example of the “real” journalists’ approach to information. Navigate to “UK Broadcaster Sky News Admits E-mail Hacking.” Here’s the passage I noted:
John Ryley, head of Sky News, said the instances involved suspected criminal activity. “We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest,” he said in a statement. “We do not take such decisions lightly or frequently.” An external review of e-mail records is under way at the broadcaster’s instigation, he said, but no grounds for concern have yet been found. “Sky News is committed to the highest editorial standards. Like other news organizations, we are acutely aware of the tensions that can arise between the law and responsible investigative journalism.”
CEOs who “revise” history may be on to something. As an addled goose, I am delighted to say, “I am neither a revisionist of history nor a “real” journalist.” Beavers do what beavers do. I wonder who owns the Wall Street Journal. A “real” journalistic outfit no doubt.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
