EbookBrowse: Search Engine for Docs and Data
April 21, 2011
EbookBrowse is a free engine that specifically searches for PDF, DOC, XLS, and other data files. Here’s how they describe their site:
Our crawlers harvested a huge database PDF&DOC files through different open Internet resources such as blogs, forums, BBS and others. This database is regularly checked for file validity so now you can search within more than three million of live PDF&DOC files. Today we have 30000 000 document files in our search database and approximately 50 000 files are added daily.
I threw a few searches at the engine, with subjects involving business, hobbies, and politics. It works as advertised, though as with any search engine, the more specific you are (to a point) the better your results.
It helps that you can select the types of files you’re looking for, and no selection returns everything rather than nothing. The results are presented in a window from which you can both download the file and share your findings via email and social networks (click the + sign for many more of these than you see in the usual list.)
Oh, and it’s nice and clean. No advertising! I recommend you check it out.
Cynthia Murrell April 21, 2011
Freebie
Harvard Business Review Examines the Problems with Big Content
April 19, 2011
From the pot calling the kettle black department…
The Tech Dirt.com article “Harvard Business Review Explains How Big Content Is Strangling Innovation” examines an article from the Harvard Business review article written by James Allworth. Allworth makes an interesting conclusion concerning the reason why Big Content players do not embrace new technology.
Rather than see it as an opportunity to reach new audiences, technology has always been a threat to them. The reason why? Every shift in technology is difficult for them. Just as they work out how to make money using one technology, it changes.
The Big Content players attempt to block the new technology using their powerful personal and business influences. Ultimately this is breaking down the “heart of innovation” by spurring innovative technology startups outside of the US in order to avoid the unwanted scrutiny and problems. This is the real problem because American consumers will miss out on some of the best and most innovative technology. Allworth proposes society will be better off if it ignores the rumbling of these Big Content players and force them to embrace the technology and its potential profitability. This philosophy is not new but with the prestige of the Harvard Business Review it will be interesting to see the backlash, if any, it unleashes.
April Holmes, April 19, 2011
Freebie
EReaderIQ: Find Kindle Freebies and Bargains
April 17, 2011
We are book lovers here at Beyond Search. We want to call your attention to “eReaderIQ Is a Complete Database of Free and Discounted eBooks on Amazon”.
Whitson Gordon at Lifehacker points out a source of goodies with “eReaderIQ Is a Complete Database of Free and Discounted eBooks on Amazon.” The service offers a database, updated hourly, of all of Amazon’s eBooks. Search is available, but the browse option works well for a reader like me.
Gordon likes the alerts feature:
. . . where you can track other books on Amazon and get alerted to when their price drops. You can import your Amazon.com wish list, or just paste in its URL on the price tracker. Then, just give it your email and the price drop you’d like to be notified for (e.g. entering $1 would alert you when the book’s price drops by $1).
You set your geographic region and then browse. There is an advanced search feature and some hot links to “free” Kindle books and to price drops on Amazon eBooks. Check it out at eReaderIQ.com.
Cynthia Murrell April 17, 2011
Freebie
A Warning to AOL Top Dogs
April 14, 2011
AOL may have a chance now that Arianna Huffington is on the job. I think the silly stuff will go away, and the basics are going to put front and center. Now AOL’s top dog is a Xoogler, and before the management twists and turns at Google revealed how “controlled chaos” does not work so well, the Xoogler was set. Big money, a brand, and a dream for “publishing”. The happy “AOL way” may be going in a direction that the former Xoogler did not anticipate. I would hazard that the Xoogler did not think that the acquisitions of Arianna Huffington’s content company would upset the Xoogler’s dreams of a bright, happy future.
The first indication that Ms. Huffington may be the next boss of AOL can be seen in the write up “About that Lawsuit”. Upon reading the article, I noticed this passage:
The key point that the lawsuit completely ignores (or perhaps fails to understand) is how new media, new technologies, and the linked economy have changed the game, enabling millions of people to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation — from couch potato to self-expression. Writing blogs, sending tweets, updating your Facebook page, editing photos, uploading videos, and making music are options made possible by new technologies. The same people who never question why someone would sit on a couch and watch TV for eight hours straight can’t understand why someone would find it rewarding to weigh in on the issues — great and small — that interest them. For free. They don’t understand the people who contribute to Wikipedia for free, who maintain their own blogs for free, who tweet for free, who constantly refresh and update their Facebook pages for free, and who want to help tell the stories of what is happening in their lives and in their communities… for free.
What I took from this passage was:
Are Newspapers Facing an Even More Bleak Future?
April 14, 2011
I heard a recent This Week in Law discussion about pay walls. The observations were interesting, but the juicy bits were the ways to get around pay walls. Interesting because most of those offering ideas were either “real” lawyers or aspiring lawyers. In a Digital Journal write up called “Future of Media Preview: A Q&A with the National Post’s Chris Boutet” some of the comments left me with a sense that the future of certain newspapers (digital and paper) was in doubt.
According to Boutet, in order to be an effective journalist today you must have fearlessness and above and beyond that a strong sense of adaptability and curiosity as well as a willingness to take risks and experiment as traits suitable to burgeoning journalists because they must constantly be willing to accept the changing platforms of new media in order to connect with readers.
Journalism is an ever changing chameleon and some print publications in Canada are going from the “print first” to a “media first” approach to putting together their newspaper. In the media first approach you build a strong online paper and create your print publication around that, the print should enhance and increase the focus of the online source. Boutet concedes that this is a bold strategy but it frees up space in the paper for more commentary, analysis and feature pieces instead of “breaking” news.
One passage caught my attention and probably the attention of non technical journalists:
Some of the best online news organizations are where they are today because they embraced a more agile, startup-like approach to their product development. Experimentation and innovation is key as the industry forays deeper into the digital space and we learn better ways to reach and serve our readers. Top-down, boardroom-style direction can’t react quickly enough to the ever-changing landscape. Building a product system around small, independent teams of reporters, editors, designers and developers is an excellent way to encourage creative thinking and speed up the implementation/evaluation cycle. Also, bring more developers into your newsroom. You really can’t have too many.
Okay, I wonder how the non technical journalists perceive this suggestion. Experimentation is the name of the game for Boutet. He has experimented with plugging articles via Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare and Tumblr.
My question is this, if newspapers are to go “truly digital” and papers are to become a novelty item, how will they solve the problem of advertising dollars? How can they make it more profitable for companies to advertise on the web unless they can promise that they will have the same number of people viewing their ads? For example, The Courier Journal in Louisville, Kentucky has a daily readership of more than half a million people Monday through Saturday and more than 600,000 on Sunday, that does not count residual readership. The problem is that the newspaper is a shadow of its former self when the daily was owned by the Binghams. Quality, not profit, was important to the Binghams. Now I am not sure what is important for the CJ. Certainly not search in my opinion.
How can a paper ever promise companies that online advertising will exceed that? Right now it won’t and I wouldn’t bet my retirement on digital newspapers becoming widespread and traditional newspapers fading out any time soon.
Leslie Radcliffe, April 14, 2011
Freebie unlike the daily print Courier Journal
Content Not One Dimensional
April 11, 2011
In the digital age that we live in it is no longer possible to simply advertise your content through a traditional media outlet such as newspaper or radio. In order for your content to be used and your message to be heard you have to utilize many different types of channels. In order to expand digital awareness and offerings many content providers are looking to recycle already existing content in order to create new products. The result of such recycling is a “mash-up” of many different content retrieval systems. This “mash-up” of systems when done correctly can create consistency between the
outlets that utilize the information. This is where XML comes in.
XML stands for extensible markup language and functions somewhat like html but while html can display data, xml is designed to carry data and must have defined user tags that are self-descriptive. While XML doesn’t actually DO anything it is definitely a useful tool for storing and transporting information for widespread use and as a compliment to HTML.
Now you may be wondering why you should care about something as small as XML, well, here’s the answer; XML combined with HTML is what makes the mash up of existing content possible. Without well-structured XML protocols it is impossible to transfer information from one platform, such as an eReader to another platform like a cell phone application.
XML makes it possible to transfer PDF’s to your design software such as InDesign and Quark and it is what allows you to utilize your Kindle or Nook to download books in an instant and it’s what makes the information you seek on a Google search engine return the correct queries. XML is a cross directional language that makes it easier for users to access the product and let’s face it…the easier and more accessible a product is, the more money it is going to generate and let’s face it, that’s what you really want to know…isn’t it?
Stephen E Arnold, April 11 2011
Freebie
Blog Power and Search
April 11, 2011
When you have a great headline, you get traffic. What about the facts? Well, maybe those are less important than the ping pong effect of a hot write up within a search and retrieval system. Confused? Well, you are anchored in the old school of SEO or search engine optimization.
Here’s an example of the new way to get traffic even though one’s reputation as a business expert may pick up some NASCAR dents on the way to the finish line.
First, Bloomberg ran a story called “New York Times Fixes Paywall Flaws to Balance Free Versus Paid on the Web” on January 28, 2011. I certainly did not really care. I read the paper version of the newspaper and routinely ignore the online stuff that flows from the old line New York outfits. I live in Kentucky and the day or two old news is pretty much real time for us in Harrod’s Creek.
But, bloggers picked up the story. In the February and March period lots of trendy Web news sites recycled what little information was available. This blog is not a “No Agenda” type outlet, so you can read the hits available at this link and follow the thread of the $40 million nugget.
The loop approached its starting point. Navigate to “Sulzberger: $40 Million Estimate For Paywall Cost Is ‘Vastly Wrong’”. (I like the word “vastly” by the way.) Here’s one passage I found interesting:
Sulzberger also declined to offer any numbers when it comes to subscribers, saying it was too soon but that the company would provide some details eventually. At another point, asked about complaints that the pay plan is too complex, he urged people to be patient. Noting that the company was able to tweak the system between the launch in Canada and the U.S.-global launch 10 days later, Sulzberger said: “We’re going to learn, adapt, make it simpler. But I don’t agree that it’s too complex. It’s new. Let it breathe for a little bit before you make judgment.”
The notion of learning, adapting, and making things simpler sound great.
The point is not what the Times spent or did not spend. The point is not that the New York Times has since it broke its exclusive deal with LexisNexis decades ago has been trying to figure out how to make money without selling hard copies and advertising is also irrelevant.
The message here is that one story with a fact plucked from somewhere can trigger a surge of articles, links, and clicks. Then the point of origin of the “story” jumps in and re-energizes the cycle.
That’s the message for me. SEO cannot perform this type of information physics. Why am I beating up on search engine optimization charlatans? Indexes like Google’s have been corrupted by these outfits. Relevance problems annoy me. At least with crazy information physics activities, the focus is on content no matter how thin, inaccurate, or poorly formed. Honk.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2011
Freebie unlike my print subscription to the New York Times blue plastic bag. The paper, I think, is free. Those plastic bags cost me a leg and a thigh.
Penton Plunge?
April 6, 2011
Yesterday a former publishing executive asked me about my write up about traffic to enterprise search vendors’ Web sites. If you want to review those data, read “Enterprise Search Vendor Web Traffic.” The main point of the write up was that I used Compete.com data, which I viewed as indicative, not definitive. Across enterprise search vendors, the majority of the vendors’ Web sites get minimal traffic. Even the big dogs like Autonomy and Exalead are not pulling at the level of magnetism of some big blogs. Lady Gaga type traffic is just not happening.
The person with whom I was conversing expressed surprise that large companies were getting such lousy traffic. He asked, “How can that be?”
I told him that I would give this some thought and post my observations in Beyond Search. This write up captures the ideas that crossed my mind. I decided to focus on one publishing company, Penton in New York City, as my representative example. The company has a number of Web sites but the flagship is www.penton.com.
Compete reports this:
Traffic is less than 13,000 uniques per month. But more interesting is the alleged data’s indication that usage of the Penton Web site has dropped by 30 percent in the last couple of months.
The question becomes, “Why?”
First, I think that the data are in line with traffic to some other publishers’ Web sites. The information on the Web site is not compelling and, therefore, does not attract the MBA students, job seekers, or competitive intelligence professionals. Penton’s financial performance has been lackluster as well, so the Web site is in line with the overall performance of the company.
Second, I think that more and more company information is becoming harder and harder to find. Forget Google and the SEO marketers’ best excuse for lousy traffic. The Penton site is little more than brochure ware. The substantive information is lacking in my opinion. A quick look at the source code for the splash page shows that the company is using an open source tool, lots of tagging, and stuff like this:
Tidy code? This bloat can be addressed for major browsers, including Chrome, by making a change to the master page. Without the fix, you get this junk as a cookie workaround.
Third, Penton is not using its corporate Web site with intent. Whoever is the brains behind the Web site is walking in step to a different drummer than the goslings in Harrod’s Creek follow. Now I know that the slick New York crowd is with it, but in terms of creating an information service that ignites excitement, I see a typical big media Web presence.
The Arianna Model of Husqvarna Buzz Saw
April 5, 2011
I have never met Arianna Huffington. Here in Harrod’s Creek, media luminaries rarely visit. Since the death of Barry Bingham, even the big media moguls who turned up for one of Barry’s lunches at Melcombe don’t light up my radar. That’s okay. I like to watch New York media deal with what I call the Arianna buzz saw. A few weeks ago I pointed out that the Googler running AOL was going to have his hands full. Now I want to suggest that outfits like Forbes, which cut back on its in house library, may want to put on Kevlar jockey shorts. Bzzzzz. That’s the sound of the Arianna buzz saw chopping through some big media foliage.
This, gentle reader, is one of the more accurate depictions of Arianna Huffington. Ready for some chopping down to size?
Here’s a statement in “AOL Defector Blasts ‘Content Farming’ and ‘SEO Spam’” I found interesting and useful in understanding why the buzz saw is likely to chop through the deadwood in revenue, management, and New York tradition:
Huffington, since coming aboard, has made it clear the AOL Way is no longer the blueprint, but then her site has long engaged in its own forms of search-baiting and page view juicing.
I like that “page view juicing.” Maybe I will slip it into my next SEO sucks talk? Bzzzzzz. Ouch! Some one just suffered an amputation. Bzzzzzz. Ouch! Another one. Journalistic sequoias may become recreation room flooring.
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2011
Freebie unlike a year’s subscription to Forbes. Where did the founder’s big honkin’ Harley go?
Internet Savvy Available in Free eBook
April 2, 2011
Search Engine Journal is helping us out by publicizing a free resource in “Insights from Google and Microsoft Released in Free eBook.” Microsoft’s 2010 panel assembled experts in an effort to help the N.P.O DonorsChoose.org:
“The ‘Social Hackathon’ was a panel sponsored by Microsoft (via Bing and Hotmail) that brought together industry experts from a number of major companies, including O’Reilly Media, Bing, Twitter, Google, and Facebook. The entire objective was to help the non-profit organization “DonorsChoose.org” figure out ways they could reach the internet audience.”
Now, Deep Focus has compiled information from that panel in a free eBook called The Goodness Engine: Driving Greater Social Impact in the Digital World. It, and videos from the panel, are available here. Check it out- the price is right.
We want to point out that low cost or free books seem to be a mini-trend. The idea is that price can be a barrier. By removing the price barrier, the author gets ideas disseminated and generates buzz. The “revenue” comes when the author gets a consulting job or some other remuneration. We like this idea. The last hard backed book I looked at sported a $30 price tag. Sticker shock!
Cynthia Murrell, April 2, 2011
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
