Google and Artificial Anchors
November 20, 2009
Folks are blinded by Chrome. What might be missed is what’s often overlooked—Google’s plumbing. Once you have tired of the shiny, bright chatter about Microsoft’s latest reason for its fear and loathing of Google, you may want to navigate to the USPTO and download 20090287698, “Artificial Anchor for a Document.” Google said:
Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products, for linking to an intra-document portion of a target document includes receiving an address for a target document identified by a search engine in response to a query, the target document including query-relevant text that identifies an intra-document portion of the target document, the intra-document portion including the query relevant text. An artificial anchor is generated, the artificial anchor corresponding to the intra-document portion. The artificial anchor is appended the address.
The system and method has a multiplicity of uses, and these are spelled out in Googley detail in the claims made for this patent application. In this free Web log, I won’t dive into the implications of artificial anchors. I will let you don your technical scuba gear and surf on the implications of artificial anchors. Chrome is the surface of the Google ocean. Artificial anchors are part of the Google ocean. Big, big difference.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
I want to disclose to the USPTO itself that no one paid me to be cryptic in this article.
For-Fee Content Dreams Meet Common Sense
November 19, 2009
I highly recommend “Paying for Online News.” The article looks at some data in the New York Times, does some reasoning about demographics, and reaches a conclusion that resonates with my experience. For me, the key point in the write up was:
Consumer[s], however are not willing to pay for news that is freely available all over the Internet. The consumers that are most willing to pay for their news are those that are already paying for newspaper. I suspect that this is an older and increasingly smaller audience. Even if consumer are willing to pay for their subscription, they are not willing to pay enough to make up for the lost of advertisement that newspapers have been dealing with. A pay wall might slow the decline but it will not stop it. The only way that newspapers can survive is to adapt to the new world, the old model is no longer viable and to try to save it is doom to fail.
There are some workarounds. The problem is that some will take time and others will cost a lot of money. That puts pay for news plans behind the eight ball.
Stephen Arnold, November 19, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Vocational and Adult Education agency, which is involved in such things as making billiard tables and billiard balls that I was not paid to write this short article.
Convera Corporation Liquidated
November 18, 2009
Convera, according to Guru Focus is in liquidation mode. You can get the gory details and a link to the SEC filed 14c statement in “Liquidation Play: Convera Corporation (CNVR).” I wrote about Convera in one of the early editions of the Enterprise Search Report. The write up summarized the assertions about the Convera system. Few people in the enterprise search game recall Excalibur’s origin as a document scanning outfit or the meshing of the ConQuest system with Excalibur technology. I bet, however, that the NBA and Intel remember. The Intel deal apparently hit a small pot hole.
Source: http://www.picturesfromjamaica.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/pothole-garelli-02.jpg
Both of those firms found the blandishments of Convera most compelling. Both NBA and Intel moved away from Convera, setting off a financial chain of events that seems to be reaching another pivotal point in its history. There will be a distribution, but it certainly looks as though Convera may be following in the footsteps of other search and content processing companies that could not survive in an increasingly tough market. Convera morphed into a vertical search company, but Google gives that function away in a couple of different services. On the bright side, if you are a financial player, maybe there’s an opportunity in the liquidation. I recall the hours I spent manually updating the controlled terms lists that Convera used to know that a “truck” was a “pick up” and a “semi”. Good consulting money there once upon a time.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Department of Defense that I was not paid by any firm, including Allen & Co., to write this short item. I would wager a dime that someone in the DoD remembers Convera’s search system. Is that a fond remembrance? Probably.
Buy a Daily Newspaper by the Day
November 18, 2009
I read the Guardian’s report about the London Times’s method of monetizing the information in the newspaper. The idea is an interesting one if I understand “Times Editor James Harding Outlines Plans for Online Charging”. The idea is to sell a 24 hour access token to the day’s content. I chortled when I read the alleged quote made by a Times’s executive; to wit: “rewrite the economics of newspapers”. A rewrite is needed. The article made this point I found memorable:
“We think it’s good for us and good for business to stop encouraging the trickery and fakery of the ABCs. We want real sales to real customers – that’s what our advertisers want too.” He said the Times would also enhance its relationship with its most loyal readers through home delivery and a reward programme through the recently launched Times+ membership venture. “Historically, newspapers have treated their best customers worst and their worst customers best,” he said.
Yep, now newspapers are going to start treating me better. And because I am encouraged by the Times’s bold move, I won’t mention that Google gets another knock on the nose in the write. That’s a standard poetic touch in some literary circles.
There are some interesting swirls of hope percolating in the reported pricing method; for example:
- Some people will pay for a one day pass or an annual subscription. The assumption is that a lot of people will pay. In the online world, the impact of a for-fee approach can be severe. A site can lose a big chunk of traffic once a price tag is attached. This is the difference between “nice to have content” and “must have content”. The Times is in the warmth of the “must have content” sauna. I think that the Times will discover that it is in the “nice to have content” ice house.
- The early online content vendors went with the per item charge. Users could select what was needed from the information warehouse, check the cost of the item, and buy or not. Bundles make a lot of sense in MBA class, but in the grimy world of online, the per item approach has some appeal based on my experience.
- The revenue models for online content generate less bang than a traditional print business model. The notion of commodity content is a potent one. When content becomes a commodity, that content requires a different business model. Google has cracked that problem using the learnings of Overture to add some boost to the company’s approach. The Times’s pricing mavens are not innovating, and I think the revenue reports will make clear how right or wrong the approach is.
The pricing, not surprisingly, is not set in stone. That’s a good idea, because I think the Times’s financial wizards will be holding some chats around the chuck wagon to figure out how to generate substantial, sustainable revenue. How quick? I hear the dinner gong ringing now.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
Since I will be in the UK in 12 days, I must notify the UK Trade & Investment entity that I was not paid by either an Australian or UK entity to write this article. the UKTI oversight unit will have some work ahead as certain publishing entities begin to adjust their business models. That will have a cost, but the goose is not involved.
Google, the Deaf-and-Dumb Larcenist
November 17, 2009
You may want to read “Google Books Deal: Don’t Expect a Library Utopia, but Bring It On”. The write up describes the new Google Books deal. I found it useful, not so much for the analysis. The write up contains a wonderful Argumentum ad Hominem. The phrase that delighted my rhetorical sensitivity appears in this passage:
The resuscitation of out-of-print books is more like a thick burglar taking that ragged flea-bitten sofa left behind by your ex, putting it in the back of his white van, selling it to a sucker on eBay and splitting the profits with you. Bring it on, I say. Bring on Google, the deaf-and-dumb larcenist.
Google has been working away on books for a decade. Publishers have been asleep at the switch, so now the Google is a “deaf-and-dumb larcenist”. A calculating predator based on my research but not a larcenist. A larcenist is a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it. Google is an opportunist and a construct that must consume information to survive. My wonderful Tess is a predator. She ate a baby rabbit but I still find her a loyal pet and my favorite girl. Maybe the Times’s editorial team should rethink the Google and look at the bright side of the Google knowledge base?
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
Because of the fragile state of some publishers, I will report to Endangered Species Committee that I was not compensated with a crust of bread for this write up by the addled goose. Geese are filthy stupid animals. What’s the Latin phrase for an attack on an addled goose?
Control and the Days of Hot Type
November 16, 2009
Short honk: The electronically adept Guardian (UK newspaper) ran “The Case for Books by Robert Darnton. Dinah Birch praises Robert Darnton, a passionate defender of the printed word.” This is a book review laced with the Guardian’s nostalgia for a time when newspapers were the curators of intelligent discourse. Now you are reading the thoughts of an addled goose. Quack. At the foot of the review was a passage of interest to me; to wit:
In his final essay, Darnton [book author] remarks that “reading remains mysterious”, despite the burgeoning debates surrounding the production, preservation and interpretation of texts. The practice of reading shifts in every generation. No commercial or political process has yet succeeded in controlling its evolution and nothing suggests that its unruly energies are likely to diminish in a digital world.
Yep, mystery, understanding, and control. Oh, how we long for the good old, analogue days.
Stephen Arnold, November 16, 2009
The Government Printing Office will receive an email that says, “Mr. Arnold was not paid to write this brief article insinuating that the Guardian wants to be a Luddite”, a word that appears frequently in its articles about technology.
Google Books, The Nov 14 Edition
November 15, 2009
If you were awake at 11 54 pm Eastern time, you would have seen Google’s “Modifications to the Google Books Settlement.” Prime time for low profile information distribution. I find it interesting that national libraries provided Google an opportunity to do their jobs. Furthermore, despite the revisionism in the Sergey Brin New York Times’s editorial, the Google has been chugging away at Google Books for a decade. With many folks up in arms about Google’s pumping its knowledge base and becoming the de facto world library, the Google continues to move forward. Frankly I am surprised that it has taken those Google users so long to connect Google dots. Google Books embraces more than publishing. Google Books is a small cog in a much larger information system, but the publishing and writing angles have center stage. In my opinion, looking at what the spotlight illuminates may be the least useful place toward which to direct attention. Maybe there’s a knowledge value angle to the Google Books project? You can catch up with Google’s late Friday announcement and enjoy this type of comment:
The changes we’ve made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we’ve heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rights holders with ways to sell and control their work online. You can read a summary of the changes we made here, or by reading our FAQ.
Yep, more opportunities for you, gentle reader, to connect Google dots. What is the knowledge value to Google of book information? Maybe one of the search engine optimization experts will illuminate this dark corner for me? Maybe one of the speakers at an information conference will peek into the wings of the Google Information Theatre?
Stephen Arnold, November 15, 2009
I wish to report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that I was not paid to point out that national libraries abrogated their responsibilities to their nations’ citizens. For this comment, I have received no compensation, either recent or historic. Historical revisionism is an art, not a science. That’s a free editorial comment.
The Guardian on Email Surveillance
November 15, 2009
I think this article “Email Surveillance: Ditch It for Good” is an opinion piece. The Guardian is not exactly number one with a bullet in the online world, but it does have a penchant for writing articles that catch my attention. The idea is that the UK government should not “snoop on all our communication and Internet activity.” I disagree. My view is that governments have little choice but to move toward surveillance and increasingly proactive actions with regard to information. There are lots of bad folks out there, and the legal and political consequences of not taking appropriate actions are significant. Islands are pretty good for surveillance too. The UK and Australian enforcement entities are case examples of how electronic nets can be used to catch some interesting fish. The Guardian does not agree with me. So here’s a hypothetical: the UK government does not perform surveillance and a bad event occurs. Many are killed and injured in London. Subsequent investigation reveals that the event was described in emails and other common information channels. What are the legal and political consequences of this turn of events. Surveillance cannot be “ditched for good.” Surveillance is a fact of today’s information world in my opinion. Autonomy and i2.co.uk are two outfits with useful monitoring technology. These companies’ tools were developed to meet a need, even though the Guardian finds the need difficult to accept. An information reality is just like the financial reality many firms face in today’s business climate–Unpleasant to some but a fact nevertheless.
Stephen Arnold, November 16, 2009
I want to report to the Institute of Peace that I was not paid to point out that the Guardian is complaining about an information shift that says, “You can’t go home again.” There’s not enough cash in the goose’s coffers for that journey.
SEO the AP Way
November 14, 2009
I thought another addled goose wrote “AP to Ask Google for a Better Search Ranking.” I blinked and reread the article. Sure looked legitimate to me, but in this era of instant disinformation, one cannot be too sure. Read the story yourself and make up your own mind. Two or three years ago, I rolled out my mantra for some AP folks. I gave a talk and concluded, “Surf on Google.” The idea I have been suggesting since mid 2006 is that Google had the same potential energy as a big boulder perched on the edge of a cliff overlooking a narrow defile. The guy with the lever at the top of the cliff need exert a tiny force to launch the rock on the folks in the defile. Worked when Alexander was getting cute thousands of years ago, and the tactic will work today.
Google dominates Web search. The company has several options in my opinion.
First, Google can do nothing different. In effect, Google will not answer the AP’s phone calls. Time is on Google’s side. Litigation is time consuming, which favors the Google.
Second, Google can cut a deal with the AP. In the spirit of compromise, Google takes a baby step. The AP seems okay with the Great Compromiser’s approach. The AP continues to move forward in a very different world from the one that gave birth to the AP many years ago.
Third, Google just buys up the AP content. With one bold dump truck of cash, Google neuters Bing.com in terms of AP content and makes the constant grouching irrelevant.
Are there other options? Sure, but this is a free marketing oriented Web log. The interesting point in this news story is that AP is dealing with the problem of traffic. Most outfits hire search engine optimization wizards like Tess (pictured on the splash page of this blog) and hope for the best. The AP wants to get traffic, jump into social content (maybe non journalists who post stuff on the Web), and monetize its information services. Great idea, but I don’t think it will work.
The AP has monetized its content by selling it back to those who formed the outfit in the first place. Other markets have been interested but not willing to deliver piles of cash to the AP. Even the US government is watching its information pennies these days. At some point in time, the triple dipping of licensing the same content to multiple government agencies will run into trouble. Google has been monetizing its big Googzilla heart since it was inspired by the Overture model. The AP did not act then, and now it may be too late.
Will Google be indifferent? Will Google cut a deal? Will Google just write a check? I bet the AP would like to get a big fat check from Google and be number one with a bullet in the Google results lists. I am good for a nickel. Any takers?
Interesting days ahead in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 14, 2009
I am in an independent living facility. I had to pay to use the computer to write this essay. I had to pay for an orange juice. I don’t think I need to alert the Illinois State Police that this is a freebie. Maybe to be on the safe side of the Illinois law? Nah. Not necessary. Illinois has its legal and financial hands full. I might have to pay to report.
Clop Cloppity Clop Clop: The Sound of Google in Education
November 14, 2009
I don’t want to belabor the obvious, but educational publishers may want to keep a close eye on the Google. The firm has been gaining traction in education at an increasingly rapid pace since 2006, the pivotal year in case you have been following my analyses of Google. If you are unaware of the Google as a one stop shop for education, you may want to read “Gone Google at Educause 2009”. A key passage in this write up was in my opinion:
Lots has happened over the past year especially: more than 100 new features have rolled out in Google Apps, we’ve engaged well over six million students and faculty (a 400% increase since this time last year), launched free Google Message Security for K-12 schools and have integrated with other learning services such as Blackboard and Moodle. These developments are just the beginning. According to the newly-released 2009 Campus Computing survey statistics, 44% of colleges and universities have converted to a hosted student email solution, while another 37% are currently evaluating the move. Of those that have migrated, over half — 56% precisely — are going Google.
Course materials? Coming in saddle bags strapped to Googzilla. Clop Cloppity Clop Clop—One of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse heading your way?
Stephen Arnold, November 14, 2009
I wish to report to the Defense Commissary Agency that I was fed one donut at my father’s assisted living facility. However, writing this article and the payment of a small donut are in no way related. The donut was better than the one at got at McDill too.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
