August 16, 2015
I read “News Corp’s CEO Bizarre Obsession With Made Up Lies About Google.” I am fascinated with “real” journalists approach to information. Here’s the passage I noted:
That Google’s newly conceived parent company is to be called Alphabet has itself created a range of delicious permutations: A is for Avarice, B is for Bowdlerize, through to K for Kleptocracy, P for Piracy and Z for Zealotry.
The Alphabet Google is making news without the fancy words. I am not sure what kleptocracy means. More interesting to me was this item, which I assume is true: “Google Skirted Drone Test Rules by Using a Deal with NASA.” Google’s approach seems more efficient than other firms’ methods.
I do like that kleptocracy thing, however.
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2015
May 16, 2015
Short honk: I read “Intranet Search? Sssh! Don’t Speak of It.” It seems that enterprise search is struggling and sweeping generalizations about information governance and knowledge management are not helping the situation. But that’s just my opinion.
But set that “issue” aside. Here’s the quote I noted:
The only way this situation [search is a problem’] will change is with intranet managers stepping up to the challenge and telling stories internally. The problem with search analytics (even if you do everything that Lou Rosenfeld [search wizard] recommends) is that there is no direct evidence of the day-to-day impact of search.
Will accountants respond to search stories? Why is there no direct evident of the day to day impact of search? Perhaps search, along with some other hoo hah endeavors, is simply not relevant in today’s business environment? Won’t more hyperbole filled marketing solve the problem? Another conference?
The wet blanket on enterprise search remains “there is no direct evidence of the day to day impact of search.” After 30 or 40 years of implementations and hundreds of millions in search development, why not? Er, what about this thought:
Search is a low value utility which has been over hyped.
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2015
April 16, 2015
Here’s a keeper for my quotes to note folder. The source is the New York Times, April 16, 2015, page 8 in the business section (where else?). The article has the Google index friendly title: “Challenge to Google. Innovation May Undercut Case. As in Microsoft v. Europe, Innovation May Undercut Case.” Beefy. [If the headline disappears along with the story, speak to someone other than me. You may be able to purchase a dead tree version of the newspaper if you live in an area where distribution makes it available.]
Here’s the quote attributed to the astute Warren Buffer of search engine optimization expert, Daniel (Danny) Sullivan:
You don’t expect the New York Times to carry a rival sports section. But you do expect it to have a sports section. When people go to a search engine, they’re looking to search across everything.”
An interesting generalization. I am not sure most people “go to Google.” Most people use what ever system is baked into their “user experience.” But that’s less important than the suggestion that the “you” is what I do. Nope. I also noted the “everything.” I find that suggestion of comprehensiveness amusing. Not as chuckle worthy as IBM Watson’s smart software writing recipes, but it is right up there in the search Top 100 silly generalizations.
The quote also brushes against a larger question, a question ignored by the New York Times; to wit:
Why is ripping off the LA Times’ sports section egregious and taking other outfits’ digital facts sort of okay?
I think the answer resides in the little appreciated patents issued to Ramanathan Guha and Alon Halevy, both smart people and both Googlers when each did quite prescient work. If you are not familiar with the notion of building a comprehensive global knowledge base populated by nifty Georgia Tech T shirt wearing software agents, you are missing some useful color on Google’s assumptions, systems, and methods.
But, hey, who really cares about the global knowledge base thing, the notion of dataspaces, and Guha’s vision of applied semantic technologies in his quick slick architecture of smart software?
The Guha Halevy work is important in my opinion. More than generalizations will be needed for experts and legal eagles to figure out that the Google processes have been humming away for many, many years. Still few outside of Google understand what’s up?
Roll out the generalizations. Google will have a barrel of fun. Ignore penetrating questions. Google will rake in the dough.
Stephen E Arnold, April 16, 2015
February 4, 2015
Quote to note: I read “Google Brain’s Co-Inventor Tells Why He’s Building Chinese Neural Networks.”
Here’s the quote I noted:
Deep learning algorithms are very good at one thing today: learning input and mapping it to an output. X to Y. Learning concepts is going to be hard.
I support research projects. I don’t support marketers who ignore fact for hype. Also, note, that the co-inventor Andrew Ng jumped from Google to Baidu. The human brain can figure out compensation and opportunity I suggest.
Stephen E Arnold, February 3, 2015
September 28, 2014
Here’s the quote I noted:
“[Co-founder] Larry Page is an apolitical genius,” Assange admitted. “His ambition is a megalomaniacal ambition, but it’s the same ambition that many CEOs have, which is just to make Google as big as possible . . . [Page] is constructing this giant machine . . . but it has no color. It’s like white rice . . . and it will adapt to any flavor put on it.”
I don’t agree. Mr. Page is worried about money. Yep, I know that sounds crazy. Also, there seems to be some tension related to Google from some corners of the world, not Harrod’s Creek, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2014
September 26, 2014
I tucked this paragraph in my keepers’ file:
Yes, there’s plenty Google does that raises concerns. The growth in showing direct answers taken from other sites, the inability for people to understand if they were hit by an automatic penalty, the failure to update some of its automatic filtering systems in a timely manner are some of these. And Google deserves criticism over them. But News Corp has a long history of lashing out at Google in ways that exaggerate some concerns way beyond reality. For a media giant that could take a real leadership role, its latest more-of-the-same letter is a disappointment.
The source is “Dear News Corp & Google: An Open Letter On Their Open Letters To Each Other Over Competition.” I find this fascinating for three reasons:
First, I chuckled with the notion that search engine optimization helps explain the actions of two hyper capitalist operations. (SEO is one business focused squarely on manipulating precision and recall when one runs a search. Hey, this is the brave new world of search. The customer’s information need is secondary to sizzle and ad revenue.)
Second, the squabbling of actual / would be monopolists is a reprise of the Vanderbilt – Gould dust ups. Does anyone remember what happened? The fellows teamed up. Could this happen again?
Third, both companies take a dim view of nation states’ strictures unless it is to their advantage. The approach is, it seems, situational. However, when a government can disadvantage another operation, the law is truth and beauty.
Stephen E Arnold, September 26, 2014
September 17, 2014
Navigate to “History of Misses for Radio Shack.” Hurry. I have no idea how long the source document will remain online. The write up is a business school type paper that explains why Radio Shack is essential running out of oxygen.
Here’s the quote I noted:
RadioShack tried many paths. But going in all directions without a full commitment is not enough, particularly when the core brand is not sustained. RadioShack has branded itself well but it led itself too far from its strengths.
Remind you of any large companies in the online business? If you buy enough race horses, one of them is going to win. At least that’s the theory that motivates some folks.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2014
August 5, 2014
I read “HP and Autonomy Bitter Battle.” I found the write up interesting, but I remember my high school Latin teacher offering some phrases to learn. One of them was caveat emptor. According to the Cornell Law Web site, the catchphrase put shoppers on alert when prowling the more interesting shops in 2nd century BCE Rome. The translation which even aspiring and real lawyers learn is:
Let the buyer beware.
The BBC article is less evocative than Milton’s reference to a blue mantle, but it did contain one quote to note for my collection. After explaining the $11 billion deal, the story offers:
The two sides have been at war since HP had to write off most of the purchase price in what now looks like one of the worst deals in corporate history.
I fancy the superlative. The BBC’s position is clearly stated:
What is far from clear amidst the claim and counter claim is whether Autonomy did break any accounting rules in the run up to its sale to HP – and if so, why that was not spotted in the process of due diligence which is a key part of any such deal.
There was one Autonomy when the deal was closed. Prior to the purchase, there were many HP directors, officers, and accountants going over the deal.
I know that Mike Lynch is a pretty bright guy, but was he smart enough to outwit so many folks with green eyeshades, MBAs, and HP calculators?
I have a modest question racing through my mind:
Who was on the HP Board of Directors when the deal was approved?
I may look up the names of this roster of business and technical luminaries some day. I wonder if Meg Whitman recalls who gave the green light for the biggest deal in enterprise search and content processing history?
Even the relatively swift Microsoft paid $1.2 billion for a search company that subsequently was found to have done some fancy dancing with its revenues. HP’s team paid 10 times as much and has become a business school case study for “what now looks like one of the worst deals in corporate history.”
Yikes. Enron displaced?
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2014
March 25, 2014
Navigate to “Dump the File Server: Why We Moved to the SharePoint Online Cloud.” Tucked deep in the bowels of the rosy tipped discussion of Microsoft’s cloud services is this statement:
And the search power in SharePoint is disgustingly accurate, providing the accuracy and file previews that we were used to on Google Drive.
I like that “disgustingly accurate.” Sounds objective to me. Much more meaningful than such silliness as relevance, precision, and recall.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2014
March 24, 2014
Tucked deep into the Wall Street Journal’s stunning analysis of Big Data was a gem. Here’s the quote, allegedly made by Zest Finance’s big data dog, Douglas Merrill. This Xoogler is quoted in “Big Data Weird Data” as stating:
Machine learning isn’t replacing people.
Interesting. Many professionals at the Dubai intelligence conference in March 2014 were asserting that whizzy new systems worked without having to depend on humans.
Read the entire article in the Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2014, page R 5. It’s online but you may have to pay. Humans can be expensive when asked to do work like report on the underbelly of Big Data.
One question: I thought Google had figured out the automatic thinking thing. Is a disenchanted Googler not getting with the smart data program?
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2014