January 28, 2016
Short honk: You might be able to search by lat and long, but you will not see “it.” To get a partial run down on what’s not visible in Google Maps, navigate to “Controversial Places That Google Maps Won’t Let You See.”
The question becomes, “How does one see these blurred locations?” There are some options, but that’s the information covered in my lectures for Telestrategies’ “Now That Google Doesn’t Work, What Does an Investigator Do.” There are some free and for fee services which are quite useful.
A good question to ponder is, “Why?”
Why are some locations visible via Google and the same locations are not visible in Bing?
If it is not there, one cannot search it. If it is there and blurred, one has to find an option. Life online. Such a drag.
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2016
January 26, 2016
My wife loves Netflix. She finds programs that strike me as a bit fanciful, but that’s okay. How do she, her friends, and millions of other people locate just the right video confection for snowmageddon weekend?
Not with the Netflix search and recommendation as far as I know. I dabbled with this service a couple of times and formed two opinions:
- The folks have a lot of work to do in basic findability
- The interface is not my cup of hot chocolate. (If you love that Netflix search system, have at it. I still read.)
An alternative seems to be available if the information in “This Site Lets You Search the Worldwide Netflix Library” is on the money. I learned one can use Unogs. Here’s some color:
The “unofficial Netflix online Global Search” (uNoGS) takes most of the guesswork out of the process: it lets you search by movie or actor, narrow the results by a few extra fields, and then spits out what movies are available in which countries. From there, users just need to use one of many cheap VPN services, fake the correct country, and let the back episodes of Doctor Who trickle in. The site is also a wealth of data on which countries have the best and worst libraries, and what VPNs give access to which countries. According to an interview with TorrentFreak, the site’s creator ‘Brian’ initially created the site solely for his own personal use, before putting it online last year.
Keep those brain cells in idle mode. Gobble the videos, gentle reader. Some of the large online outfits really covet people who find video consumption more fun that reading the works of James Clerk Maxwell.
Stephen E Arnold, January 27, 2016
January 26, 2016
When snowmageddon hit the DC area, I thought it would be amusing to check out some of the streets which once enchanted me. Alas. The webcams were not working particularly well.
I poked around and located a couple of functioning devices. Just as I figured. Quite a mess, but it is Washington, DC. A fine, well organized place.
Get ready for the next snowpocalype. Navigate to “Shodan Search Engine Provides Access to Hundreds of Unsecured Webcams.” The write up describes how the unsecured webcam search engine finds unsecured webcams. The system may prove interesting to those explore.
The new feed consists of webcams that stream video, have an open port, and don’t require any authentication, which is how Shodan is able to snap screenshots in the first place. These webcams all employ the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) on port 554, which is what makes them so easy to discover.
Shodan is at https://www.shodan.io/. I put tape over my computer’s video thingies. Just a thought for you to consider.
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2016
January 6, 2016
I read “Watson to Gain Ability to See with Planned $1B Acquisition of Merge Healthcare.” This mid 2015 deal will, according to the IBM announcement:
Watson will gain the ability to “see” by bringing together Watson’s advanced image analytics and cognitive capabilities with data and images obtained from Merge Healthcare Incorporated’s medical imaging management platform.
Interesting. IBM has a number of content management platforms; for example, FileNet. Reconciling the different types of images within Watson’s content intake system will keep some folks busy at Big Blue. The last diagnostic test I had generated a live stream of video images of various body parts chugging along. Movies!
Watson is a capable system, right?
Stephen E Arnold, January 6, 2016
January 5, 2016
I read “GuangDa Li, Co-Founder and CTO ViSenze on Enabling Search without Key Words.” The article, I wish to point out, is written in words. To locate the article, one will have to use words to search for information about Dr. Li. Dragging his image to Google Images will not do the trick. The idea for search without words continues to attract attention. Ecommerce and law enforcement are keen to find alternatives to word centric queries. Searching for a text message with a particular emoji is not easy using words and phrases.
According to the write up:
In February 2013, GuangDa Li along with Oliver Tan, an industry veteran started ViSenze, a spin-off company from NExT, a research centre jointly established between National University of Singapore (NUS) and Tsinghua University of China. ViSenze has developed a technology that enables search without keywords. Users simply need to click a photo and ViSenze brings you the relevant search results based on that image.
The write up contains several points which I found interesting.
First, Mr. Li said:
Because of my background in internet media processing, I anticipated the change in the industry about 4 years ago – there was a sharp rise in the amount of multimedia content on the internet. The management, search and discovery of media content has become more and more demanding.
Image search is a challenge. Once promising systems to query video like Exalead’s system have dropped from public view. Video search on most services is frustrating.
Second, the business model for ViSenze is API focused. Mr. Li said:
ViSearch Search API is our flagship product and it also serves as the fundamentals for our other vertical applications. The key advantage of ViSearch API is that it is a perfect combination of latency, scalability and accuracy.
The third passage of interest to me was:
We used to be in stealth mode for a while. Only after our API was launched on the Rakuten Taiwan Ichiba website, did we start to talk with investors. It just happened.
I interpreted this to suggest that Rakuten recognizes that traditional eCommerce search systems like Amazon are vulnerable to a different information access approach.
Should Amazon worry about Rakuten or regulators? Amazon does not worry about much it seems. Its core search and cloud based search systems are, in my view, old school and frustrating for some users. Maybe ViSenze will offer a way to deliver a more effective solution for Rakuten. Competition might motive Amazon to do a better job with its own search and retrieval systems.
Stephen E Arnold, January 5, 2016
December 18, 2015
I read “Podcasting’s Search Problem Could be Solved by This Spanish Startup.” According to the write up:
Smab’s web app will automatically transcribe podcasts, giving listeners a way to scan and search their content.
What’s the method? I learned from the article:
The company takes audio files and generates text files. If those text files are hosted on Smab’s site, a person can click on a word in the transcript and it will take them directly to that part of the recording, because the transcript and the text are synced. In fact, a second program assesses the audio to determine where sentences begin, making it easier to find chunks of audio. Both functions are uneven, but it’s worth noting here that the company is in a very early stage.
There are three challenges for automatic voice to text to indexing from audio and video sources:
First, there is a great deal of content. The computational cost to covert a large chunk of audio data to a searchable form and then offer a reasonably robust search engine is significant.
Second, selectivity requires an editorial policy. Business and government are likely paying customers, but the topics these folks chase change frequently. The risk is that a paying customer will be disappointed and drop the service. Thus, sustainable revenue may be an issue.
Third, indexing podcasts and YouTube is work that Apple handles rather off handedly and YouTube performs as part of its massive investment in the Google search system. The fact that neither of these firms has pushed forward with more sophisticated search systems suggests that market demand may not be significant.
I hope the Smab service becomes available. Worth watching.
Stephen E Arnold, December 21, 2015
November 17, 2015
Traditional TV is in a slow decline towards obsoleteness. With streaming options offering more enticing viewing options with less out of pocket expenses and no contracts, why would a person sign on for cable or dish packages that have notoriously bad customer service, commercials, and insane prices? Digital Trends has the most recent information from Nielsen about TV viewing habits, “New Nielsen Study On Streaming Points To More Bad News For Traditional TV.”
Pay-for-TV services have been on the decline for years, but the numbers are huge for the latest Nielsen Total Audience report:
“According to the data, broadband-only homes are up by 52 percent to 3.3 million from 2.2 million year over year. Meanwhile, pay-TV subscriptions are down 1.2 percent to 100.4 million, from 101.6 million at this time last year. And while 1.2 percent may not seem like much, that million plus decline has caused all sorts of havoc on the stock market, with big media companies like Viacom, Nickelodeon, Disney, and many others seeing tumbling stock prices in recent weeks.”
While one might suggest that pay-for-TV services should start the bankruptcy paperwork, there has been a 45% rise in video-on-demand services. Nielsen does not tabulate streaming services, viewership on mobile devices, and if people are watching more TV due to all the options?
While Nielsen is a trusted organization for TV data, information is still collected view paper submission forms. Nielsen is like traditional TV and need to update its offerings to maintain relevancy.
Whitney Grace, November 17, 2015
October 15, 2015
I like the idea of blaming what some MBA whiz called exogenous events. The idea is that hapless, yet otherwise capable senior managers, are unable to deal with the ups and downs of running a business. In short, an exogenous event is a variation on “it’s not my fault,” “there’s little I can do,” and “let’s just muddle forward.” The problem is that hunting for scapegoats is not a way to generate revenue. Wait. One can raise subscription fees.
I read “Netflix Is Blaming Slow US Growth on the Switch to Chip-Based Credit Cards.” The write up references a letter, allegedly written by the Netflix top dog. I noted this passage:
In his letter to investors, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings partially blamed America’s recent switch to chip-enabled credit cards. As credit card companies send new cards to their customers, some have been issuing new numbers, as well. And if people forget to update their credit card number with Netflix, they can’t pay their bill and become what Hastings called “involuntary churn.”
I like that involuntary churn. I remember working on a project for a telecommunications company in which churn was a burr under the saddle of some executives. Those pesky customers. Darn it.
The write up ignores the responsibility of management to deal with exogenous events. When a search system fails, is it the responsibility of customers to fix the system. Nah, users just go to a service that seems to work.
I interpreted this alleged explanation and the article’s willingness to allow Netflix’s management to say, in effect, “Hey, this is not something I can do anything about.” If not the top dog, who takes responsibility? Perhaps the reason is not chip enabled credit cards? Perhaps users are sending Netflix a signal about sometimes unfindable content, clunky search, and a lack of features. Not everyone is a binge watcher. Some folks look for Jack Benny films or other entertainment delights. When these are not available, perhaps some look elsewhere. See and you shall find often delivers the goods.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2015
October 5, 2015
Short honk: I read “Facebook v. Google in Digital Video Battle: YouTube Is 11X Bigger.” The big factoid is in the headline: Facebook is a fraction of the size in terms of traffic than YouTube. A couple of thoughts: How rapidly is Facebook growing in video content compared to YouTube? What is Facebook’s monetization opportunity compared to the Alphabet Google’s opportunity? The chit chat I have heard is that Facebook’s growth in the last 18 months is more rapid that the Alphabet Google video revenue growth? I also have a suspicion that socially anchored monetization may generate a more stable stream of revenue for Facebook. My question, however, is, “When will Facebook surpass YouTube in revenue from video?”
Stephen E Arnold, October 5, 2015
September 24, 2015
I read “Google Charges Advertisers for Fake YouTube Video Views, Say Researchers.” My goodness, will criticism of Alphabet Google continue to escalate?
The trigger for the newspaper article’s story with the somewhat negative headline was an academic paper called “Understanding the Detection of Fake View Fraud in Video Content Portals.” The data presented in the journal by seven European wizards suggests that an Alphabet Google type company knows when a video is viewed by a software robot, not a credit card toting human.
“Fake view fraud” is a snappy phrase.
According to the Guardian newspaper write up about the technical paper:
The researchers’ paper says that while substantial effort has been devoted to understanding fraudulent activity in traditional online advertising such as search and banner ads, more recent forms such as video ads have received little attention. It adds that while YouTube’s system for detecting fake views significantly outperforms others, it may still be susceptible to simple attacks.
Is this a Volkswagen-type spoof? Instead of fiddling with fuel efficiency, certain online video portals are playing fast and loose with charging for video ads not displayed to a human with a PayPal account?
Years ago an outfit approached me with a proposition for a seminar about online advertising fraud. I declined. I am confident that the giant companies and their wizards in the ad biz possess business ethics which put the investment bankers to shame. I recall discussing systems and methods with a couple of with it New Yorkers. The lunch topic was dynamically relaxing the threshold for displaying content in response to certain queries.
My comment pointed to ways to determine if an ad “relevant” was relevant to a higher percentage of user queries. I called this “query and ad matching relaxation.”
I did not include a discussion of “relaxation” in my 2003-2004 study Google Version 2.0, which is now out of print. The systems and methods disclosed in technical papers by researchers who ended up working for large online advertising methods were just more plumbing for smart software.
When an ad does not match a query, that’s the challenge of figuring out what’s relevant and what’s irrelevant.
My thought in 2003 when I started writing the book was that most content was essentially spoofed and sponsored. I wanted to focus on more interesting innovations like the use of game theory in online advertising interfaces and the clever notion of “janitors” which were software routines able to clean up “bad” or “incomplete” data.
As I recall, that New York City guy was definitely interested in the notion of tuning ad results to generate money for the ad distribution and not so much for the advertiser. For me, no interest in lecturing a group of ad execs about their business. These folks can figure out the ins and outs of their business without inputs from an old person in Kentucky.
Mobile and video access to digital content do pose some interesting challenges in the online advertising world. My hunch is that the Alphabet Google type outfits and the intrepid researchers will find common ground. If the meeting progresses smoothly, perhaps a T shirt or mouse pad will be offered to some of the participants?
I remain confident that allegations about slippery behavior in online advertising are baseless. Online advertising is making life better and better for users everyday.
The experience of online advertising is thrilling. I am not sure the experience of receiving unwanted advertisements can be improved? Why read a Web page when one can view an overlay which obscures the desired content? Why work in a quite office? Answer: It is simply easier to hear the auto play videos on many Web pages. Why puzzle over a search results page which blurs sponsored hits from relevant content? By definition, displayed information is relevant information, gentle reader. Do you have a problem with that?
Google, according to the article, will chat up the seven experts who reported on the alleged fraud. I am confident that the confusion in the perceptions of the researchers will be replaced with crystal clear thinking.
Online ad fraud? What a silly notion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2015