Yidio Update
March 29, 2009
Quite a few readers have shown interest in Yidio, the video search system I wrote about here. A reader sent me a link to this interesting post on Quantcast. The site has shown strong traffic growth in the first two months of 2009. You can view the data here. What’s interesting is that the viewers of Yidio don’t favor YouTube.com, if the Quantcast data are accurate. Frankly I had not heard of most of the sites in the “Audience Also Visits” listing; for example, tvduck.com, although the name appeals greatly to this addled goose. TVDuck seemed to be quite YouTube.com centric which begged the question, “How dependent on YouTube.com are these services.
A happy quack to the reader who pointed out that I did not mention that a videographer can make money by posting the content to Yidio. The procedure requires that the videographer provide his / her AdSense identification code. Click here for details.
Stephen Arnold, March 29, 2009
Library of Congress Makes Citizens as Fish Splash
March 28, 2009
For me, the Library of Congress is more of a museum than a research facility. Even Google looks like a limping dog when compared to the zippy content flashing across the Twitter spam machine. The Library of Congress, according to TechWhack here, is going to put some of its info on YouTube.com and Apple iTunes. Okay. But the best part of the TechWhack write up was this statement, a true classic in my opinion:
Matt Raymond, the library’s director of communications spoke about the new developments: “Our broad strategy is to ‘fish where the fish are,’ and to use the sites that give our content added value — in the case of iTunes, ubiquity, portability, etc.”.
I do like that citizens, users, customers, whatever as “fish”. Good stuff.
Stephen Arnold, March 28, 2009
Yidio: Video Search
March 6, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Yidio, a video search system that indexes 200 million videos. The search system is powered by Truveo. Here’s what Yidio said about itself:
Yidio is owned and operated by 2ten Media LLC, based in San Diego, California which also owns Sportsnipe.com, a sports news aggregator that combines sports news from thousands of sources around the world. It is 2ten Media’s mission to provide an Internet experience to users that is not only simple and efficient, but employs the highest technology available while adding value to every user. We are constantly expanding our Internet properties, so be on the look out for good thing’s in the near future from 2ten Media.
Here’s what Truveo said about itself:
Today, Truveo is one of the largest video search engines on the Web. Truveo is the search engine that powers many of the Web’s most popular video destinations. Truveo currently powers video search for AOL, Microsoft Corporation, CNET’s Search.com, Brightcove, Qwest, Kosmix, CSTV, Infospace, Excite, and hundreds of other applications worldwide. Across the network of websites it powers, Truveo reaches an audience of over 40 million users every month. The Truveo video search engine is widely recognized as being the most comprehensive and up-to-date video search service on the Web.
I am not a video consumer. If you can help me understand these two services, let me know. I am also trying to map these services to Blinkx, which bills itself as a big video search system. And YouTube.com? Check out Yidio.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Mysteries of Online 7: Errors, Quality, and Provenance
February 19, 2009
This installment of “Mysteries of Online” tackles a boring subject that means little or nothing to the entitlement generation. I have recycled information from one of my talks in 1998, but some of the ideas may be relevant today. First, let’s define the terms:
- Errors–Something does not work. Information may be wildly inaccurate but the user may not perceive this problem. An error is a browser that crashes, a page that doesn’t render, a Flash that fails. This notion of an error is very important in decision making. A Web site that delivers erroneous information may be perceived as “right” or “good enough”. Pretty exciting consequences result from this notion of an “error” in my experience.
- Quality–Content displayed on a Web page is consistent. The regularity of the presentation of information, the handling of company names in a standard way, and the tidy rows and columns with appropriate values becomes “quality” output in an online experience. The notion of errors and quality combine to create a belief among some that if the data come from the computer, then those data are right, accurate, reliable.
- Provenance–This is the notion of knowing from where an item came. In the electronic world, I find it difficult to figure out where information originates. The Washington Post reprints a TechCrunch article from a writer who has some nerve ganglia embedded in the companies about which she writes. Is this provenance enough or do we need the equivalent of a PhD from Oxford University and a peer reviewed document. In my experience, few users of online information know or know how to think about the provenance of the information on a Web page or in a search results list. Pay for placement adds spice to provenance in my opinion.
So What?
A gap exists between individuals who want to know whether information is accurate and can be substantiated from multiple sources and those who take what’s on offer. Consider this Web log post. If someone reads it, will that individual poke around to find out about my background, my published work, and what my history is. In my experience, I see a number of comments that say, “Who do you think you are? You are not qualified to comment on X or Y.” I may be an addled goose, but some of the information recycled for this Web log are more accurate than what appears in some high profile publications. A recent example was a journalist’s reporting that Google’s government sales were about $4,000, down from a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The facts were wrong and when I checked back on that story I found that no one pointed out the mistake. A single GB 7007 can hit $250,000 without much effort. It doesn’t take many Google Search Appliance Sales to beat $4,000 a year in revenue from Uncle Sam.
The point is that most users:
- Lack the motivation or expertise to find out if an assertion or a fact is correct or incorrect. Instead of becoming a priority, in my opinion, few people care too much about the dull stuff–chasing facts. Even when I chase facts, I can make an error. I try to correct those I can. What makes me nervous are those individuals who don’t care whether information is on target.
- See research as a core competency. Research is difficult and a thankless task. Many people tell me that they have no time to do research. I received an email from a person asking me how I could post to this Web log every day. Answer: I have help. Most of those assisting me are very good researchers. Individuals with solid research skills do not depend solely upon the Web indexes. When was the last time your colleague did research among sources other than those identified in a Web index.
- Get confused with too many results. Most users look at the first page of search results. Fewer than five percent of online users make use of advanced search functions. Google, based on my research, takes a “good enough” approach to their search results. When Google needs “real” research, the company hires professionals. Why? Good enough is not always good enough. Simplification of search and the finding of information is a habit. Lazy people use Web search because it is easy. Remember: research is difficult.
Google’s Radio Ad Failure
February 15, 2009
If you are interested in Google’s failures, you will want to take a quick look at “BIA/Kelsey Commentary: Fratrik on Google’s Departure from Radio.” The is a “free” consultant write up, so keep that in mind where you read the article here. The write up provides a mini analysis of how Google fumbled the ball and withdrew like Jackie Smith, former Dallas Cowboys’ received, famous for dropping a pass that would have won the big one. Google is a digital Jackie Smith when it comes to radio advertising. The most interesting comment in the write up was:
“Radio operators were never comfortable getting in bed with Google,” he said. “Among other things, the Google model asked for information that broadcasters thought was confidential. It also required the purchase of equipment. I heard the pitch when it was first launched, and I couldn’t see how this would be successful.” Why didn’t Google’s entry into the radio advertising market work out? “The initial read three years ago was somewhat positive – they were going to use their core strengths in Internet scalability and transactional efficiencies to attract buyers and sell inventory that local stations were unable to sell. But, even with their model and their reach to many more potential advertisers, they could not sell enough to make it a profitable business line.”
The notion of “comfort” is important. When Googzilla is not comfortable with its potential customers’ comfort with Googzilla, Googzilla says, “Adios.” Kelsey Group write up points out that some broadcasters are embracing digital ad technologies. That’s encouraging to some but not me.
Here’s why.
Traditional broadcasting companies are in the same boat as dead tree publishers. The demographics and the costs of their business model are like a current rushing down the Green River. If you go with the flow, you get carried along. If you try to paddle against the current, you fail, walk, or dock. Googzilla did not just exist; Googzilla wrote off an entire business sector as unable to “get it.” Trouble looms for traditional broadcasters I fear. The Sirius XM financial challenge is a harbinger. Kelsey Group’s article omitted this nuance which surprised me.
Stephen Arnold, February 15, 2009
Google Panoramio
February 13, 2009
I included a description of Panoramio in my Google briefings for some clients in 2008. No one in those sessions had ever heard of the service. You can check it out by navigating to www.panoramio.com. The company bought the company which had integrated photography with Google Earth. The GOOG plopped most of the Panoramio functionality into the Googleplex (my term for Google’s infrastructure). The Panoramio blog announcement is here. Panoramio has been discovered by news hounds in the datasphere. Search Engine Roundtable learned that Panoramio users can post questionable content via the service. The main story is here. The images may offend some, and we addled geese quickly pecked elsewhere. The goslings snorted and checked out Panoramio more thoroughly. Several of the more geeky goslings noted that stalkers and others of questionable repute might find this service “interesting”. If more info flaps across our field of vision, we will pass the links along.
Stephen Arnold, February 13, 2009
blinkx Has a New Home Page — Stop the Presses
February 6, 2009
Blinkx, http://www.blinkx.com, self-touted as the world’s largest video search engine, released a news alert that it has “re-launched” its home page with a couple “new” options: an inform me button that sends you news (this concept isn’t new) and an entertain me button that sends entertaining videos (that’s not a new idea either). They’re also promoting searching for videos visually (what a concept) and using speech tags in video (it’s been done). If companies like blinkx want to be in the spotlight, somewhat more steroid charged news might calm the Beyond Search goslings.
Jessica W. Bratcher, February 6, 2009
FindAnyFilm Search Engine
January 30, 2009
The UK Film Council has launched a search engine that focuses specifically on film. FindAnyFilm.com is free and has 30,000+ entries. It serves data, descriptions, viewing options, and where to buy links with the goals of both education and stopping film piracy. A statement from the council in UK Launches “Google for Films” here called FindAnyFilm.com “a Google for films.”
Was Google paying attention? Beyond Search opines that a competitive service would squeeze FindAnyFilm’s customers. Google does already offer a movie showtimes function and a Google Directory here, but nothing near as specific as FindAnyFilm.com. The only thing Google would have to do is code up the proper search and build an interface page – the kinds of things Google does at breakfast. Knowing Google’s propensity to squeeze little geese, this FindAnyFilm service may find modest traffic. The draw that may hold Google off is the small audience – the number of users in the UK is small compared to the rest of the world; FindAnyFilm definitely targets that market and lists movie prices in pounds, which further narrows its reach.
Jessica Bratcher, January 30, 2009
Video Sites and Search
January 27, 2009
ZDNet posts interesting statistical data, a bit like the old Predicasts’ File 16 data on Dialog minus the type charges. On January 23, 2009, Alex Moskalyuk summarized the comScore video site traffic data. You can view his original post here. I took a look at the data and did some quick fiddling around. I was interested in how much additional traffic one of the video sites listed would have to generate to pull even with YouTube.com in the month reported in the table. Here’s my rework:
| Property | Viewers, 000 | Share | Traffic Needed |
| Total Internet | 146,064 | 100.00% | — |
| Google Sites | 97,928 | 67.045% | — |
| Fox Interactive Media | 58,115 | 39.787% | 39,813 |
| Yahoo! Sites | 39,956 | 27.355% | 57,972 |
| Microsoft Sites | 34,979 | 23.948% | 62,949 |
| Viacom Digital | 27,109 | 18.560% | 70,819 |
| Hulu | 22,456 | 15.374% | 75,472 |
| AOL LLC | 22,442 | 15.364% | 75,486 |
| Turner Network | 20,735 | 14.196% | 77,193 |
| Disney Online | 13,028 | 8.919% | 84,900 |
| Time Warner – Excl. AOL | 12,564 | 8.602% | 85,364 |
| Source: comScore | |||
What’s interesting is that Hulu.com, to pick one video site that gets a lot of hype as a YouTube.com competitor needs to attract 75,486,000 more visitors to match YouTube.com’s traffic. What surprised me what the strong showing of Fox Interactive Media. Fox needs only 39,813,000 more visitors to reach parity with YouTube.com. I don’t watch video but it seems that Google’s 67 percent market share in video may not be as solid as its 70 percent share in Web search. The gap in video is narrower at least for Fox.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
Google and Video Playing Technology
January 26, 2009
I don’t pay much attention to online video. The trophy generation and the short attention span types do. Google tried its hand at its own video player and then shifted to Flash. If you care about video, you may want to check out Google’s invention disclosed in US20090024923. The abstract for this said:
Embedded Video Player Abstract A system, method and various user interfaces provide an embedded web-based video player for navigating video playlists and playing video content. A Web site publisher can create and store a video player with customized parameters (e.g., player type, appearance, advertising options, etc.) and can associate the player with a playlist of selected videos. The stored video player is associated with a player ID in a player database and can be embedded in a Web site using an embed code referencing the player ID. A user interface for the embedded player provides controls for controlling video playback and for controlling the selection of a video from the playlist.
Why is Google noodling a player? Two reasons. Why help out Adobe? Get more control over the experience in the browser or composite application. Google wants control to have some response to this type of situation. The video push is a real deal. Google has a cluster of video inventions, which signals to me an initiative.
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
