Fancy Math Maybe Not Needed?
October 2, 2010
“Search Data ‘No More Informative’ Than Standard Analysis” seems to challenge the fancy math of outfits like Recorded Future, Palantir, and IBM SPSS. How can fancy math fail to wow the researchers? The VC crowd won’t be amused. Palantir scooped up $90 million and for what?
The article asserts:
Tracking web searches worked the best in predicting how a new video game would sell, Yahoo’s Sharad Goel and Jake Hofman said.
Ah, ha. Yahoo. The purple outfit with the revolving door this week.
The Yahooligans said:
“Given the attention that search-based predictions have received recently, it may seem surprising that search data are, at least in some cases, no more informative than traditional data sources…”
One point that jumped out at me was that using third party tabulations such as a list of top tunes worked better than fancy math.
Palantir has 90 million reasons to prove Yahoo somewhat incorrect. IBM may not care. Recorded Future has the support of the Google and In-Q-Tel. Well, Yahoo may have a better way.
Stephen E Arnold, October 1, 2010
Freebie
Instant Search: Who Is on First?
September 12, 2010
A reader sent me a link to “Back to the Future: Innovation Is Alive in Search.” The point of the write up is to make clear that for the author of the post, Yahoo was an innovator way back in 2005. In fact, if I understand the Yahooligan’s blog post, Yahoo “invented” instant search. I am an addled goose, but I recall seeing that function in a demo given me in 1999 or 2000 by a Fast Search & Transfer technology whiz. Doesn’t matter.
Search has lacked innovation for a long, long time. In fact, if you can track down someone who will share the closely guarded TREC results, you will see that precision and recall scores remain an interesting challenge for developers of information retrieval systems. In fact, the reason social curation seems to be “good enough” is that traditional search systems used to suck, still suck, and will continue to suck.
The problem is not the math, the wizards, and the hybrid Rube Goldberg machines that vendors use to work their magic. Nope. The problem with search has several parts. Let me make them explicit because the English majors who popular the azure chip consulting firms and “real” blogs have done their best to treat technology as John Donne poem:
First, language. Search involves language, which is a moving target. There’s a reason why poems and secret messages are tough to figure out. Words can be used in ways that allow some to “get it” and others to get an “F” in English 301: The Victorian Novel. At this time, software does better at certain types of language than others. One example is medical lingo. There’s a reason why lots of vendors have nifty STM (scientific, technical, and medical) demos.
Second, humans. Humans usually don’t know exactly what they want. Humans can recognize something that is sort of what they want. If the “something” is close enough for horseshoes, a human can take different fragments and glue them together to create an answer. These skills baffle software systems. The reason social curation works for finding information is that the people in a “circle” may be closer to the mind set of the person looking for information. Even if the social circle is clueless, the placebo effect kicks in and justifies the “good enough” method; that is, use what’s available and “make it work”, just like Project Runway contestants.
Third, smart software. Algorithms and numerical recipes, programmable search engines, fuzzy logic, and the rest of the PhD outputs are quite useful. The problem is that humans who design systems, by definition, are not yet able to create a system that can cope with the oddities that emerge from humans being human. So as nifty as Google is at finding a pizza joint in Alphabet City, Google and other systems may be wildly wrong as humans just go about their lives being unpredictable, idiosyncratic, irrational, and incorrect in terms of the system output.
I think there is innovation in search. Now my definition of innovation is very different from the Yahooligan’s. I am not interested is pointing out that most commercial and open source search systems just keep doing the basics. Hey, these folks went to college and studied the same general subjects. The variants are mostly tweaks to methods others know pretty well. After getting a PhD and going into debt, do you think a search engineer is going to change direction and “invent” new methods? I find that most of the search engineers are like bowling balls rolling down a gutter. The ball gets to the end of the lane, but the pins are still standing. Don’t believe me? Run a query on Ask.com, Bing.com, Google.com, or any other search system you can tap? How different are the results?
The challenge becomes identifying companies and innovators who have framed a findability problem in such a way that the traditional problems of search become less of an issue. Where does one look for that information? Not in blog posts from established companies whose track record in search is quite clear.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2010
Freebie
Yahoo Search Seeks a Hug
September 1, 2010
Yahoo Search now features Bing results. You have to look closely to find the image file, but it was there the last time I looked. So what’s happening at Yahoo search? I am not sure. I did notice a Yahoo blog post.
After the announcement of a Search Alliance with Microsoft’s Bing many people were left wondering whether Yahoo was getting out of the search engine game. “Yahoo’s Shahshahani On Search Evolution” shows a discussion by the head of Yahoo Labs Search Sciences Dr. Ben Shahshahani on the future of the Yahoo search engine. The entire conversation is located on Yahoo’s Search Blog. Shahshahani wanted to announce Yahoo was not ending its Search options but instead improving their outlook on the process. He stated “We like to consider search not as a stateless, information-extraction, but sort of an ongoing dialogue between the user and the system.” They strive to make the search process easier and provide users with search suggestions “to give them the information they need before they even think to search.” Also Yahoo is going to integrate social platforms into its results. It seems Yahoo is clearing up the rumor mill and doing a little PR for its declining Search Engine.
Okay, Yahooligans. Come to Harrod’s Creek. The goose will give you a hug. I hope it helps because I still have to do a lot of clicking to see my Yahoo email, and I find the results of the same query on Yahoo.com quite different when I run the query on Yahoo’s international Web sites.
Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2010
Freebie
Yahoo Essay Sets a Record Straight
August 31, 2010
Anyone interested in the pay to play angle for search will want to read “Bubble Blinders: The Untold Story of the Search Business Model.” In addition to correcting some factual errors from high profile search wizards, the write up underscores how tough it is for one company to see that a big opportunity exists. More about this point in a moment.
I am not going to beat up on Yahoo. The company has suffered enough, and it is probably going to become a hit in the business school case study comic books. I noted one key passage. Here it is:
From 1997 to 2000, we visited Yahoo more than a dozen times to pitch the Keywords idea: pay-for-placement, keyword-targeted text ads on the side of search results. Despite repeated rejection, we pitched every member of Yahoo’s executive team multiple times, each time finding new ways to present the concept and new data to support how profitable and huge the opportunity might be, all in vain. Like Paul Graham’s reaction when he first pitched them “Revenue Loop,” my initial sentiment was that perhaps we were doing a terrible job explaining the idea. But soon I realized that Yahoo simply didn’t see the value of search. They were sitting on one of the most strategic assets in the world, yet apparently didn’t even know it.
I am not convinced this is an “innovator’s dilemma. I think it is standard human behavior. A current example is the Yahooing of Google. Multiple acquisitions in a short period of time requires top notch management methods. Does Google have these? With the rapid fire failures this summer, I think Google’s management skills are on display. Then there are the twin and now pretty well known Google antagonists: Apple and Facebook. Android looks like a winner, but Google has to monetize that open source play. Facebook is running mostly unchecked.
Net net: Great write up. For me the subtext was information germane to how I think about Google.
Stephen E Arnold, August 31, 2010
Freebie
Bingo for Yahoo
August 27, 2010
Quote to note: Yahoo is now Bing. Sure, there is the logo, the cluttered interface, and the multiple clicks to get to email. The same old Yahoo. You can exercise the site, but it is clear that my use of Exalead’s search system will continue. In “Bing Officially Power Yahoo Search in U.S. and Canada,” I spotted a quote I want to tuck in my great moments in search file. Here’s the passage:
“Yahoo will continue to drive technology innovation in the search experience to bring more value to users and advertisers alike,” wrote Yahoo’s senior VP for search products Sashi Seth, in a blog post. “We are focused on creating rich, immersive experiences that foster serendipitous discovery for people across the Yahoo network.”
Experience is more important than relevance and recall? Yep. Precision. Long lost I fear. What does Yahoo’s time explorer service say? Test it yourself at http://fbmya01.barcelonamedia.org:8080/future/. I saw a downturn in September 2010 and another crater at the end of October 2015. Good news though. Around 2017, Yahoo sees its Microsoft Yahoo tie up improving. No surprise I suppose.
Stephen E Arnold, August 27, 2010
Freebie
Yahoo: Booboo and Boohoo
August 16, 2010
I wanted to snag one passage and run it as a quote to note. Here’s the snippet:
But there are worse things than seeming irresponsible. Losing, for example.
“What Happened to Yahoo” contained a couple of other gems, and you will want to read the complete article, not my comments.
The author was a Yahooligan who makes clear he had an idea that Google later emulated. Too bad for Yahoo, of course. Messrs. Wang and Filo had other fish to fry. Search was not on the menu. Banner ads were.
The two gems in this write up, in my opinion, were:
First, the Internet bubble made Yahoo wallow in banner ad revenue. Life was good, so why focus on more difficult aspects of running a business. As a result, Yahoo fell behind in its Overture revenue method. The Google was inspired. Yahoo complained and got $1 billion or so. Then Google raced right up to $24 billion as Yahoo stood on the sidelines and watched.
Source: http://techcrunch.com/2008/09/04/yahoo-stock-falls-off-the-cliff-when-will-jerry-give-up-and-quit/
Second, the article describes how Yahoo was, at its core, pretty indifferent to technology. Some camouflaging actions were needed; namely, focusing on easy sales to big dumb companies, describing itself as a media company, and hiring good enough programmers.
Is this an accurate description of Yahoo? Pretty much, but there were some twists and turns within the company based on my research into Yahoo for a large, clueless client over a period of three years. Here are the points that warrant some additional color:
- Yahoo bought companies, operated each in silos, and created a cost structure that was and still is difficult to control. What’s interesting is that Google seems to be heading down this slippery slope at this time.
- Yahoo management did not manage. In one interview, a Yahooligan suggested that units within Yahoo operated as separate companies. Now that’s a recipe for success. Just ask anyone who worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton when folks were rewarded for taking clients from other BAH professionals. The shark thing. Fun.
- Yahoo’s own technical staff convinced itself that it was really into cutting edge stuff. Sorry. Yahoo had some winners and converted them into so-so outfits. There was the Delicious.com rewrite. Then there was the Flickr – Yahoo Pictures or whatever it was. Silly stuff.
Bottom line: Yahoo does not matter too much to this addled goose anymore.
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2010
Freebie
Yahoo Japan Acts Googley
August 3, 2010
Yahoo Japan has decided to give the search engine nod to Google. On a slow news day, the snubbing of Microsoft caught our attention in Harrod’s Creek. The war of words has erupted. Concerned over a monopoly, Microsoft lead attorney Brad Smith called the decision anti-competitive and has compared it with a failed deal earlier within the U.S. Yahoo market place. Google has replied, saying it was due to good old fashioned fair business practices. “Google Outdeals Microsoft in Japan” said:
Under the terms of the new alliance, Yahoo will use Google’s search and advertising platform technology to power its site, matching Google’s superior tech with its own, highly popular content portals. In Japan, Google hasn’t quite enjoyed the success it has elsewhere around the world, trailing Yahoo in search dominance. This new deal makes it the cock of the walk; according to the New York Times, Google and Yahoo together comprise 90.5 percent of the Japanese search market. (If you’re wondering why Yahoo would cut against Microsoft like this, the answer is that Yahoo is actually a minority owner in its own Japanese property; the biggest shareholder is the cell phone company SoftBank.)
Being able to provide Yahoo Japan with the necessary search engine technology will only broaden Google’s reach throughout the world. Already the largest search engine available, this is due in part to ad revenues associated with key word searches. These ads are projected to have a 27 percent increase over the next three years in Japan alone.
With Google expanding into yet another region, Yahoo Japan is poised to shift into high gear. Will this be a long, drawn out fight among the competitors? Yep. How much did this deal cost Google? How much will this deal cost Microsoft? No data yet.
Glenn Black, August 3, 2010
Yahoo! and Microsoft, Wedded Bliss?
July 27, 2010
Yahoo! and Microsoft have exchanged rings, gone to the chapel and returned from their honeymoon (http://www.internetnews.com/search/article.php/3894486). Now the world waits to see what kind of baby they’ll make. The two search also-rans are in the process of combining Microsoft’s Bing (www.bing.com) search technology with Yahoo!’s established presence in an attempt to compete with Google. “As we continue to make progress implementing various aspects of the Yahoo and Microsoft Search Alliance,” a spokesman said. “Our two companies continue to work together towards the goal of providing a quality transition experience for advertisers.”
While we’re all curious if this merger will produce a Rosemary’s Baby, securing its advertising first strikes us as a wise approach. It’ll take big bucks to stop Google’s dominance and this might be the key.
In fact, MarketWatch’s “What’s wrong with Yahoo?” makes the point that Yahoo has a knack for turning a blue ribbon into an also-participated certificate. The article said:
Everything it does is second rate, or when they buy a company they put it on a track to become second rate. When they develop or buy something that is not only first rate or fundamentally a world-beater, they have no clue as to how to market it.
MarketWatch focuses on the firm’s management, which is skilled in cursing may lack the touch required to make the marriage work. The addled goose has yet to recover from the verbal baloney tossed at him after the publication of his analysis of Google’s attempt to corner the semantic Web. Not only did Google fizzle, so did Yahoo. What’s that tell you about the difficulties of the semantic stuff and the overweening confidence programmers have in their own team’s abilities? The goose learned a lot.
Stephen E Arnold, July 27, 2010
Guess Who Is Gunning for the Google?
July 21, 2010
Microsoft and Yahoo?
Yep. Automating search requests seems to be paying off for Yahoo and Microsoft as they gained a little more ground on the industry leader Google in June. However, SFGate.com isn’t exactly optimistic the trailers will catch up to the Google any time soon. Although they might have the top search engine in their crosshairs, a recently published article Yahoo, Microsoft Gain Ground on Google in Search, still states that Google owned 62.6% of the pie all through June.
Granted these numbers are down a bit from the 63.7% they enjoyed the previous month, but in our opinion the real threat to Google supremacy doesn’t come from other search engines at all. When recent polls indicate that people are also using Facebook and Twitter to get to websites on the Internet, the real challenge might come from social media.
Yahoo and Microsoft are shivering with excitement. Google now has a laser target finder on its brow. And with rumors of more turnover in the Microsoft search unit, Microsoft wants to recruit more sharpshooters. Maybe the Microsoft search blogs will get some much needed attention and substance.
Stephen E Arnold, July 20, 2010
Microsoft Yahoo Goal
June 30, 2010
Quote to note: I spotted this alleged statement by one of Microsoft’s search savvy wizards. Navigate to “Microsoft’s Yahoo Deal Will Create Google Alternative, Says Exec.” Look for this statement:
“Once we do the migration–this fall, hopefully–there will be two options. Everyone will still buy Google, but there will be a clear second chance to buy, with roughly 30 percent market share,” Mehdi continued, according to the article. “Just being able to be a credible choice, for us, is a huge step forward. And that’s what we’ll accomplish with Yahoo.”
Yep, huge.
Stephen E Arnold, June 29, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
