• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

Google and Disruption: Will It Work Tomorrow?

Editor’s Note: The text in this article is derived from the notes prepared by Stephen E Arnold’s keynote talk on April 15, 2010. He delivered this speech as part of Slovenian Information Days in Portoroz, Slovenia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am most grateful for the opportunity to address this group and offer some observations about Google and its disruptive tactics.

I started tracking Google’s technical inventions in 2002. A client, now out of business, asked me to indicate if “Google really had something solid.”

My analysis showed a platform diagram and a list of markets that Google was likely to disrupt. I captured three ideas in my 2005 monograph “The Google Legacy“, which is still timely and available from Infonortics Ltd. in Tetbury, Glos.

The three ideas were:

First, Google had figured out how to add computing capacity, including storage, using mostly commodity hardware. I estimated the cost in 2002 dollars as about one-third what companies like Excite, Lycos, Microsoft, and Yahoo and were paying.

Second, Google had solved the problem of text search for content on Web pages. Google’s engineers were using that infrastructure to deliver other types of services. In 2002, there were rumors that Google was experimenting with services that ranged from email to an online community / messaging system. One person, whose name I have forgotten, pointed out that Google’s internal network MOMA was the test bed for this type of service.

Third, Google was not an invention company. Google was an applied research company. The firm’s engineers, some of whom came from Sun Microsystems and AltaVista.com, were adepts at plucking discoveries from university research computing tests and hooking them into systems that were improvements on what most companies used for their applications. The genius was focus and selection and integration.

Google is an information factory, a digital Rouge River construct. Raw materials enter at one end and higher value information products and services come out at the other end of the process.

In my  second Google monograph, funded funded in part by another client, I built upon my research into technology and summarized Google’s patent activities between 2004 and mid 2007. Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator, also published by Infonortics Ltd., disclosed several interesting facts about the company.

Read more

Quote to Note: Dick Brass on MSFT Innovation

I met Dick Brass many years ago. He left Oracle and joining Microsoft to contribute to a confidential initiative. Mr. Brass worked on the ill-fated Microsoft tablet, which Steve Jobs has reinvented as a revolutionary device. I am not a tablet guy, but one thing is certain. Mr. Jobs knows how to work public relations. Mr. Brass published an article in the New York Times, and it captured the attention of Microsoft and millions of readers who enjoyed Mr. Brass’s criticism of his former employer. I have no opinion about Microsoft, its administrative methods, or its ability to innovate. I did find a quote to note in the write up:

Microsoft is no longer considered the cool or cutting edge place to work. There has been a steady exist of its best and brightest. (“Microsoft’s Creative Destruction”, the New York Times, February 4, 2010, Page 25, column 3, National Edition)

Telling because if smart people don’t work at a company, that company is likely to make less informed decisions than an organization with smarter people. This applies in the consulting world. There are blue chip outfits like McKinsey, Bain, and BCG). Then there are lesser outfits which I am sure you can name because these companies “advertise”, have sales people who “sell” listings, and invent crazy phrases to to create buzz and sales. I am tempted to differentiate Microsoft with a reference to Apple or Google, but I will not. Oh, why did I not post this item before today. The hard copy of my New York Times was not delivered until today. Speed is important in today’s information world.

The quote nails it.

Stephen E Arnold, February 7, 2010

No one paid me to write this, not a single blue chip consulting firm, not a single savvy company. I will report this lack of compensation to the experts at the IRS, which is gearing up for the big day in April.

Lazarus, Azure Chip Consultants, and Search

A person called me today to tell me that a consulting firm is not accepting my statement “Search is dead”. Then I received a spam email that said, “Search is back.” I thought, “Yo, Lazarus. There be lots of dead search vendors out there. Example: Convera.

Who reports that search has risen? An azure chip consultant! Here’s what raced through my addled goose brain as I pondered the call and the “search is back” T shirt slogan:

In 2006, I was sitting on a pile of research about the search market sector. The data I collected included:

• Interviews with various procurement officers, search system managers, vendors, and financial analysts
• My own profiles of about 36 vendors of enterprise search systems plus the automated content files I generate using the Overflight system. A small scale version is available as a demo on ArnoldIT.com
• Information I had from my work as a systems engineering and technical advisor to several governments and their search system procurement teams
• My own experience licensing, testing, and evaluating search systems for clients. (I started doing this work after we created in 1993 The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) and sold it to Lycos, a unit of CMGI. I figured I should look into what Lycos was doing so I could speak with authority about its differences from BRS/Search, InQuire, Dialog (RECON), and IBM STAIRS III. I had familiarity with most of these systems through various projects in my pre Point (Top 5% of the Internet life).
• My Google research funded by the now-defunct BearStearns outfit and a couple of other well heeled organizations.

What was clear in 2006 was the following:

First, most of the search system vendors shared quite a bit of similarity. Despite the marketing baloney, the key differentiators among the flagship systems in 2006 were minor. Examples range from their basic architecture to their use of stemming to the methods of updating indexes. There were innovators, and I pointed out these companies in my talks and various writings, including the three editions of the Enterprise Search Report I wrote before I fell ill in February 2007 and quit doing that big encyclopedia type publication. These similarities made it very clear to me that innovation for enterprise search was shifting from the plain old key word indexing of structured records available since the advent of RECON and STAIRS to a more freeform approach with generally lousy relevance.

Get information access wrong, and some folks may find a new career. Source: http://www.seeing-stars.com/Images/ScenesFromMovies/AmericanBeautyMrSmiley%28BIG%29.JPG

Second, the more innovative vendors were making an effort in 2006 to take a document and provide some sort of context for it. Without a human indexer to assign a classification code to a document that is about marketing but does not contain the word “marketing”, this was rocket science. But when I examined these systems, there were two basic approaches which are still around today. The first was to use statistical methods to put documents together and make inferences and the other was a variation on human indexing but without humans doing most of the work. The idea was that a word list would contain synonyms. There were promising demonstrations of software methods that could “read” a document, but there were piggy and of use where money was no object.

Third, the Google approach which used social methods—that is, a human clicking on a link—were evident but not migrating to the enterprise world. Google was new but to make their 2006 method hum, lots of clicks were needed. In the enterprise, most documents never get clicked, so the 2006 Google method was truly lousy. Google has made improvements, mostly by implementing the older search methods, not by pushing the envelope as it has been doing with its Web search and dataspace efforts.

Fourth, most of the search vendors were trying like Dickens to get out of a “one size fits all” approach to enterprise search. Companies making sales were focusing on a specific niche or problem and selling a package of search and content searching that solved one problem. The failure of the boil the ocean approach was evident because user satisfaction data from my research funded by a government agency and other clients revealed that about two thirds of the users of an enterprise search system were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with that search system. The solution, then, was to focus. My exemplary case was the use of the Endeca technology to allow Fidelity UK sales professionals to increase their productivity with content pushed to them using the Endeca system. The idea was that a broker could click on a link and the search results were displayed. No searching required. ClearForest got in the game by analyzing the dealer warranty repair comments. Endeca and ClearForest were harbingers of focus. ClearForest is owned by Thomson Reuters and in the open source software game too.

When I wrote the article in Online Magazine for Barbara Quint, one of my favorite editors, I explained these points in more detail. But it was clear that the financial pressures on Convera, for example, and the difficulty some of the more promising vendors like Entopia were having made the thin edge of survival glint in my desk lamp’s light. Autonomy by 2006 had shifted from search and organic growth to inorganic growth fueled by acquisitions that were adjacent to search.

Read more

Microsoft Worries about Intellectual Arteriosclerosis

At my advanced age, I think a 50 year old is a spring chicken. Some one in their 40s is a chick. Anyone younger is a beak poking through a shell. Not at Microsoft. Based on the article “At Microsoft, Is Age More Than Just a Number?”, someone at Microsoft allegedly believes the company is losing touch with youth. The idea is that a young engineer comes to Microsoft and then high tails it somewhere else quickly. It costs a big company a lot of money to recruit a young employee, train them, and make them productive. There is a high cost to churn, just as there is in the mobile phone subscription list. To get payback from young workers, the company has to keep these lads and lasses around and productive for several years. As maddening as youth are, these folks are important to the future of an organization. The most interesting sentence in the write up, in my opinion, was:

“My research has shown that 401ks, salaries and other forms of monetary compensation are less important to Generation Y retention than fruitful collaboration with peers, recognition of work, opportunities for growth and the idea of “being a part of something”. These young employees are less averse to change and will tirelessly seek environments that promote these activities, leaving those that don’t.”

The quote is from a wizard at Microsoft. Am I alone in thinking that Google has a magnetic lure for young wizards. Those who can’t get hired at the Google can look at Apple, maybe Amazon, or even the wacky land of Facebook.com. If Microsoft has a bunch of spring chickens, these folks may not be ready for the retirement home, but they may be just the ticket for Googzilla to run over on the information highway. The spring chickens may cross the road to fix a glitch in SharePoint and then find themselves under the wheels of Messrs. Brin’s and Page’s Hummer.

Stephen E. Arnold, January 1, 2010

Another freebie. I must report this sad state of affairs to the National Park Service. A dead animal in a national park is its responsibility.

Cicumvallation: Reed Elsevier and Thomson as Vercingetorix

Google Scholar Gets Smart in Legal Information

One turkey received a presidential pardon. Other turkeys may not be so lucky on November 26, 2009, when the US celebrates Thanksgiving. I am befuddled about this holiday. There are not too many farmers in Harrod’s Creek. The fields contain the abandoned foundations of McMansions that the present economic meltdown have left like Shelly’s statue of Ozymandius. The “half buried in the sand” becomes half built homes in the horse farm.

As Kentuckians in my hollow give thanks for a day off from job hunting,, I am sitting by the goose pond trying to remember what I read in my copy of Caesar’s De Bello Gallico. I know Caesar did not write this memoir, but his PR bunnies did a pretty good job. I awoke this morning thinking about the connection between the battle of Alesia and what is now happening to the publishing giants Reed-Elsevier and Thomson Reuters. The trigger for this mental exercise was Google’s announcement that it had added legal content to Google Scholar.

What’s Vercingetorix got to do with Google, Lexis, and Westlaw? Think military strategy. Starvation, death, surrender, and ritual killing. Just what today’s business giants relish.

Google has added the full text of US federal cases and state cases. The coverage of the federal cases, district and appellate, is from 1924 to the present. US state cases cover 1950 to the present. Additional content will be added; for example, I have one source that suggested that the Commonwealth of Virginia Supreme Court will provide Google with CD ROMs of cases back to 1924. Google, according to this source, is talking with other sources of US legal information and may provide access to additional legal information as well. What are these sources? Possibly
Public.Resource.Org and possibly Justia.org, among others.

The present service includes:

• The full text of the legal document
• Footnotes in the legal document
• Page numbers in the legal document
• Page breaks in the legal document
• Hyperlinks in the legal document to cases
• A tab to show how the case was cited in other documents
• Links to non legal documents that cite a case.

You can read various pundits, mavens, and azure=chip consultants’ comments on this Google action at this link.

You may want to listen to a podcast called TWIL and listened to the November 23, 2009, show on which Google Scholar was discussed for about a half hour. You can find that discussion on iTunes. Just search for TWIL and download the program “Social Lubricants and Frictions.”

On the surface, the Google push into legal information is a modest amount of data in terms of Google’s daily petabyte flows. The service is easy to use, but the engineering required to provide access to the content strikes me as non-trivial. Content transformation is an expensive proposition, and the cost of fiddling with legal information is one of the primary reasons commercial online services have had to charges hefty fees to look at what amounts to taxpayer supported, public information.

The good news is that the information is free, easily accessible even from an iPhone or other mobile device. The Google service does the standard Google animal tricks of linking, displaying content with minimal latency, and updating new content in a a minute or so that content becoming available to Google software Dyson vacuum cleaner.

So what?

This service is similar to others I have written about in my three Google monographs. Be aware. My studies are not Sergey-and-Larry-eat-pizza books. I look at the Google open source technical and business information. I ignore most of what Google’s wizards “say” in public. These folks are “running the game plan” and add little useful information for my line of work. Your mileage may differ. If so, stop reading this blog post and hunt down a cheerful non-fiction Google book by a real live journalist. That’s not my game. I am an addled goose.

Now let me answer the “so what”.

First, the Google legal content is an incremental effort for the Google. This means that Google’s existing infrastructure, staff, and software can handle the content transformation, parsing, indexing, and serving. No additional big-buck investment is needed. In fact, I have heard that the legal content project, like Google News, was accomplished in the free time for play that Google makes available to its full time professionals. A bit of thought should make clear to you that commercial outfits who have to invest to handle legal content in a Google manner have a cost problem right out of the starting blocks.

Second, Google is doing content processing that should be the responsibility of the US government. I know. I know. The US government wants to create information and not compete with commercial outfits. But the outfits manipulating legal information have priced it so that most everyday Trents and Whitneys cannot afford to use these commercial services. Even some law firms cannot afford these services. Pro bono attorneys don’t have enough money to buy yellow pads to help their clients. Even kind hearted attorneys have to eat before they pay a couple a hundred bucks to run a query on the commercial online services from publicly traded companies out to make their shareholders have a great big financial payday. Google is operating like a government when it processes legal information and makes it available without direct charge to the user. The monetization takes place but on a different business model foundation. That also spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E for the commercial online services like Lexis and Westlaw.

Read more

Coveo Expresso Breaks New Ground in Information Access

Coveo, a leading provider of enterprise search technology and information access solutions, recently unveiled a free, entry-level enterprise search solution, Coveo Expresso™ Beta.  Coveo’s new solution places the power of enterprise information access in the hands of employees everywhere, at no cost, for up to 50 users. The free version of the Expresso content processing system can index one million one million desktop files and email items as well as 100,000 Intranet documents.  Licenses can be expanded at minimal cost to as many as 250 users, five million desktop files and email items, and one  million SharePoint and File share documents, just by typing a new access code. Administrators simply add new email accounts and SharePoint or file share documents within the intuitive administrative interface. Coveo Expresso is available for immediate download at www.coveo.com/expresso.

Laurent Simoneau, President and CEO, told Beyond Search:

Although enterprise search solutions have been available for nearly a decade, most are built on legacy systems that are difficult to implement and have not lived up to the promise of intuitive, secure and comprehensive information access across information silos. We want to re-educate businesses about the ease and simplicity with which enterprise search should work, as our customers can attest. Coveo Expresso does that—and takes enterprise search one step further with ubiquitous access interfaces such as the Coveo Outlook Sidebar or the desktop floating search bar, which provide guided, faceted search where employees ‘live’—in their email interface or on their PC/laptop. We’ve been testing this feature for a number of months with our current customers and have found it to be one of the biggest boosts to productivity for all employees, regardless of their roles.

Features

The free download features a number of Coveo innovations, including:

• Cross-enterprise Email Search, for 50 email accounts, including PST files and attachments, on desktops and in servers for up to 1 million total items.
• The Coveo Outlook Sidebar, the industry’s first true enterprise search Outlook plug-in, which provides sophisticated features such as conversation folding, related conversations, related people, related attachments, and the ability to search any indexed content without leaving Outlook, as well as the ability to launch advanced search with guided navigation through search facets.
• The Coveo Desktop Floating Search bar, enabling guided searches without leaving the program in which the user is working.
• Enterprise Desktop Search, including always-on indexing for 50 PCs/laptops.
• Mobile access via BlackBerries for 50 users.

The Espresso Interface

Search results appear in a clean, well-organized panel display.

Read more

Differentiation: The New Enterprise Search Barrier

I don’t know one tree from another. When someone points out a maple and remarks that it is a sugar maple, I have no clue about a maple and even less information about a sugar maple. A lack of factual foundation means that I know nothing about trees. Sure, I know that most trees are green and that I can cut one down and burn it. But I don’t own a chain saw, so that general information means zero in the real world.

Now consider the clueless minions who have to purchase an enterprise search system. The difference between my tree knowledge and their search knowledge is easy to point out. Both of us are likely to become confused. To me, trees look alive. To the search procurement team, search systems look alike.

I received an announcement about a search system (nameless, of course) which asserted:

[The vendor’s product] is the first mobile enterprise search server to enable secure ‘anywhere’ access to data that resides across all information sources, including individual desktops, email stores, file shares, external sites and enterprise applications. Leveraging the [vendor’s product] Enterprise Server as its backbone, [the vendor’s product] Anywhere is capable of delivering secure, immediate access to any browser-enabled device, from an iPhone to a Blackberry and beyond.

I find that this write up is * very * similar to the Coveo email search solution, which has one of its features as mobile access plus a number of other bells and whistles.

I can document many other similarities in the way in which search vendors describe their products. In fact, I identified a phrase first used by Endeca in 2003 or 2004 as a key element in Microsoft’s marketing of its SharePoint search systems. My recollection is the phrase in question is “user experience.” Endeca may have snagged it somewhere just as Mozart plucked notes from his contemporaries.

Confusion among search vendors is easy. Many recycle words, phrases, and buzzwords, hoping that their spin will win customers. One thing is certain. Vendors have the azure chip consultants in a tizzy. One prominent azure chip outfit in New York has pegged Google a laggard and a product that has yet to make its appearance as a leader.

Procurement teams? Baffled for sure. Differentiation is needed, but it doesn’t come by recycling another vendor’s marketing collateral or relying on the azure chip crowd to cook up a new phrase to baffle the paying customers, or some of the paying customers.

Vendors, differentiate. Don’t imitate.

Stephen Arnold, October 30, 2009

A former Ziffer bought me dinner this week. Does that count as compensation? I deserve more.

Coveo Discloses Client Wins in Q209

Coveo is a technology company with some interesting products. I learned about the firm when I poked into the origins of the desktop search system called Copernic. The firm flashed on my radar with a snap in solution for SharePoint. I saw a demonstration of email search that provided features I had heard other vendors describe. Coveo implemented them; for example, maintaining a complete email archive for the user’s desktop computer so if he or she lost a mobile device, the mail was recoverable.

Getting information out of Coveo has not been easy for me. I received a link to a Marketwire article that provided me with some useful information, and I wanted to snag it before the data gets buried in the digital avalanche that cascades into the goose pond each day.

Coveo disclosed several interesting customer wins:

• Goodrich Corporation, a Fortune 500 company
• Odyssey America, an insurance firm
• The Doctor’s Company, an insurer of physicians and surgeon.

Coveo also formed alliances with New Idea Engineering and a number of other integrators around the world.

A happy quack to Coveo and a wing flap to the person at Coveo who provided this information.

Stephen Arnold, August 14, 2009

MarkLogic: The Shift Beyond Search

Editor’s note: I gave a talk at a recent user group meeting. My actual remarks were extemporaneous, but I did prepare a narrative from which I derived my speech. I am reproducing my notes so I don’t lose track of the examples. I did not mention specific company names. The Successful Enterprise Search Management (SESM) reference is to the new study Martin White and I wrote for Galatea, a publishing company in the UK. MarkLogic paid me to show up and deliver a talk, and the addled goose wishes other companies would turn to Harrod’s Creek for similar enlightenment. MarkLogic is an interesting company because it goes “beyond search”. The firm addresses the thorny problem of information architecture. Once that issue is confronted, search, reports, repurposing, and other information transformations becomes much more useful to users. If you have comments or corrections to my opinions, use the comments feature for this Web log. The talk was given in early May 2009, and the Tyra Banks’s example is now a bit stale. Keep in mind this is my working draft, not my final talk.

Introduction

Thank you for inviting me to be at this conference. My topic is “Multi-Dimensional Content: Enabling Opportunities and Revenue.” A shorter title would be repurposing content to save and make money from information. That’s an important topic today. I want to make a reference to real time information, present two brief cases I researched, offer some observations, and then take questions.

Let me begin with a summary of an event that took place in Manhattan less than a month ago.

Real Time Information

America’s Top Model wanted to add some zest to their popular television reality program. The idea was to hold an audition for short models, not the lanky male and female prototypes with whom we are familiar.

The short models gathered in front of a hotel on Central Park South. In a matter of minutes, the crowd began to grow. A police cruiser stopped and the two officers were watching a full fledged mêlée in progress. Complete with swinging shoulder bags, spike heels, and hair spray. Every combatant was 5 feet six inches taller or below.

The officers called for the SWAT team but the police were caught by surprise.

I learned in the course of the nine months research for the new study written by Martin White (a UK based information governance expert) and myself that a number of police and intelligence groups have embraced one of MarkLogic’s systems to prevent this type of surprise.

Real-time information flows from Twitter, Facebook, and other services are, at their core, publishing methods. The messages may be brief, less than 140 characters or about 12 to 14 words, but they pack a wallop.

MarkLogic’s slicing and dicing capabilities open new revenue opportunities.

Here’s a screenshot of the product about which we heard quite positive comments. This is MarkMail, and it makes it possible to take content from real-time systems such as mail and messaging, process them, and use that information to create opportunities.

Intelligence professionals use the slicing and dicing capabilities to generate intelligence that can save lives and reduce to some extent the type of reactive situation in which the NYPD found itself with the short models disturbance.

Financial services and consulting firms can use MarkMail to produce high value knowledge products for their clients. Publishing companies may have similar opportunities to produce high grade materials from high volume, low quality source material.

Read more

Search 2010: Five Game Changers

Editor’s Note: This is the outline of Stephen Arnold’s comments at the “debate”session of the Boye 09 Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 6, 2009. The actual talk will be informal, and these notes are part of the preparation for that talk.

Introduction

Thank you for inviting me to share my ideas with you. I remember that WC Fields had a love hate relationship with Philadelphia. Approaching the Curtis Building, where we are meeting, I realized that much of the old way of doing business has changed. I don’t have time to dig too deeply into the many content challenges organizations face. If the publisher of the Saturday Evening Post were with us this afternoon, I think Mr. Curtis would have a difficult time explaining why his successful business was marginalized; that is, pushed aside, made into an artifact like the Liberty Bell down the street.

I have been asked to do a “Search 2010” talk twice this year. Predicting the future in today’s troubled economic environment is difficult. Nevertheless, I want to identify five trends in the next 20 minutes. I will try to take a position on each trend to challenge the panelists’ thinking and stimulate questions from you in the audience.

Let’s dive right in. Here are the five trends:

1. Darwinism and search
2. Real time search
3. Google’s enterprise push
4. Microsoft’s enterprise search
5. Open source

I want to comment on each, offer a couple of examples, and try to come at these subjects in a way that highlights what my research for Google: The Digital Gutenberg revealed as substantive actions in search.

Search and Darwin

The search sector is in a terrible position. The term “search” has been devalued. Few people know what the word means, yet most people say, “I am pretty good at search.” That confidence is an illusion. The search sector is a tough nut to crack. Well known companies such as Mondosoft and Ontolica found themselves purchased by an entrepreneur. That company restructured, and now the “old” Mondosoft has been reincarnated but it is not clear that the new owners will make a success of the business. Delphes, a specialist vendor in Québec, failed. Attensity orchestrated a roll up with two German firms to become more of a force in marketing. A promising system in the Netherlands called Teezir was closed when I visited the office in November 2009. I hear rumors about search vendors who are chasing funding frequently, but I don’t want to mention the names of some of these well known firms in this forum. Not long ago, the high profile Endeca sought support in the form of investments from Intel and SAP’s venture arm. At Oracle, the Secure Enterpriser Search 10g product has largely disappeared. The strong survive, which means big players like Google and Microsoft are going to fighting for the available revenue.

Real Time Search

What is it? The first thing to say is that real time search is a terrible phrase. Riches await the person who crafts a more appropriate buzzword. The notion is that messages from a service like Twitter fly around in their 140 character glory. The Twitter search system at http://search.twitter.com or the developers who use the Twitter API make it easy to find or see information. A good example is the service at http://www.twitturly.com or http://www.tweetmeme.com. You look at Tweets (the name for Twitter messages) and you scan the listings on these services. Real time search blends geospatial and mobile operations. Push, not key word search, complements scanning a list of suggested hits. The mode of user interaction is not keyword search. This is an important distinction.

“Search” means look at or scan. “Search” does not mean type key words and hunt through results list. It is possible to send a Tweet to everyone on Twitter or to those who follow you and ask a question. You may get an answer, but the point is that the word “search” does not explain the value of this type of system for business intelligence or marketing, for example. If you run a search with the keyword of a company like Google or Yahoo, you can get information which may or may not be accurate or useful. You will see what’s happening “now”, which is the meaning of “real time”.

Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • Microsoft and OpenAI: An Expensive Sitcom
  • Publishing for Cash: What Is Here Is Bad. What Is Coming May Be Worse
  • Add On AI: Sounds Easy, But Maybe Just a Signal You Missed the Train
  • Palantir Rattles the Windows in the Nuclear Industry
  • Do Not Be Evil. Dolphins, Polar Bears, and Snail Darters? Tough Luck

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org