Everlasting Metadata?
January 4, 2012
Professional photographers are working to protect their rights in the digital world, as CNET reveals in “Should Metadata Be Permanent?” The groups supporting an initiative to require that metadata be permanently adhered to image, text, audio, and video files are understandably focused on protecting copyrights. However, there could be other repercussions to the move. Writer Alexandra Savvides points out:
Imagine a whistle-blowing case involving photographic evidence, where the metadata clearly reveals who took the photo. The manifesto also doesn’t seem to address issues of data tampering or manipulation. We’ve seen numerous cases where photo-encryption systems have been cracked, showing that an obviously manipulated image is an original file created by a camera in question. There is nothing to stop similar methodologies being developed that could change the metadata to imply that another person created an image.
It’s a thorny question. I sympathize with artists who must protect their work. On the other hand, there’s the law of unintended consequences. There is also the question of “language drift.” If metadata are not up to date, the searcher of the future might not be able to locate the information object because the search term does not match the metadata’s lingo.
Our question, though, is a little more pragmatic: what if the meta data needs to be changed? Hmm. Inconvenient, that.
Cynthia Murrell, January 4, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google+: How Does One Measure Success?
July 10, 2011
I keep trying to avoid the Google+ “thing.” I focus on a different slice of the online world, but my newsreader and Overflight system overfloweth with baloney about a service that is in trial, less than two weeks old, and pretty much a knock off of Facebook. This “me too” stuff is becoming the focus on innovation, and I am not too interested in learning how to use a wheel or light a fire, thank you.
How does one measure success? Tweets, revenue, number of products and services offered customers? Source: http://goo.gl/9yBS9
I did notice two items this morning. The first was a report about the number of short messages mentioning Google+. Yep, let’s get on the Tweeter thing. I find the data illustrative of the spike nature of information. Where’s that Fukushima thing? Long gone for today news consumers, but the aftermath of the event is good for a couple thousand years.
The second item was my favorite techno-management guru, Eric Schimdt. The view that caught my eye appeared in “Eric Schmidt on Gauging Google+’s Success.” There is a great deal of information in the write up and the embedded video. Here’s the passage that caught my attention:
When asked by reporters whether Google planned eventually to fill out Google+ with other products, Schmidt answered, “Yeah, and there’s a lot coming,” saying that business accounts and ads are expected, assuming Google+ continues to grow. ”We test stuff and when it works we put a lot more emphasis on it,” he said.
Okay, “a lot” and “test stuff”. Let’s reflect.
Google is juggling a large number of balls, just like IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle. What’s interesting to me is that the company’s principal—dare I say, “only”—revenue stream is advertising. The purpose of Google+, Android, and the other major initiatives is generating advertising revenue.
I urge Google to move forward and generate ad revenue from these services. The reason is that once again I talked with a number of companies and heard one message, “We need traffic. Something’s changed at Google, and we don’t know what to do.”
My response was, “Adapt.”
Google has shifted its attention from the brute force AltaVista.com approach to information to a new, compound model. The focus of that model is not delivering better results. The focus is producing revenue. And the company needs the new sources. With Web traffic shifting from desktop access to mobile access, Google has to find a way to sustain revenue and then grow significant new streams. Generating new revenue streams is not easy. The case example? Google itself. After 11 or 12 years in business, Google has a giant footprint but it is now good at one thing: selling ads.
I think there are companies with better products in search. Example: Yandex.com. I think there are companies with better social network services: Facebook.com. I think there are companies with better mobile devices: Apple. I think there are companies with better online shopping: Amazon.com. In short, unlike the early days, Google has competition in packaging, technology, and innovation.
So, the buzz about Google+ tells me three things:
- Google excites significant interest, particularly among a certain sector of the online community. That indeed is a marketing advantage. Marketing now has to turn into revenue. Where’s that $100 billion a year company now? About $70 billion to go.
- Google faces significant competition across a wide range of business facets. I suppose Alexander the Great could handle a multi front war, but he died at an early age, and his empire fizzled. I won’t press the metaphor, however.
- The legal opponents Google faces are likely to see the sprawl of Google as an indication of the company’s ambitions. At a time when issues of monopoly and certain business practices is increasing, Google demonstrates that it can pretty much do what it wants, dismissing questions with remarks like “a lot” and “test stuff”.
The upcoming hearings in Washington, DC, will be interesting. I wonder if there will be a Google+ service for those involved? I hope so. That might be a way to measure success just not in terms of revenue.
Stephen E Arnold, July 10, 2011
You can read more about enterprise search and retrieval in The New Landscape of Enterprise Search, published by Pandia in Oslo, Norway, in June 2011.
A New Mr. Microsoft Platform Ecosystem in France
May 14, 2011
ITespresso announces “Microsoft France Has Found Its New ‘Mr. Platform Ecosystem’ at Sinequa.”
The former President & CEO of business search provider Sinequa, Jean Ferré, will be leading a team of 50 in his new position at Microsoft France. They will focus largely on building relationships with start-up companies. The article elaborates on the placement:
Aged 42, Jean Ferré finds himself in a strategic position in the organization of Microsoft France: platforms (software like Office and for Web 365, cloud with Windows Azure, Windows Phone), market places applications and tools development (Visual Studio …). And he joined the steering committee.
We wish M. Ferré the best of luck in his new position. Prior to joining MSFT, Mr. Ferré was the top dog at Sinequa, an enterprise search and solutions vendor. As for Sinequa, word is that Alexandre Bilger, formerly that company’s Managing Director, will be taking the reins. Good luck to him, too.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2011
Freebie
Sinequa Speaks Speed
February 26, 2011
Alexander Bilger of Sinequa, a French-based business search firm, boasts, “Our engine has been tried 10 times faster than the competition.” Sinequa, “a specialist search engine for companies hungry for development, is reinforcing its presence in Germany. It intends to increase its workforce by 30%.”
Bilger pays special attention to Sinequa’s work with Credit Agricole, the largest retail banking group in France. He credits Sinequa’s success in winning the multi-million euro contract to its search engine’s superior speed, 10 times as fast as the competition. Bilger also boasts upcoming versions as being more compatible with the latest software and operating systems, including the newest cloud computing advances.
While Bilger makes claims of Sinequa’s superior performance, no evidence is provided and the firm is still a relatively small one, currently employing about 35 individuals. However, its linguistic foundations may indeed give it an edge in the multi-lingual EU.
Bilger was only recently appointed head of the company after the announcement of Jean Ferre’s departure. The two had been co-directors. We remind ourselves that many factors influence performance. Speed, like love, is difficult to define without some parameters.
Emily Rae Aldridge, February 26, 2011
Freebie
Sinequa Change at the Top
February 22, 2011
Jean Ferré has stepped down from his position as Chief Executive Officer of Sinequa. Sinequa is a French-based leading vendor of enterprise search. He had been with the company since 2005. In “Good Bye Sinequa,” Ferré blogs about his decision.
He states, “I’m going through quite a change: after five exciting years managing the company, I’ve stepped down as President & CEO of Sinequa. I’m happy for the work accomplished and for the human and industrial journey it’s been.”
Ferré praises his colleagues and recalls many achievements while with Sinequa. Wanting to work for a larger organization, and in an area other than search, Ferré has yet to say specifically what his next step will be. With his success at Sinequa, many enviable positions should be available to him. Alexandre Bilger, the company’s Chief Architect Officer, has assumed control of Sinequa in Ferré’s absence.
Emily Rae Aldridge, February 22, 2011
The Sinequa Shuffle
January 25, 2011
According to some French news reports from ITRnews.com and Channelnews.com, as of December 31, 2010 Sinequa president Jean Ferré has stepped up or aside to make way for Alexandre Bilger. Bilger, who has served as Product Architect and company Co-Director since 2004, is now tasked with driving a “focus on the operational development of its turnover while maintaining its lead in the technological and functional.”
Although Ferré is leaving after a five year reign marked with success, he won’t be going too far. The former CEO will retain a seat as Vice-Chairman while at the same time lingering as a shareholder. Bilger will be trading in some of his duties on the technical side in an effort to spend more time with customers and partners. All in all, most seem to agree this is a win-win situation.
Sinequa provides business search for companies with a plethora of data sources and complex security and connectivity issues. This firm seeks to refine enterprise search methods while cutting down on required infrastructure. Sinequa’s technology solutions can be seen across several legs of industry, including banking, consulting, consumer products, government, media, telco, manufacturing and retail per the establishment’s website.
Sarah Rogers, January 25, 2011
Freebie
Forrester Expert Dings Zuckerberg
November 10, 2010
I don’t know the Facebook wizard Mark Zuckerberg. I haven’t seen the movie about Mark Zuckerberg. I don’t have much stock in the baloney that appears on Web sites—especially when that baloney includes executive biographies. Look at my bio at www.arnoldit.com/sitemap.html. Baloney. Look at the Google executive bios. Baloney. Look at consulting firms’ executive bios. Baloney. Look at a 20 something’s bio. Baloney.
Solid, fat filled, nutritional black holes. Baloney. Thus it is and thus it will ever be.
Picking apart a 20 something and criticizing his management expertise is pretty much a waste of time and indicative that an Angry Bird bone is stuck in one’s throat. Navigate to “Perspective On Zuckerberg”, written by one of the mid-tier consulting firms. Read it closely. Make up your own mind about what it is saying.
For me, grousing about a 20 something is like my quacking at a crow who wants the same chunk of bread this goose does. The crow doesn’t speak goose, doesn’t want to learn, and doesn’t want much more than the chunk of bread.
A mid tier consulting firm wants billable projects. When I read criticism of a high profile company and its top gun, I say to myself:
I think that a certain firm did not get a certain engagement. The best defense is a good offense. Let’s use the handy dandy blogosphere to point out why a certain company / person / product is deeply flawed.
Yes, this is how one 66 year old, addled goose in Harrod’s Creek thinks. My hunch is that there is a deep subtext in this consulting firms’ blog post. Will Mr. Zuckerberg care? Probably not. Will Facebook attorneys care? Maybe. I know Alexander the Great was a good manager despite some personal oddities handed down over the centuries. Does anyone in a history class care? Nah. Alexander conquered the world. Too bad he caught the sniffles and died. Bad luck, not bad management.
Do I expect a 20 something to combine the polish of a McKinsey partner, the insights of a Peter Drucker, and the financial acumen of a Warren Buffet? Not in a million years.
One thing about Mr. Zuckerberg is clear. He knows how to hire Xooglers. I don’t know how many mid tier consultants, former English majors, and wanna be techno-poobahs he has on his staff. I do know the 20 something has got the Google behind a social eight ball and Microsoft close to a side pocket. Not good enough for a mid tier consulting firm? Okay. Good enough for 600 million users, a growing base of banner ad customers, and some investment bankers? Yep.
Oh, and an important point: Mr. Zuckerberg is still alive, seems healthy, and appears to have the cash to hire some advisers. Maybe Forrester has found a magic sales method?
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2010
Freebie unlike the time of a mid tier consulting firm’s professionals.
Floss Plone Information
October 4, 2010
I have been listening to podcasts when at the gym. New to the podcast world, I have been downloading programs to try and find out which ones have consistent, solid content. Yesterday I listened to Floss Weekly Number 137: Plone, produced by an outfit called Twit. You can get the show and information about Twit from the company’s Web site at http://twit.tv. I was surprised with the information revealed on this particular podcast, hosted by Randal Schwartz (aka merlyn), a Perl expert.
The guest on the program to which I listened was Alexander Limi, former Googler, employee at Mozilla, and user experience specialist for Plone. If you are not familiar with Plone, it is an open source content framework. You can use it to create content for industrial strength applications like the FBI and Discover Web sites. For more information about Plone, navigate to http://plone.org/.
I have no solid information about the accuracy of this particular podcast. I do want to highlight two points made in the podcast because I don’t want them to slip away.
The first point concerns Microsoft SharePoint. On the podcast I heard that Microsoft is not really selling or licensing SharePoint. Instead the model is shifting to providing the software and relying on services to generate revenue. I will have to poke around to find out if this is an early warning of a shift in the SharePoint business model or if there are only certain situations in which Microsoft is providing access to SharePoint in this way. The reason this is important is that SharePoint is, in my opinion, the fertile soil of an ecosystem that supports quite a few third-party vendors. These range from Microsoft Certified Partners who produce software that snaps in or overlays SharePoint. Example range from European vendors like Fabasoft to US firms like BA-Insight. In addition, there are many engineers who take some Microsoft classes and then support themselves making SharePoint work as the licensee requires. The notion of a “free” SharePoint or even a low cost SharePoint can explain why so many English majors, unemployed journalists, and third string business school MBAs are vociferously marketing their SharePoint expertise. This is a big ecosystem and it is going to get even bigger. I documented a study that suggested some SharePoint installations were challenges. The pricing implications are significant and the outlook for companies which can actually make SharePoint work are significant as well. I think most of the SharePoint snap in vendors could still be walking on a knife edge. The reason is that big accounts will be sucked up by Microsoft itself. Why let that revenue go to those who cultivated the cornfield? Just like big agriculture, the small farmer gets an opportunity to find a new future.
Web Traffic Metrics in a Muddle
August 24, 2010
I wrote about Vivisimo’s Web traffic spike. For that blog post, I relied on free data from Compete.com. If you have not looked at the service, point your browser thingy at www.compete.com. You can sign up for a free but restricted version of the service, or you can become a paying customer. For my blog post, I used the freebie service. Hey, the blog is free. You expect chopped liver?
After I wrote the story, I heard from a high output search vendor. The point of his somewhat urgent email was that the Compete.com data were wrong. This was a surprise? I know of one outfit that has the horsepower to count and analyze log data in a comprehensive manner. The rest of the outfits use different methods to cope with the ever increasing volumes of data that must be crunched for horizontal and small slice analyses. In short, most reports of traffic are subject to error. I have mentioned in my talks about the volume of traffic that flowed to a Danish insurance company from Google. The insurance company itself was unaware of its dependence on Google. Google probably did not care about the Danish insurance company. It was clear that the Web master at the Danish insurance company had not looked at the log data very carefully prior to my getting involved. So between reality and lousy metrics, most people don’t know much about the traffic and clicks on a Web site. Feel free to tell me I am incorrect, please. Just use the comments section of the blog. Don’t write me an email.
What caught my attention this morning (August 21, 2010) was a story from ClickZ called “New Comscore Methodology Reduces Search Market Share for Microsoft and Yahoo.” (How does this outfit spell its name? Comscore, comScore, something else?)There you have the guts of the problem. A change in methodology makes a winner into a loser, a loser into a bigger loser, and a bigger loser into a contributor to the swelling unemployment ranks in the US. Figure out these data.
What about the data themselves? Well, that’s part of the numerical recipe. If you reflect on your exciting moments in Statistics 101, you may recall that sample size has something to do with the confidence one can have in an output. The goose remembers this in a very simplified manner: Small sample, big error. Lousy sample, big error. Shortcuts anywhere, big error. Add up the errors and you get crappy outputs. But figuring this stuff out in real life is beyond the ken of most azurini, poobahs, and Web marketers.
As a result, the data from any Web traffic or click counting service are at best indicative of a trend. Here’s how I check traffic for my own sites and for those I track.
- Take a look at the log analytics. We use AWStats, baked in reports from our hosting company, and the Urchin (Google) analytics outputs. Do these agree? Nope. Not even close, but the trends are easily identified.
- Take a look at what Alexa reports. Hey, I know it skews toward Internet Explorer, but that’s okay. I am looking at what the system says, not calculating the speed of light.
- Take a look at Compete.com. I like the nifty little charts it spits out. The Urchin graphics are bit to HGTV for me and don’t show up well when I do a screen capture.
I then separate the bluebirds from the canaries. I toss out the high and the low and go with the stuff in the middle. Close enough for a free blog post. In fact, I have used this method when paying customers don’t want to pick up the bill for the fancy for fee services.
The bottom-line line is that I can trot out data that supports these assertions:
- Google and Microsoft are so far ahead in traffic that comparisons with other vendors of search and content processing traffic are meaningless. Are the data correct? Well, the revenues of these two outfits suggest that some correlation between traffic and money must exist. Microsoft is nosing toward $100 billion and Google toward $30 billion. Search vendors are not in this ball game with the sole exception of Autonomy which rings in with $1.0 billion in revenue.
- Most search vendors generate traffic in the 3,000 to 15,000 uniques per month. Even the bigger of the search vendors have a tough time breaking through the 15,000 ceiling. The reason? Search is sort of a footnote in the broader world of enterprise and Web functions. Lots of talk does not translate into traffic for search vendors on their Web sites.
- Some search vendors get so few clicks that the services report “insufficient data”. I am sorely tempted to present a list of search vendors whose Web sites get effectively only random clicks and robot traffic. But I don’t need any more defensive snarkiness from search executives. Hey, summer is almost over. Let me enjoy the last few, hazy, lazy days.
To wrap up, are Microsoft and Yahoo losing market share? Probably not. The key factor seems to be Facebook’s emergence as an alternative to Google-style searching. The mobile device “search experience” is a different animal entirely and I don’t think anyone has a firm grip on these data at this time. Google’s obsession with mobile devices is a strong signal that something is indeed happening. The numbers, at this time, are less reliable than the ones for traditional Web site traffic.
Maybe the Web is dead? Maybe search is dead? Maybe an asteroid will hit the earth before it melts? Whatever. Traffic reports are indicative, not definitive. Let’s face it. Search is a small niche and a successful vendor will produce modest uniques when compared to outfits like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
Stephen E Arnold, August 24, 2010
Freebie. 0.999999 confidence in this.
FTC Reports, Mavens Squabble about Future and Past of Journalism
June 2, 2010
The addled goose does not want to get embroiled in a dust up between mavens. You may want to take sides. To get in the fray, first read “FTC Considers Publishing Public Data Online to Support the Future of Journalism.” The download the Federal Trade Commission’s report “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism” from this link. Two experts discuss the report. But I shiver when a government agency opines about the reinvention of anything. The notion that journalism is in need of reinvention strikes me as somewhat novel. I do not perceive a lack of information. The term “journalism” strikes me as a simple way of addressing the financial problems of certain companies. Does the dust up impair the vision of tax payers who may be asked to fund journalism? Does the dust up cater to the needs of a certain large outfit in Mountain View? You make up your own mind.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
