Akibot: Enterprise Microblogging with NLP
April 7, 2010
We received a question about Akibot, a stealth start up in private beta. We have not been able to use the system, but I wanted to snag what information I have in our Overflight system before I head to the airport. Fact is, we don’t know too much about this Twitter-influenced service.
Akibot is a company using smart software to generate business intelligence. The company’s Web site does not contain much information. Here’s the splash screen:
One phrase in “Collaboration with Akibot” provides a good summary of the company’s focus:
Akibot is the first semantic actionable micro-blogging platform for the enterprise. Akibot not only allows real-time group collaboration and awareness through short, instant messages (like a Twitter for the company), but it also understands those messages and, if applicable, takes action.
A July 2009 story in ReadWriteWeb, “Akibot: An Enterprise Twitter Clone Infused with AI” reported:
At first glance, Akibot may look very much like your typical Twitter clone, but it does something very different: it combines the collective intelligence provided by microblogging with an artificial intelligence engine that lets the service take action on the messages posted.
Overflight snared the Akibot Web log at http://akibot.blogspot.com/. The activity on the blog is modest with the most recent post appearing on February 11, 2010. The story “Yet Another New Version” pointed to an article about Akibot by Martin Bohringer, “Ubiquitous Microblogging”. He wrote:
The approach of ubiquitous microblogging has much to do with the search for enterprise use cases of microblogging and a rising number of researchers is thinking about this topic. Michael Rosemann from Queensland University of Technology described how microblogging could be used for business process management. Alexander Dreiling from SAP shows a prototype for collaborative modelling with Google Wave (is Wave microblogging? I am going to discuss this question in a future posting). But the other way round is also possible, as the guys from Akibot show with their microblogging bot using NLP (Natural Language Processing). And finally, our research group is currently involved in several microblogging projects including ‘microblogging for logistics’ (think of tweeting RFID chips). To implement a full ubiquitous microblogging scenario, still lots of work has to be done.
The question asked by Smarter Technology in July 2009 is difficult to answer: “Is there a business purpose for microblogging?” We won’t go beyond, “Stay tuned.”
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2010
A freebie.
Real Journalism Takes Root in the UK
March 26, 2010
Short honk: I enjoyed reading “Independent Titles Sold to Lebedev Family Company”. I am looking forward to the new owner’s approach to outfits like Google and how the new owner will relate to fellow moguls. Some of the big dogs in “real” journalism have quite interesting work backgrounds. For example, if you navigate to www.cluuz.com and run the query with the quotes “Alexander Lebedev”, you can see some of the connections he has.
The passage from the write up that I slipped into my Quotes folder was:
In addition to the London Evening Standard, The Lebedevs also co-own, with President Mikhail Gorbachev, Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia’s few pro-democracy newspapers. The paper has a reputation for independence and high-quality journalism. Anna Politkovskaya, whose fearless reports from Chechnya resulted in her assassination in 2006, worked for Novaya Gazeta.
I can’t recall if a Courier Journal & Louisville Times reporter was killed. Journalism has its upsides and its downsides. One plus for Mr. Lebedev will be getting memberships in exclusive clubs. Who is going to object?
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Notice that I don’t offer any clever insights. I will report writing for nothing to Companies House when I am next in London.
Google and Information
March 9, 2010
Media Maverick Greg Sansoval’s “Google Reluctant to Release Info in Viacom Case” presented some interesting information. The idea is that Google does not want to have certain information floating around. What information? The documents related to the $1.0 billion Viacom litigation. Ah, juicy information. For me, the most important comment in the write up was:
For three years now, Google and Viacom have exchanged hundreds of thousands of pages of deposition transcripts, e-mails, and other data during a lengthy discovery process. Most of the information has been kept under seal, thanks to a protective order, which was negotiated and agreed to by both sides. Now, Viacom wants to unseal all but the most sensitive of trade secrets within two weeks and Google wants to wait until June 4. Google says it would be a “logistical nightmare” to release information piecemeal before the sides finish arguing their cases. Courts typically prefer to keep records open to the public, but there are exceptions, most often in criminal or civil cases involving national security. In civil suits, some material can be kept under seal in order to protect trade secrets. What’s not clear is why the material in the Viacom vs. Google case is under seal.
My take on this is that the depositions include information that will provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Google’s digital fingerprints and other interesting aspects of the matter. My hunch is that if these materials become available, a number of useful nuggets will emerge.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write this news item. Since I mention a legal matter, I will report non payment to the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Microsoft and Yahoo, The Challenges
February 21, 2010
eWeek, once one of the big dogs in the Ziff Communications kennel, ran the story “Microsoft, Yahoo Face Integration Challenges, Analysts Say” on February 20, 2010. No kidding? I set this short write up aside because I was not sure how to comment on the analysis by the analysts. I decided to point out the challenges expressed in the article even those these were scattered and not grouped to make explicit that Microsoft and Yahoo have some challenges ahead. Here goes:
- Nine months to achieve integration, full shift by 2012
- Microsoft’s ad system is ready to tackle the Google in hand-to-hand combat
- Combined market share about 30 percent. Google’s market share is 65 percent of US market, maybe more so that’s like a handicap in golf, right?
- Yahoo’s hot search features will add lift to Bing. What about Bing’s UX?
My thought? We will know at the end of 2012 if not sooner. If this flops, what is Plan B? Lots of assumptions, lots of challenges. No Plan B. Even Alexander the Great had a Plan B until he fell ill and died.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2010
Nope, no one paid me to write about Alexander the Great. Ah, a disease. I must report getting no dough for this short item to the NIH?
Microsoft Fast on Linux and Unix Innovation
February 15, 2010
It’s Valentine’s Day. I feel quite a bit of affection for the system professionals who have licensed Fast Search ESP, and I hope each finds search love. I think there will be a “tough” element to this love. And like other types of love, there will be ups and downs. Microsoft practiced some “tough love” for licensees of the Linux and Unix versions of Fast Search & Transfer’s Enterprise Search Platform recently. I am in a discursive frame of mind, and I will share my opinion about the “tough love” for the Linux and Unix licensees of the 1997 technology that comprises some of Fast Search & Transfer’s system.
The not-too-surprising announcement that Microsoft would stop supporting Fast Search & Transfer’s Linux and Unix customers surprised some folks. I think a handful of resellers were delighted because customers with non-Windows versions of Fast Search cannot change horses in the middle of the Tigris River, as Alexander the Great discovered in 331 BCE. Some poobahs pointed out that open source search would become a hot ticket for Fast Search Linux and Unix licensees. Others took a more balanced view of figuring out whether to rip and replace or supplement the aging Fast Search system with one of the more specialized solutions now available; for example, Exalead’s system could be snapped in without much hassle, based on my research for Successful Enterprise Search Management, published by Galatea in the UK last year. (Martin White was my co-author.)
Source: http://www.zastavki.com/pictures/1024×768/2008/Saint_Valentines_Day_St.Valentine_004959_.jpg
What I found interesting is that the Microsoft Enterprise Search blog contained some information from Bjørn Olstad, CTO, FAST and Distinguished Engineer, Microsoft. The write up’s title is “Innovation on Linux and Unix,” and it appeared on February 4, 2010.
Mr. Olstad wrote:
When we announced the acquisition two years ago, we said that we were committed to cross-platform innovation—that we’d “continue to offer stand-alone versions of ESP that run on Linux and UNIX,” and that we would provide updates to these versions to address customer concerns and add new features. Over the last two years, we’ve done just that.
The deal was consummated in April 2008. In October 2008, the Norwegian authorities seized some company information, but there has not been much news about the investigation into the pre-acquisition Fast Search & Transfer’s activities. At any event, it is now February 2010, so Microsoft has been operating Fast Search for the period between April 2008 and February 2010. That’s not quite two years, which is a nit, but software works when details are correct. What’s clear is that Fast Search and its Enterprise Search Platform or ESP is pared down and focused on the Windows platform.
I also noted this passage:
When we announced the acquisition two years ago, we said that we were committed to cross-platform innovation—that we’d “continue to offer stand-alone versions of ESP that run on Linux and UNIX,” and that we would provide updates to these versions to address customer concerns and add new features. Over the last two years, we’ve done just that.
Quintura Nets Interface Patent
January 21, 2010
Quintura Inc. received a patent in December 2009 for a “Search Engine Graphical Interface Using Maps of Search Terms and Images.” You can obtain a copy of US7,627,582, from the outstanding online service available for the USPTO. If that system is a little sluggish, a number of other patent document services are available. This invention by Alexander V. Ershov concerns:
A system, method and computer program product for visualization of search results includes a map displayed to a user on a screen. The map shows search query terms and optionally other terms related to the search query terms. The display of the terms corresponds to relationship between the terms. A graphical image is displayed next to at least one of the search query terms. The graphical image is associated with a URL that corresponds to a search result. The graphical image is a favorite icon that is derived from the HTML script associated with a webpage at the URL, or an animated image, or a video, or a cycling GIF. A plurality of graphical images can be displayed in proximity to the search query term. The graphical image can be a logo or a paid advertisement. A plurality of graphical images are offered for sale in association with the query search term, and a size and/or placement of each graphical image corresponds to a price paid by each purchaser, or multiple images can be displayed at the same location on the screen, and a duration of display of each graphical image corresponds to a price paid by each purchaser.
Quintura’s see and find technology replaces the laundry list approach to a user’s query. Here’s an example of a Quintura search result:
In addition to suggested queries, the interface provides the user with a tag cloud, which can be quite helpful for many users. I am no patent attorney, but there may be some legal eagle-type conversations about other firms’ use of the system and method set forth in US7,627,582. You can get more information about Quintura from the firm’s Web site at www.quintura.com. I wrote about this company in September 2009.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2010
Oyez, oyez, a freebie. No one offered a single bent penny to write this short item. Alas! I shall report non payment to the Department of Commerce, an entity of repute.
Quality Journalism Chases New Revenue Angles
December 20, 2009
I live in rural Kentucky so news doesn’t reach the goose pond as it does in a real city. I noticed in my hard copy Wall Street Journal, page W13 (?!) for December 19, 2009, an advertisement with the headline, “Engage journalists and bloggers with the perfect pitch.” There is also a news release on MarketWatch—part of the for fee service available on the Sony eBook reader—about this Dow Jones product. Paying for marketing collateral strikes me as an interesting approach. Charging Sony WSJ subscribers for a marketing pitch. That’s better than Google’s subsidizer model in my opinion.
Image source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/242/446538765_bfa89f9875.jpg
With news of the London Evening Standard, owned by a certain high profile Russian business person (Alexander Lebedev, an alleged former KGB professional, I wondered about the combination of “journalists” and “bloggers”. Obviously media ownership and the economic crisis makes strange bedfellows. I thought “journalists” were a breed apart from “bloggers”. I am not even a blogger. I am an addled goose and marketing shill, flogging my studies chock full of patent references and the odd Latin or Greek phrase. This high quality journalism business is too sophisticated for mere waterfowl.
I plunged forward in the full page advertisement from the Wall Street Journal about the Wall Street Journal’s software. The product carries the name of Dow Jones, which is a unit of News Corp. As you know, the News Corp. stands for quality journalism and premium content. (I wrote about paying more for the Sony digital WSJ than the hard copy recently. I think the price difference was about $140. The paper edition was cheaper! I find that hard to grasp, but the addled goose was never a top notch economist like those employed by News Corp.)
The idea which I gleaned from a quick trip to http://www.dowjones.com/product-mrm.asp is:
a news-enabled media database and journalist/blogger contact management tool that helps communications professionals pinpoint and engage the right influencers and quickly evaluate the outcome of their media relations activities. Dow Jones links its global collection of traditional and social media with journalist and blogger contact, profile, beat and pitch data so that media relations professionals can easily understand what journalists and bloggers are writing about today and then easily correlate resulting media coverage to their efforts.
I as skimmed the marketing information for this product, I got the impression that this product allows a person with a story idea or a marketer to develop a mailing list and crank out a bunch of targeted emails. I don’t know about you, but I thought this sounded a bit like a spamming program or spamming system.
According to FinChannel.com:
The launch marks the further expansion of Dow Jones’s workflow solutions for communications professionals. The company’s media monitoring and media evaluation tools are used by Global Fortune 2000 companies, public relations agencies, government and nonprofits to research campaigns faster and more thoroughly, stay ahead of breaking news, monitor social media conversations, detect issues earlier, measure campaign effectiveness and easily share campaign results with executives and employees.
Here’s what the software can do, according to the Dow Jones Web site:
Craft highly relevant and personalized pitches, increasing the likelihood that your story will be covered… Understand at a glance what journalists and bloggers are covering today and how best to contact them … Fine tune your contact list to those most likely to be interested … Find the right editorial opportunity for your story … Email a personalized pitch that will get results.
In order to buy the product, Dow Jones provides a “contact me” button. You can also download a free eBook. I found that interesting because books are subject to considerable scrutiny these days. I suppose a book that is about buying a product from Dow Jones is different from the content provided in the newspaper. I think marketing collateral is “free” and okay to use.
You can download a fact sheet and learn about other Dow Jones marketing programs like Insight, which I don’t fully understand because I didn’t bother to download the brochures on these topics. I must admit that I did not visit the “Knowledge Center”. The addled goose has a tough enough time understanding a commercial spam system, thank you very much.
I do understand one thing. Not a single word about the cost of this system. Other thoughts:
- I wonder if those spams urging me, a subscriber to the hard copy newspaper, to take out another subscription were generated by this system?
- Who makes the determination about journalists in the database?
- Who makes the determination about bloggers in the database?
- What are the rules for removing a person or entity from the database?
- What are the tracking mechanisms in place for licensees; that is, what does Dow Jones collect about the users of its software?
- How does the email blast get around spam filters?
Interesting stuff. Right up there with the free Evening Standard and the Washington Post’s running stories from Web logs as hard content.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 20, 2009
Okay, okay, another disclosure. A freebie. Who is the oversight authority today? I will report the non paid status of this article to none other than the Council on Environmental Quality. Keep information pure, I say.
SEO the AP Way
November 14, 2009
I thought another addled goose wrote “AP to Ask Google for a Better Search Ranking.” I blinked and reread the article. Sure looked legitimate to me, but in this era of instant disinformation, one cannot be too sure. Read the story yourself and make up your own mind. Two or three years ago, I rolled out my mantra for some AP folks. I gave a talk and concluded, “Surf on Google.” The idea I have been suggesting since mid 2006 is that Google had the same potential energy as a big boulder perched on the edge of a cliff overlooking a narrow defile. The guy with the lever at the top of the cliff need exert a tiny force to launch the rock on the folks in the defile. Worked when Alexander was getting cute thousands of years ago, and the tactic will work today.
Google dominates Web search. The company has several options in my opinion.
First, Google can do nothing different. In effect, Google will not answer the AP’s phone calls. Time is on Google’s side. Litigation is time consuming, which favors the Google.
Second, Google can cut a deal with the AP. In the spirit of compromise, Google takes a baby step. The AP seems okay with the Great Compromiser’s approach. The AP continues to move forward in a very different world from the one that gave birth to the AP many years ago.
Third, Google just buys up the AP content. With one bold dump truck of cash, Google neuters Bing.com in terms of AP content and makes the constant grouching irrelevant.
Are there other options? Sure, but this is a free marketing oriented Web log. The interesting point in this news story is that AP is dealing with the problem of traffic. Most outfits hire search engine optimization wizards like Tess (pictured on the splash page of this blog) and hope for the best. The AP wants to get traffic, jump into social content (maybe non journalists who post stuff on the Web), and monetize its information services. Great idea, but I don’t think it will work.
The AP has monetized its content by selling it back to those who formed the outfit in the first place. Other markets have been interested but not willing to deliver piles of cash to the AP. Even the US government is watching its information pennies these days. At some point in time, the triple dipping of licensing the same content to multiple government agencies will run into trouble. Google has been monetizing its big Googzilla heart since it was inspired by the Overture model. The AP did not act then, and now it may be too late.
Will Google be indifferent? Will Google cut a deal? Will Google just write a check? I bet the AP would like to get a big fat check from Google and be number one with a bullet in the Google results lists. I am good for a nickel. Any takers?
Interesting days ahead in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 14, 2009
I am in an independent living facility. I had to pay to use the computer to write this essay. I had to pay for an orange juice. I don’t think I need to alert the Illinois State Police that this is a freebie. Maybe to be on the safe side of the Illinois law? Nah. Not necessary. Illinois has its legal and financial hands full. I might have to pay to report.
Comments about Google and Content Preservation
October 8, 2009
The search pundits are chasing the Google press conference. The addled goose flapped right over the media event and spent time with “Google’s Abandoned Library of 700 Million Titles”. The article, which appeared in Wired Magazine, tackles the history of the Deja.com usenet archive. The article is interesting for three reasons:
- The content is “ancient ruins”; that is, not in good shape
- Access is problematic because the search function is, according to Wired, are “extremely poor”
- There has not been much attention focused on this content collection.
I access Google Groups’s content occasionally. My personal experience is that I can find useful information on certain topics. For me, the most interesting comment in the Wired article was:
In the end, then, the rusting shell of Google Groups is a reminder that Google is an advertising company — not a modern-day Library of Alexandria.
Not as affirming as the news flowing from the Google media event, but I found the Wired article suggestive.
Stephen Arnold, October 8, 2009
Arnold at CENDI
September 11, 2009
Stephen E. Arnold, managing partner of Arnold Information Technology (ArnoldIT.com) and our Beyond Search guru, gave the keynote address at an invitation-only conference organized by the CENDI, interagency working group of senior scientific and technical information (STI) managers from 13 U.S. federal agencies Wednesday at the headquarters of the National Technical Information Service in Alexandria, Virginia. You can read a version of his two hour lecture here. CENDI representatives received a briefing on the challenges of changing information technology, particularly as related to the Internet and Google, and how those challenges may affect the federal government. Feedback from the attendees was, according to the email sent today (September 10, 2009), “We received overwhelmingly positive feedback on your section of the day.”
Our own Mr. Arnold summarized the current climate of online information access, covering how data is organized and how users access it. “Google has building blocks. What is important for the U.S. government is that some firms have already begun to use Google tools to deliver dataspace functions today,” Arnold said. He asserted what users generally want when they search online, what they usually find, and what questions the “new wave” of search systems will raise, including implications for personal privacy, commercial information companies and government agencies generating content.
Jessica Bratcher, September 11, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
