Microsoft AI: Little Numbers and Mucho Marketing
May 10, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
I am confused. The big AI outfits have spent and are spending big bucks on [a] marketing, [b] data centers, [c] marketing, [d] chips, [e] reorganizations, and [f] marketing. I think I have the main cost centers, but I may have missed one. Yeah, I did. Marketing.
Has the AI super machine run into some problems? Thanks, MidJourney, you were online today unlike OpenAI.
What is AI doing? It is definitely selling consulting services. Some wizards are using it to summarize documents because that takes a human time to do. You know: Reading, taking notes, then capturing the juicy bits. Let AI do that. And customer support? Yes, much cheaper some say than paying humans to talk to a mere customer.
Imagine my surprise when I read “Microsoft’s Big AI Hire Can’t Match OpenAI.” Microsoft’s AI leader among AI leaders, according to the write up, “hasn’t delivered the turnaround he was hired to bring.” Microsoft caught the Google by surprise a couple of years ago, caused a Googley Code Red or Yellow or whatever, and helped launch the “AI is the next big thing innovators have been waiting for.”
The write up asserts:
At Microsoft’s annual executive huddle last month, the company’s chief financial officer, Amy Hood, put up a slide that charted the number of users for its Copilot consumer AI tool over the past year. It was essentially a flat line, showing around 20 million weekly users. On the same slide was another line showing ChatGPT’s growth over the same period, arching ever upward toward 400 million weekly users. OpenAI’s iconic chatbot was soaring, while Microsoft’s best hope for a mass-adoption AI tool was idling.
Keep in mind that Google suggested it had 1.5 billion users of its Gemini service, and (I think) Google implied that its AI is the quantumly supreme smart software. I may have that wrong and Google’s approach just wins chess, creates new drugs, and suggests that one can glue cheese on pizza. I may have these achievements confused, but I am an 80 year old dinobaby and easily confused these days.
The write up also contains some information I found a bit troubling; to wit:
And at this point, Microsoft is just not in the running to build a model that can compete with the best from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and even xAI. The projects that people have mentioned to me feel incremental, as opposed to leapfrogging the competition.
One can argue that Microsoft does not have to be in the big leagues. The company usually takes three or more releases to get a feature working. (How about those printers that don’t work?) The number of Softie software users is big. Put the new functionality in a release and — bingo! — market leadership. That SharePoint is a wonderful content management system. Just ask some of the security team in the Israeli military struggling with a “squadron” fumble.
Several observations:
- Microsoft’s dialing back some data center action may be a response to the under performance of its AI is the future push. If not, then maybe Microsoft has just pulled a Bob or a Clippy?
- I am not sure that the payoffs for other AI leaders’ investments are going to grab the brass ring or produce a winning lottery ticket. So many people desperately want AI to deliver dump trucks of gold dust to their cubicles that the neediness is palpable. AI is — it must be — the next big thing.
- Users are finding that for some use cases, AI is definitely a winner. College students use it to make more free time for hanging out and using TikTok-type services. Law firms find that AI is good enough to track down obscure cases that can be used in court as long as a human who knows the legal landscape checks the references before handing them over to a judge who can use an ATM machine and a mobile phone for voice calls. For many applications, the hallucination issue looms large.
- China’s free smart software models work reasonably well and have ignited such diverse applications as automated pig butchering and proving that cheaper CPUs and GPUs work in a “good enough” way just for less money.
I don’t want to pick on Microsoft, but I want to ask a question, “Is this the first of the big technology companies hungry and thirsty for the next big thing starting to find out that AI may not deliver?”
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2025
Israel Military: An Alleged Lapse via the Cloud
April 23, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Israel is one of the countries producing a range of intelware and policeware products. These have been adopted in a number of countries. Security-related issues involving software and systems in the country are on my radar. I noted the write up “Israeli Air Force Pilots Exposed Classified Information, Including Preparations for Striking Iran.” I do not know if the write up is accurate. My attempts to verify did not produce results which made me confident about the accuracy of the Haaretz article. Based on the write up, the key points seem to be:
- Another security lapse, possibly more severe than that which contributed to the October 2023 matter
- Classified information was uploaded to a cloud service, possibly Click Portal, associated with Microsoft’s Azure and the SharePoint content management system. Haaretz asserts: “… it [MSFT Azure SharePoint Click Portal] enables users to hold video calls and chats, create documents using Office applications, and share files.”
- Documents were possibly scanned using CamScanner, A Chinese mobile app rolled out in 2010. The app is available from the Russian version of the Apple App Store. A CamScanner app is available from the Google Play Store; however, I elected to not download the app.
Modern interfaces can confuse users. Lack of training rigor and dashboards can create a security problem for many users. Thanks, Open AI, good enough.
Haaretz’s story presents this information:
Officials from the IDF’s Information Security Department were always aware of this risk, and require users to sign a statement that they adhere to information security guidelines. This declaration did not prevent some users from ignoring the guidelines. For example, any user could easily find documents uploaded by members of the Air Force’s elite Squadron 69.
Regarding the China-linked CamScanner software, Haaretz offers this information:
… several files that were uploaded to the system had been scanned using CamScanner. These included a duty roster and biannual training schedules, two classified training presentations outlining methods for dealing with enemy weaponry, and even training materials for operating classified weapons systems.
Regarding security procedures, Haaretz states:
According to standard IDF regulations, even discussing classified matters near mobile phones is prohibited, due to concerns about eavesdropping. Scanning such materials using a phone is, all the more so, strictly forbidden…According to the Click Portal usage guidelines, only unclassified files can be uploaded to the system. This is the lowest level of classification, followed by restricted, confidential, secret and top secret classifications.
The military unit involved was allegedly Squadron 69 which could be the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit. The group might be involved in war planning and fighting against the adversaries of Israel. Haaretz asserts that other units’ sensitive information was exposed within the MSFT Azure SharePoint Click Portal system.
Several observations seem to be warranted:
- Overly complicated systems involving multiple products increase the likelihood of access control issues. Either operators are not well trained or the interfaces and options confuse an operator so errors result
- The training of those involved in sensitive information access and handling has to be made more rigorous despite the tendency to “go through the motions” and move on in many professionals undergoing specialized instruction
- The “brand” of Israel’s security systems and procedures has taken another hit with the allegations spelled out by Haaretz. October 2023 and now Squadron 69. This raises the question, “What else is not buttoned up and ready for inspection in the Israel security sector?
Net net: I don’t want to accept this write up as 100 percent accurate. I don’t want to point the finger of blame at any one individual, government entity, or commercial enterprise. But security issues and Microsoft seem to be similar to ham and eggs and peanut butter and jelly from this dinobaby’s point of view.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2025
Microsoft Teams: More, More, More
January 12, 2021
Last week I was on a Zoom video call. Zoom is pretty easy to use. What’s interesting is that the cyber security organizer of the meeting could not figure out how to allow a participant to share a screen. Now how easy is it to use Microsoft Teams compared to Zoom? In my opinion, Microsoft Teams is a baffler. The last thing Teams needs is another dose of featuritis. Teams and Zoom both need to deal with the craziness of the existing features and functions.
I have given up on Zoom improving its interface. The tiny gear icon, one of the most used components, is tough for some people to spot. Teams has a couple of donkeys laden with wackiness; for example, how about those access controls? Working great for new users, right? But Microsoft who is busy reinventing itself from Word and SharePoint wants to be the super Slack of our Rona-ized world. Sounds good? Yep, ads within Office 10 are truly an uplifting experience for individuals who use Windows 10 to sort of attempt work. Plus, Teams adds Channel calendars. Great! More calendars! Many Outlooks, many search systems, and now calendars! In Teams!
I noted this BBC write up: “Pupils in Scotland Struggle to Get Online Amid Microsoft Issue.” I thought teachers, parents were there to help. The Beeb states:
A number of schools, pupils and parents have reported the technology running slowly or not at all.
What’s Microsoft say? According to the Beeb:
A Microsoft spokesperson said: “Our engineers are working to resolve difficulties accessing Microsoft Teams that some customers are experiencing.” When pressed on whether demand as a result of home schooling was causing the issue, Microsoft declined to comment.
Just like the SolarWinds’ misstep? Nope, just working to make Teams more interesting. Navigate to “Microsoft Teams Is Getting a More Engaging Experience for Meetings Soon.” If the write up is accurate, that’s exactly what Microsoft has planned for its Zoom killer. The write up reports an item from the future:
Microsoft is working on making Teams meetings more engaging using AI and a “Dynamic View” to give more control over meeting presentations.
And what, pray tell, is a more engaging enhancement or two? I learned that in the future (not yet determined):
The Dynamic view is said to let you see what’s being shared and other people on the call at the same time. With the call being automatically optimized in a way that lets participants both see the important information that’s being shared and the people presenting it in a satisfying way.
News flash. The features appear to add controls (hooray, more controls) and the presentation seems just fine for those high-resolution displays measured in feet, not inches.
Bulletin. Just in. More people are using mobile devices than desktop computers. How is Teams on a mobile device with a screen measured in inches, not feet?
Oh, right. Featuritis and tiny displays. Winners. Maybe not for someone over the age of 45, but that’s an irrelevant demographic, right?
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2021
Some Happy, Some Sad in Seattle Over Cloud Deal Review
July 12, 2018
I know little about the procurement skirmishes fought over multi billion dollar deals for cloud services. The pragmatic part of my experience suggests that the last thing most statement of work and contract processes produce is efficient, cost effective contracts. Quite a few COTRs, lawyers, super grades, and mere SETAs depend on three things:
- Complex, lengthy processes; that is, work producing tasks
- Multiple vendors; for example, how many databases does one agency need? Answer: Many, many databases. Believe me, there are many great reasons ranging from the way things work in Washington to legacy systems which will never be improved in my lifetime.
- Politics. Ah, yes, lobbyists, special interests, friends of friends, and sometimes the fact that a senior official knows that a person once worked at a specific outfit.
When I read, “Deasy Pauses on JEDI Cloud Acquisition,” I immediately thought about the giant incumbent database champions like IBM Federal Systems and Oracle’s government operations unit.
Department of Defense CIO Dana Deasy wants a “full top down, bottom up review” of the JEDI infrastructure acquisition.
But there was a moment of reflection, when I realized that this procurement tussle will have significant impact on the Seattle area. You know, Seattle, the city which has delivered Microsoft Bob and the Amazon mobile phone.
Microsoft and Amazon are in the cloud business. Microsoft is the newcomer, but it is the outfit which has the desktops of many government agencies. Everyone loves SharePoint. The Department of Defense could not hold a briefing without PowerPoint.
Let’s not forget Amazon. That is the platform used by most government workers, their families, and possibly their friends if that Amazon account slips into the wild. Who could exist in Tyson’s Corner or Gaithersburg without Amazon delivering essential foods such as probiotic supplements for the dog.
Microsoft is probably thrilled that the JEDI procurement continues to be a work in progress. Amazon, on the other hand, is likely to be concerned that its slam dunk for a government cloud game home run has been halted due to procedural thunderstorms.
Thus, part of Seattle is really happy. Another part of Seattle is not so happy.
Since I don’t’ have a dog in this fight, my hunch is that little in Washington, DC changes from administrative change to administrative change.
But this Seattle dust up will be interesting to watch. I think it will have a significant impact on Amazon and Microsoft. IBM Federal Systems and Oracle will be largely unscathed.
Exciting procurement activity is underway. Defense Department CIO Deasy Deasy’s promise of a “full top down, bottom up review” sounds like the words to a song I have heard many times.
With $10 billion in play, how long will that review take? My hunch is that it will introduce the new CIO to a new concept, “government time.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 12, 2018
Old School Searcher Struggles with Organizing Information
September 7, 2017
I read a write up called “Semantic, Adaptive Search – Now that’s a Mouthful.” I cannot decide if the essay is intended to be humorous, plaintive, or factual. The main idea in the headline is that there is a type of search called “semantic” and “adaptive.” I think I know about the semantic notion. We just completed a six month analysis of syntactic and semantic technology for one of my few remaining clients. (I am semi retired as you may know, but tilting at the semantic and syntactic windmills is great fun.)
The semantic notion has inspired such experts as David Amerland, an enthusiastic proponent of the power of positive thinking and tireless self promotion, to heights of fame. The syntax idea gives experts in linguistics hope for lucrative employment opportunities. But most implementations of these hallowed “techniques” deliver massive computational overhead and outputs which require legions of expensive subject matter experts to keep on track.
The headline is one thing, but the write up is about another topic in my opinion. Here’s the passage I noted:
The basic problem with AI is no vendor is there yet.
Okay, maybe I did not correctly interpret “Semantic, Adaptive Search—Now That’s a Mouthful.” I just wasn’t expecting artificial intelligence, a very SEO type term.
But I was off base. The real subject of the write up seems to be captured in this passage:
I used to be organized, but somehow I lost that admirable trait. I blame it on information overload. Anyway, I now spend quite a bit of time searching for my blogs, white papers, and research, as I have no clue where I filed them. I have resorted to using multiple search criteria. Something I do, which is ridiculous, is repeat the same erroneous search request, because I know it’s there somewhere and the system must have misunderstood, right? So does the system learn from my mistakes, or learn the mistakes? Does anyone know?
Okay, disorganized. I would never have guessed without a title that references semantic and adaptive search, the lead paragraph about artificial intelligence, and this just cited bit of exposition which makes clear that the searcher cannot make the search systems divulge the needed information.
One factoid in the write up is that a searcher will use 2.73 terms per query. I think that number applies to desktop boat anchor searches from the Dark Ages of old school querying. Today, more than 55 percent of queries are from mobile devices. About 20 percent of those are voice based. Other queries just happen because a greater power like Google or Microsoft determines what you “really” wanted is just the ticket. To me, the shift from desktop to mobile makes the number of search terms in a query a tough number to calculate. How does one convert data automatically delivered to a Google Map when one is looking for a route with an old school query with 2.73 terms? Answer: You maybe just use whatever number pops out from a quick Bing or Google search from a laptop and go with the datum in a hit on an ad choked result list.
The confused state of search and content processing vendors is evident in their marketing, their reliance on jargon and mumbo jumbo, and fuzzy thinking about obtaining information to meet a specific information need.
I suppose there is hope. One can embrace a taxonomy and life will be good. On the other hand, disorganization does not bode well for a taxonomy created by a person who cannot locate information.
Well, one can use smart software to generate those terms, the Use Fors and the See Alsos. One can rely on massive amounts of Big Data to save the day. One can allow a busy user of SharePoint to assign terms to his or her content. Many good solutions which make information access a thrilling discipline.
Now where did I put that research for my latest book, “The Dark Web Notebook”? Ah, I know. In a folder called “DWNB Research” on my back up devices with hard copies in a banker’s box labeled “DWNB 2016-2017.”
Call me old fashioned but the semantic, syntactic, artificially intelligent razzmatazz underscores the triumph of jargon over systems and methods which deliver on point results in response to a query from a person who knows that for which he or she seeks.
Plus, I have some capable research librarians to keep me on track. Yep, real humans with MLS degrees, online research expertise, and honest-to-god reference desk experience.
Smart software and jargon requires more than disorganization and arm waving accompanied by toots from the jargon tuba.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2017
Lucidworks: The Future of Search Which Has Already Arrived
August 24, 2017
I am pushing 74, but I am interested in the future of search. The reason is that with each passing day I find it more and more difficult to locate the information I need as my routine research for my books and other work. I was anticipating a juicy read when I requested a copy of “Enterprise Search in 2025.” The “book” is a nine page PDF. After two years of effort and much research, my team and I were able to squeeze the basics of Dark Web investigative techniques into about 200 pages. I assumed that a nine-page book would deliver a high-impact payload comparable to one of the chapters in one of my books like CyberOSINT or Dark Web Notebook.
I was surprised that a nine-page document was described as a “book.” I was quite surprised by the Lucidworks’ description of the future. For me, Lucidworks is describing information access already available to me and most companies from established vendors.
The book’s main idea in my opinion is as understandable as this unlabeled, data-free graphic which introduces the text content assembled by Lucidworks.
However, the pamphlet’s text does not make this diagram understandable to me. I noted these points as I worked through the basic argument that client server search is on the downturn. Okay. I think I understand, but the assertion “Solr killed the client-server stars” was interesting. I read this statement and highlighted it:
Other solutions developed, but the Solr ecosystem became the unmatched winner of the search market. Search 1.0 was over and Solr won.
In the world of open source search, Lucene and Solr have gained adherents. Based on the information my team gathered when we were working on an IDC open source search project, the dominant open source search system was Lucene. If our data were accurate when we did the research, Elastic’s Elasticsearch had emerged as the go-to open source search system. The alternatives like Solr and Flaxsearch have their users and supporters, but Elastic, founded by Shay Branon, was a definite step up from his earlier search service called Compass.
In the span of two and a half years, Elastic had garnered more than a $100 million in funding by 2014and expanded into a number adjacent information access market sectors. Reports I have received from those attending Elastic meetings was that Elastic was putting considerable pressure on proprietary search systems and a bit of a squeeze on Lucidworks. Google’s withdrawing its odd duck Google Search Appliance may have been, in small part, due to the rise of Elasticsearch and the changes made by organizations trying to figure out how to make sense of the digital information to which their staff had access.
But enough about the Lucene-Solr and open source versus proprietary search yin and yang tension.
You Do Not Search. You Insight.
April 12, 2017
I am delighted, thrilled. I read “Coveo, Microsoft, Sinequa Lead Insight Engine Market.” What a transformation is captured in what looks to me like a content marketing write up. Key word search morphs into “insight.” For folks who do not follow the history of enterprise search with the fanaticism of those involved in baseball statistics, the use of the word “insight” to describe locating a document is irrelevant. Do you search or insight?
For me, hunkered down in rural Kentucky, with my monitors flickering in the intellectual darkness of Kentucky, the use of the word “insight” is a linguistic singularity. Maybe not on the scale of an earthquake in Italy or a banker leaping from his apartment to the Manhattan asphalt, but a historical moment nevertheless.
Let me recap some of my perceptions of the three companies mentioned in the headline to this tsunami of jargon in the Datanami story:
- Coveo is a company which developed a search and retrieval system focused on Windows. With some marketing magic, the company explained keyword search as customer support, then Big data, and now this new thing, “insight”. For those who track vendor history, the roots of Coveo reach back to a consumer interface which was designed to make search easy. Remember Copernic. Yep, Coveo has been around a long while.
- Sinequa also was a search vendor. Like Exalead and Polyspot and other French search vendors, the company wanted manage data, provide federation, and enable workflows. After a president change and some executive shuffling, Sinequa emerged as a Big Data outfit with a core competency in analytics. Quite a change. How similar is Sinequa to enterprise search? Pretty similar.
- Microsoft. I enjoyed the “saved by the bell” deal in 2008 which delivered the “work in progress” Fast Search & Transfer enterprise search system to Redmond. Fast Search was one of the first search vendors to combine fast-flying jargon with a bit of sales magic. Despite the financial meltdown and an investigation of the Fast Search financials, Microsoft ponied up $1.2 billion and reinvented SharePoint search. Well, not exactly reinvented, but SharePoint is a giant hairball of content management, collaboration, business “intelligence” and, of course, search. Here’s a user friendly chart to help you grasp SharePoint search.
Flash forward to this Datanami article and what do I learn? Here’s a paragraph I noted with a smiley face and an exclamation point:
Among the areas where natural language processing is making inroads is so-called “insight engines” that are projected to account for half of analytic queries by 2019. Indeed, enterprise search is being supplanted by voice and automated voice commands, according to Gartner Inc. The market analyst released it latest “Magic Quadrant” rankings in late March that include a trio of “market leaders” along with a growing list of challengers that includes established vendors moving into the nascent market along with a batch of dedicated startups.
There you go. A trio like ZZTop with number one hits? Hardly. A consulting firm’s “magic” plucks these three companies from a chicken farm and gives each a blue ribbon. Even though we have chickens in our backyard, I cannot tell one from another. Subjectivity, not objectivity, applies to picking good chickens, and it seems to be what New York consulting firms do too.
Are the “scores” for the objective evaluations based on company revenue? No.
Return on investment? No.
Patents? No.
IRR? No. No. No.
Number of flagship customers like Amazon, Apple, and Google type companies? No.
The ranking is based on “vision.” And another key factor is “the ability to execute its “strategy.” There you go. A vision is what I want to help me make my way through Kabul. I need a strategy beyond stay alive.
What would I do if I have to index content in an enterprise? My answer may surprise you. I would take out my check book and license these systems.
- Palantir Technologies or Centrifuge Systems
- Bitext’s Deep Linguistic Analysis platform
- Recorded Future.
With these three systems I would have:
- The ability to locate an entity, concept, event, or document
- The capability to process content in more than 40 languages, perform subject verb object parsing and entity extraction in near real time
- Point-and-click predictive analytics
- Point-and-click visualization for financial, business, and military warfighting actions
- Numerous programming hooks for integrating other nifty things that I need to achieve an objective such as IBM’s Cybertap capability.
Why is there a logical and factual disconnect between what I would do to deliver real world, high value outputs to my employees and what the New York-Datanami folks recommend?
Well, “disconnect” may not be the right word. Have some search vendors and third party experts embraced the concept of “fake news” or embraced the know how explained in Propaganda, Father Ellul’s important book? Is the idea something along the lines of “we just say anything and people will believe our software will work this way”?
Many vendors stick reasonably close to the factual performance of their software and systems. Let me highlight three examples.
First, Darktrace, a company crafted by Dr. Michael Lynch, is a stickler for explaining what the smart software does. In a recent exchange with Darktrace, I learned that Darktrace’s senior staff bristle when a descriptive write up strays from the actual, verified technical functions of the software system. Anyone who has worked with Dr. Lynch and his senior managers knows that these people can be very persuasive. But when it comes to Darktrace, it is “facts R us”, thank you.
Second, Recorded Future takes a similar hard stand when explaining what the Recorded Future system can and cannot do. Anyone who suggests that Recorded Future predictive analytics can identify the winner of the Kentucky Derby a day before the race will be disabused of that notion by Recorded Future’s engineers. Accuracy is the name of the game at Recorded Future, but accuracy relates to the use of numerical recipes to identify likely events and assign a probability to some events. Even though the company deals with statistical probabilities, adding marketing spice to the predictive system’s capabilities is a no-go zone.
Third, Bitext, the company that offers a Deep Linguistics Analysis platform to improve the performance of a range of artificial intelligence functions, is anchored in facts. On a recent trip to Spain, we interviewed a number of the senior developers at this company and learned that Bitext software works. Furthermore, the professionals are enthusiastic about working for this linguistics-centric outfit because it avoid marketing hyperbole. “Our system works,” said one computational linguist. This person added, “We do magic with computational linguistics and deep linguistic analysis.” I like that—magic. Oh, Bitext does sales too with the likes of Porsche, Volkswagen, and the world’s leading vendor of mobile systems and services, among others. And from Madrid, Spain, no less. And without marketing hyperbole.
Why then are companies based on keyword indexing with a sprinkle of semantics and basic math repositioning themselves by chasing each new spun sugar-encrusted trend?
I have given a tiny bit of thought to this question.
In my monograph “The New Landscape of Search” I made the point that search had become devalued, a free download in open source repositories, and a utility like cat or dir. Most enterprise search systems have failed to deliver results painted in Technicolor in sales presentations and marketing collateral.
Today, if I want search and retrieval, I just use Lucene. In fact, Lucene is more than good enough; it is comparable to most proprietary enterprise search systems. If I need support, I can ring up Elastic or one of many vendors eager to gild the open source lily.
The extreme value and reliability of open source search and retrieval software has, in my opinion, gutted the market for proprietary search and retrieval software. The financial follies of Fast Search & Transfer reminded some investors of the costly failures of Convera, Delphes, Entopia, among others I documented on my Xenky.com site at this link.
Recently most of the news I see on my coal fired computer in Harrod’s Creek about enterprise search has been about repositioning, not innovation. What’s up?
The answer seems to be that the myth cherished by was that enterprise search was the one, true way make sense of digital information. What many organizations learned was that good enough search does the basic blocking and tackling of finding a document but precious little else without massive infusions of time, effort, and resources.
But do enterprise search systems–no matter how many sparkly buzzwords–work? Not too many, no matter what publicly traded consulting firms tell me to believe.
Snake oil? I don’t know. I just know my own experience, and after 45 years of trying to make digital information findable, I avoid fast talkers with covered wagons adorned with slogans.
What happens when an enterprise search system is fed videos, podcasts, telephone intercepts, flows of GPS data, and a couple of proprietary file formats?
Answer: Not much.
The search system has to be equipped with extra cost connectors, assorted oddments, and shimware to deal with a recorded webinar and a companion deck of PowerPoint slides used by the corporate speaker.
What happens when the content stream includes email and documents in six, 12, or 24 different languages?
Answer: Mad scrambling until the proud licensee of an enterprise search system can locate a vendor able to support multiple language inputs. The real life needs of an enterprise are often different from what the proprietary enterprise search system can deal with.
That’s why I find the repositioning of enterprise search technology a bit like a clown with a sad face. The clown is no longer funny. The unconvincing efforts to become something else clash with the sad face, the red nose, and worn shoes still popular in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky.
When it comes to enterprise search, my litmus test is simple: If a system is keyword centric, it isn’t going to work for some of the real world applications I have encountered.
Oh, and don’t believe me, please.
Find a US special operations professional who relies on Palantir Gotham or IBM Analyst’s Notebook to determine a route through a hostile area. Ask whether a keyword search system or Palantir is more useful. Listen carefully to the answer.
No matter what keyword enthusiasts and quasi-slick New York consultants assert, enterprise search systems are not well suited for a great many real world applications. Heck, enterprise search often has trouble displaying documents which match the user’s query.
And why? Sluggish index updating, lousy indexing, wonky metadata, flawed set up, updates that kill a system, or interfaces that baffle users.
Personally I love to browse results lists. I like old fashioned high school type research too. I like to open documents and Easter egg hunt my way to a document that answers my question. But I am in the minority. Most users expect their finding systems to work without the query-read-click-scan-read-scan-read-scan Sisyphus-emulating slog.
Ah, you are thinking I have offered no court admissible evidence to support my argument, right? Well, just license a proprietary enterprise search system and let me know how your career is progressing. Remember when you look for a new job. You won’t search; you will insight.
Stephen E Arnold, April 12, 2017
Five Years in Enterprise Search: 2011 to 2016
October 4, 2016
Before I shifted from worker bee to Kentucky dirt farmer, I attended a presentation in which a wizard from Findwise explained enterprise search in 2011. In my notes, I jotted down the companies the maven mentioned (love that alliteration) in his remarks:
- Attivio
- Autonomy
- Coveo
- Endeca
- Exalead
- Fabasoft
- IBM
- ISYS Search
- Microsoft
- Sinequa
- Vivisimo.
There were nodding heads as the guru listed the key functions of enterprise search systems in 2011. My notes contained these items:
- Federation model
- Indexing and connectivity
- Interface flexibility
- Management and analysis
- Mobile support
- Platform readiness
- Relevance model
- Security
- Semantics and text analytics
- Social and collaborative features
I recall that I was confused about the source of the information in the analysis. Then the murky family tree seemed important. Five years later, I am less interested in who sired what child than the interesting historical nuggets in this simple list and collection of pretty fuzzy and downright crazy characteristics of search. I am not too sure what “analysis” and “analytics” mean. The notion that an index is required is okay, but the blending of indexing and “connectivity” seems a wonky way of referencing file filters or a network connection. With the Harvard Business Review pointing out that collaboration is a bit of a problem, it is an interesting footnote to acknowledge that a buzzword can grow into a time sink.
There are some notable omissions; for example, open source search options do not appear in the list. That’s interesting because Attivio was at that time I heard poking its toe into open source search. IBM was a fan of Lucene five years ago. Today the IBM marketing machine beats the Watson drum, but inside the Big Blue system resides that free and open source Lucene. I assume that the gurus and the mavens working on this list ignored open source because what consulting revenue results from free stuff? What happened to Oracle? In 2011, Oracle still believed in Secure Enterprise Search only to recant with purchases of Endeca, InQuira, and Rightnow. There are other glitches in the list, but let’s move on.
DocPoint and Concept Searching: The ONLY Choice. Huh?
March 24, 2016
DocPoint is a consulting and services firm focusing on the US government’s needs. The company won’t ignore commercial firms’ inquiries, but the line up of services seems to be shaped for the world of GSAAdvantage users.
I noted that DocPoint has signed on to resell the Concept Searching indexing system. In theory, the SharePoint search service performs a range of indexing functions. In actual practice, like my grandmother’s cookies, many of the products are not cooked long enough. I tossed those horrible cookies in the trash. The licensees of SharePoint don’t have the choice I did when eight years old.
DocPoint is a specialist firm which provides what Microsoft cannot or no longer chooses to offer its licensees. Microsoft is busy trying to dominate the mobile phone market and doing bug fixes on the Surface product line.
The scoop about the DocPoint and Concept Searching deal appears in “DocPoint Solutions Adds Concept Searching To GSA Schedule 70.” The Schedule 70 reference means, according to WhatIs.com:
a long-term contract issued by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to a commercial technology vendor. Award of a Schedule contract signifies that the GSA has determined that the vendor’s pricing is fair and reasonable and the vendor is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Purchasing from pre- approved vendors allows agencies to cut through red tape and receive goods and services faster. A vendor doesn’t need to win a GSA Schedule contract in order to do business with U.S. government agencies, but having a Schedule contract can cut down on administrative costs, both for the vendor and for the agency. Federal agencies typically submit requests to three vendors on a Schedule and choose the vendor that offers the best value.
To me, the deal is a way for Concept Searching to generate revenue via a third party services firm.
In the write up about the tie up, I highlighted this paragraph which is a single paragraph with an amazing assertion:
A DocPoint partner since 2012, Concept Searching is the only [emphasis added] company whose solutions deliver automatic semantic metadata generation, auto-classification, and powerful taxonomy tools running natively in all versions of SharePoint and SharePoint Online. By blending these technologies with DocPoint’s end-to-end enterprise content management (ECM) offerings, government organizations can maximize their SharePoint investment and obtain a fully integrated solution for sharing, securing and searching for mission-critical information.
Note the statement “only company whose solutions deliver…” “Only” means, according to the Google define function:
No one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.
Unfortunately the DocPoint assertion about Concept Searching as the only firm appears to be wide of the mark. Concept Search is one of many companies offering the functions set forth in the content marketing “news” story. In my files, I have the names of dozens of commercial firms offering semantic metadata generation, auto-classification, and taxonomy tools. I wonder if Layer2 or Smartlogic have an opinion about “only”?
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2016
Bing Rings the Cash Register
February 2, 2016
I read a fascinating story about Bing, Microsoft’s search system which does not include the Fast Search & Transfer goodies in SharePoint Search. Yeah, I know it is confusing.
The write up “Microsoft Corporation Makes Big Bucks with Bing: Cloud Is the Future.” Web search has been, as far as I know, a cloud service for more than a decade. Set that aside.
The important point is:
Microsoft Bing search engine grew by 21% in 2QFY16, emerges as a potent threat to Google.
Poor Google. First, it was the presence of Qwant (what? you don’t remember Qwant?) now it is Bing. Doom looms it seems.
The write up reports in “real” journalistic rhetoric:
Microsoft’s search engine advertising revenues excluding traffic acquisitions cost increased by 21% in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 (2QFY16). … The software giant is expected to continue its growth in the coming quarters, although what is more important is that Bing will continue to remain profitable and gain shares in the foreseeable future.
I like that “is expected.” Is this a Bing prediction?
I noted this passage:
The software giant is making recognizable efforts to evolve from a Windows-dependent organization to a “cloud-first, mobile-first” company. Microsoft seems to be doing well with its cloud business and making a profit from its Office 365, as well. Users of Windows 10 are also on the rise. Interestingly enough, for these users, Bing-driven Cortana is a very important feature which helps the service generate significant revenue growth to bolster the slipping Windows revenues.
But the kicker for me was the statement:
… Popular speculation suggests that Bing is just a minor detail once you take into account Microsoft’s prospects regarding its position in the upcoming cloud business which it has invested heavily in; and rightly so as the cloud services segment has added indefinite value to the company’s stock.
But isn’t Bing a cloud service? I am confused but the Bing/Fast Search set up is a baffler as well.
Yep, the new Microsoft. And Windows phone? Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, February 2, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
