Boston Search Engine Meeting, Day One
April 29, 2008
The Infonortics’ meeting attracts technologists and senior managers involved in search, content processing and information access. For the full program and an overview of the topics, navigate to http://www.infonortics.com.
Summaries of the talks and versions of the PowerPoints will be available on the Infonortics’ Web site on or before May 2, 2008. I will post a news item when I have the specific link.
Background
This conference draws more PhDs per square foot than a Harvard coffee shop. Most of the presentations were delightful if you enjoy equations with your latte. In the last two years, talks about key word search have yielded to discussions about advanced text manipulation methods. What’s unique about this program is that the invited presenters talk with the same enthusiasm an undergraduate in math feels when she has been accepted into MIT’s PhD physics program.
The are often spiced with real world descriptions of products that anyone can use. A highlight was the ISYS Search Software combined useful tips with a system that worked–no PhD required.
Several other observations are warranted:
- Key word search and long lists of results are no longer enough. To be useful, a system has to provide suggestions, names people, categories, and relevance thermometers
- An increasing appetite for answers combined with a discovery function.
- Systems must be usable by the people who need the system to perform a task or answer a question.
Chatter at the Breaks
Chatter at the breaks was enthusiastic. In the conversations to which I was party on Monday, three topics seemed to attract some attention.
First, the acquisition of Fast Search by Microsoft was the subject of considerable speculation. Comments about the reorganization of Microsoft search under the guidance of John Lervik, one of Fast Search’s founders sparked this comment from one attendee: “Organizing search at Microsoft is going to be a very tough job.” One person in this informal group said, “I think some if not all of the coordination may be done from Fast Search’s offices in Massachusetts and Norway.” The rejoinder offered by one individual was, “That’s going to be really difficult.”
Second, the search leader Autonomy’s share price concerned one group of attendees. The question was related to the decline in Autonomy share price on the heels of a strong quarterly report. No one had any specific information, but I was asked about the distribution of Autonomy’s revenue; that is, how much from core search and how much from Autonomy’s high profile units. My analysis–based on a quick reading of the quarterly report press announcements — suggests that Autonomy has some strong growth from the Zantaz unit and in other sectors such as rich media. Autonomy search plays a supporting role in these fast-growth sectors. On that basis, Autonomy may be entering a phase where the bulk of its revenue may come from system sales where search is an inclusion, not the super charger.
Finally, there was much discussion about the need to move beyond key word search. Whether the adjustment is more sophistication “under the hood” with the user seeing suggestions or an interface solution with a range of graphic elements to provide a view of the information space, the people talking about interfaces underscored the need to [a] keep the interface simple and [b] make the information
accessible. One attendee asked at the noon break, “Does anyone know if visualization can be converted to a return on investment?” No one had a case at hand although there was some anecdotal evidence about the payoffs from visualization.
Wrap Up
The second day’s speakers are now on the stage. Stay tuned for an update.
Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2008