Twitter Use… Rewires the Brain
February 27, 2009
I think the Daily Mail is one of the London newspapers able to mix serious news, football coverage, and zippy headlines with aplomb. The article “Social Web Sites Harm Children’s Brains: Chilling Warning to Parents from Top Neuroscientist” here reminded me that I am not the only addled goose waddling around the mine run off pond. The article said, “Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively ‘rewire’ the brain.” For me, the most interesting comment was:
My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.
The Times (London) ran a story with the headline “Canadians Can Read Your Mind” here. This article reports an 80 percent hit rate for technology that works like your mom when you had something to hide.
Now juxtapose what the Baroness said with the Canadian mind reading “thingy” and what does the addled goose conclude? Search by thinking. No more keying queries. The Twitter rewiring and the Maple Leaf gizmo deliver what today’s users want. Information delivered like baby food for the brain.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Vista: Nails Top Spot
February 27, 2009
I chuckled when I spotted this headline: “Microsoft Vista Voted Tech World’s Top Fiasco” here. I know there’s a search box on the start menu. I know search is available everywhere. I know. I know. I also know that I don’t use Microsoft’s built in search system. Call me old fashioned. Sciam said:
What’s more, the Fiasco Awards Web site points out, the new operating system was complicated to navigate and had compatibility problems with many programs and hardware drivers, leading many people to just stick with Windows XP. Vista was such a dismal failure that many PC makers even recommended that consumers steer clear of it.
Well, it may not be as impressive as Google’s share of the Web search market, but it’s a number one. Trophy generation wizards are used to getting awards. In Harrods Creek, some families award lumps of coal for good behavior. An American tradition.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Google: Market Share Up, Market Share Down
February 27, 2009
I don’t know if comScore is right or wrong. Figure a plus or minus 10 percent. The data reported in the stats section of ZDNet Web logs here said Google had a 77 percent market share in December 2008. Slap on the 10 percent and I get a range of 67 to 87 percent market share. Pretty good but Microsoft and Yahoo could be seen as nibbling away at Google’s lead. Is Google the top dog? Is Google losing ground to challengers?
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
App Engine Pricing
February 27, 2009
In the midst of the Gfail, er, Gmail, event, I almost missed the ComputerWorld story “Google Sets Billing Rates for App Engine” here. Google seems to be pushing forward with its cloud based services. Assume that these services will work. Assume that your organization wants to use the Google App engine. According to Paul Krill’s write up:
On top of the free services, developers can pay 10 cents per CPU core hour for application processing, 10 cents per gigabyte of data transferred into the application, 12 cents per gigabyte of data transferred out of the application and 15 cents per gigabyte per month of storage. The storage capabilities cover static files served by the application as well as structured data using the Google Datastore API. In addition to the 2,000 e-mails a day that applications can send for free, Google will let applications send 10,000 e-mails per day for $1.
Pricing seems fair — if the service is reliable and includes provisions to avoid unilateral price boosts.
Stephen Arnold, February 25, 2009
Google: Shared Stuff Is History
February 27, 2009
The Standard’s MG Siegler (Venture Beat) article “Another Google Service Bites the Dust: Shared Stuff” caught my attention. Although not search, Shared Stuff is one of the niche social services that Googzilla made available in mid 2007. The idea was that Delicious.com was not Googley. Googlers, therefore, pulled a me too and rolled out Shared Stuff. Unfortunately no one knew about the service. I knew but didn’t care. Mr. Siegler provides a screen shot and some useful background information. The most interesting comment in the write up was:
Google really should created a “Most Shared” area for Google Reader. It took a small step in this direction in December when it launched a “What’s Hot” area, but that is a list that appears to be maintained and curated by Google itself. Instead, it needs a way to show what people are really sharing — a truly massive social page. Services like ReadBurner and RSSmeme have done this for a while, and if Google is seriously about social sharing, it should too.
Google’s consolidation may free up some cycles to chase the YAGGs which seem to be proliferating. (If you are new to this Web log, a “YAGG” is short for yet another Google glitch.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
When Search Bites Your Ankle
February 27, 2009
Search means Google. I suppose one can be generous and include Live.com and Yahoo.com search in the basket even though search is, for most people, Google. When I read “Malware Tricking Search Engines, and You Too” here, I auto inserted Google whether or not the author wanted me to. The point of the write up is that bad nerds figured out a way to spoof Facebook users, for example. This is a bit like snookering the seven year old neighbor’s kid at Halloween in my opinion. The idea is that
if you Googled “Error Check System” you were pushed links to malware-infested sites. The recent GMail outage produced a similar problem; Googling “Gmail Down” got you lots of malware.
My question is, “Where does the responsibility rest?” Is the operating system outfit responsible? Is the search vendor responsible? Is the Web site responsible? For me, the most interesting comment in the story was this stunner:
the end result was to push rogue anti-malware to the user. This really does seem to the star of the malware world in that it directly brings in money.
Two comments: Maybe the author would like to have a malware Oscar like award for this “star of the malware world.” And, yep, make the user responsible. Most computing device users really know what’s what with their systems. Great idea. The buck stops where? At my 84 year old father. Right. He’s able to spot malware just fine. I bet he does this as well as your mother and father do.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Search Market Stabilizing: Beam Me Up, Scotty
February 27, 2009
A happy quack to the reader in the UK who sent me a link to a quite remarkable story by Phil Muncaster. The title? “Enterprise Search Market Stabilising” here. The article is a rewrite of a news release about another wizardly view of the market for search in an organization. You will want to read the write up yourself to see how public relations and dead tree media interact to create what in my opinion is a silly view of the market for search and content processing systems. The article asserted:
As part of our Cross-Check analysis, we noted that enterprise search vendors have spent much of the past year digesting acquisitions and stabilising their offerings,” wrote CMS Watch … in a blog post. It is perhaps a sign of the times that vendors are debuting fewer new features, and focused more on stabilising their current offering, selling smarter, and keeping customers happy.
Whoa, Nelly! Google sales professionals assert, “Search is easy.” Now the Google Search Appliance does make deployment and basic searching as easy as 1-2-3. Customizing, hardening, and deploying a redundant system is closer to working through Zeta function math, not counting kindergarten operations.
Yep, search is stable. Search vendors are no longer introducing new features. Wrong. Search is volatile and vendors are pushing new features and functions into the market in order to build sizzle and keep customers from defecting to “the other guy”. Image source: http://gallery.art4heart.info/data/media/1/Time_confusion.jpg
What’s going on in this write up is a misreading of the present search sector. Twitter search is the sector leader in real time search. Google has been unwilling or unable to respond. Now organizations are getting interested in real time search. New? Yes. Destabilizing? You bet. Volatile? Absolutely. And new players are coming on the scene with the regularity of box cars clanking down the tracks down by the mine run off ditch.
As an addled goose, I will tell you that I don’t know what a cross check analysis is. Cross check how? Cross check what? This sounds like an azure chip consultant play to simplify a complex situation that is only partially understood. In my opinion, simplification of search is a task only one unfamiliar with search, content processing, and text analysis would undertake. How complicated is search right now? Consider these factoids:
- IBM has multiple search initiatives as well as partners. The company has a non presence in search yet search is a key component from DB2 to the WebSphere system. What’s this mean? Beats me. I know one thing. IBM has something afoot, and based on my long experience with Big Blue, the company is convoluted in its approach to hot solution sectors. Yep, this is a simple approach to search.
- Autonomy has acquired Interwoven for $770 million. The deal disrupts the eDiscovery market which is already spinning with the Guidance fumble. That company used its own system and failed to “find” documents in its own eDiscovery process. With a search vendor spending the equivalent of its annual turnover for a content management company in the eDiscovery business is exciting. But add to that fact that eDiscovery systems flopped when Guidance couldn’t make its own system work and you have a bit of wobbly in my opinion. Seems complicated to me in terms of what Autonomy will do with Interwoven. Seems complicated to me in terms of the relationship of general search with more specialized stuff like eDiscovery. Muff the bunny. Do the perp walk. High stakes I would assert.
- Oracle has gone missing in enterprise search. What’s up? The answer is that Oracle is playing its cards close to its vest. What does Oracle’s low profile mean? Oracle is a big player in the database world and search is a key issue. Oracle’s intent will become clearer in 2009, but until then, the Oracle situation complicates the lives of Oracle licensees, partners, and third partner vendors. The big question is, “What will Oracle do in the enterprise search space?” What if Oracle snags a big player and chokes down the high valuation and debt? Does this type of big play stabilize? Not in my opinion. The hypothetical moves adds to the uncertainty for customers and licensees.
- Life is pretty darn complicated for the SurfRay customers. That company is in financial limbo. The users of Mondosoft, Speed of Mind, and Ontolica are in a tough spot. Maybe complicated is not the correct word? Maybe uncertainty? Both notions connote discomfort to me. I have a list of seven search vendors who are in a tough financial bind. More uncertainty. More turmoil. Potential energy waiting to be released without much warning.
Simplification is useful as long as reality is part of the cross check. Simplification that is wrong can be risky. Simplify as a consultant and the result could be litigation.
The pithy article included this assertion: Vendors are “debuting fewer new features” [sic] doesn’t jibe with the information that flows to the duck pond here in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky; to wit:
- In the series “Search Wizards Speak” each of the more than two dozen people have identified new features in their systems and software. These range from connectors to sophisticated “beyond search” functions such as mash ups
- Individual vendors have been aggressive in expanding into non search sectors such as business intelligence. A quick read of the interview with Attivio’s Sid Probstein in this Web log provides a glimpse of this dynamism
- Open source vendors continue to innovate, including Lemur Consulting and its FLAX product. The Lucid Imagination system is stuffed full of new Lucene- and Solr-centric features.
So, we have some first person interview data that suggests the feature assertion is addled, even more addled than this goose I assert.
Second, what’s this stabilizing assertion? Baloney in my opinion. Plain baloney or more properly bologna. Again, the evidence is that enterprise search if far from stable. Facts, in short supply in this write up, may be as thick as fleas on a stray dog in the referenced study, but consider these items:
ITEM: Siderean Software, Delphes, TeezIR, EZ2Find.com, and other vendors have pulled in their horns to the extent that I am not certain the companies are still taking orders. I have indications that other vendors have been constrained by the economic downturn and may be retreating as well. Do the customers know about these retrenchments? Maybe? Maybe not. But I can tell you that this introduces considerable instability within individual companies and among the financial backers of these firms.
ITEM: New companies are cropping up with surprising frequency. I received email from an old pal Ramana Rao about his new venture. There’s Kosmix. I can point to other important search upstarts like Sprylogics in Toronto, or Evri in Seattle, the search less, understand more folks. I have documented some of the more interesting new features in this Web log. Read the articles and draw your own conclusions about flow of new entrants and the features these companies are offering.
ITEM: The Microsoft roadmap for FAST and its enterprise search platform does little to address the flux resulting from [a] the police matter regarding Microsoft FAST in Oslo; [b] the cost of integrating certain FAST ESP functions into existing SharePoint installations; [c] the cost of licensing the appropriate FAST modules; and [d] the availability of trained engineers to make the SharePoint – ESP hook up work in a client environment. Seems unstable to me, but you may have another view.
ITEM: The Google is disrupting enterprise search by allowing to pull for its mapping and applications to suck the Google Search Appliance and other Google search technology into organizations. Vendors are quick to point out that the Google Search Appliance is not the “final” solution, but the Google is having a disruptive effect. Asserting stability when Googzilla is getting sucked into companies is like explaining quantum theory with Newton’s math. Won’t work.
To wrap up, buy the study referenced in this assertion filled news story. Dig in. Enjoy.
My view is that search is in flux. Search is complex. Search is pivotal to an enterprise’s survival. Buzzwordology strikes me as inappropriate for this particular moment in time. Facts, experience, knowledge, and a willingness to work through complexities–that’s what’s needed in my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Microsoft Yahoo Search: The Rematch
February 26, 2009
I don’t know if this story in Silicon.com is true, but I don’t want to lose track of it an the date. Today is February 26, 2009, and “Yahoo Not Opposed to Search Sale” caught my attention. You can read the story here. The new hierarchical Yahoo is emerging. According to Silicon.com via Reuters, Yahoo CFO Blake Jorgensen allegedly said that Yahoo is willing to entertain a sale of Yahoo Search to Microsoft. With the Google in the clutches of YAGGs and sitting on the sidelines as Twitter.com becomes the go to service for real time search, maybe this will be the magic wand that delivers what Microsoft wanted. A larger share of a service that is losing its relevance to some demographics. Great timing is the key to business success. With Microsoft emulating RCA, this potential tie up might have interesting consequences for Microsoft and Yahoo.
Stephen Arnold, February 26, 2009
Dead Tree Biz Section Sees Twitter as a Threat to Google
February 26, 2009
I must admit I find dead tree news coverage increasingly stale. A case in point is the article in the San Jose Mercury News (hereinafter “Hose”), which I once loved for its Frye ads and its in depth coverage of high tech companies, published, “How Twitter Could Be a Threat to Google.” You can read the story here.
Now keep in mind that the Hose serves Silicon Valley, which is Twitter ground zero. Also, keep in mind that Twitter has been around since 2006, yep, going on three years. Twitter is also a micro blogging site; that is, a variant of SMS (long a European and Pacific Rim habit) allows a user to write a short comment. I mentioned one a couple of days ago about a Google pfishing vulnerability. I am not sure how many users and clicks Twitter.com generates, but it is the go-to service for real time search. Facebook.com and to a certain extent MySpace.com are in this game as well along with non US variants.
The idea is that when I have a question or need a tip about layoffs, Twitter is the place for me to go for that information. If you haven’t tried it, the url is http://search.twitter.com. As I have noted, Google has been a non factor in this space. Furthermore, the Google that bought YouTube.com is no more. The company has invested more time in fiddling with its foundation than fixing the YAGGs that are increasingly common. A “YAGG”, if you have forgotten my coinage, is yet another Google glitch. The Hose said:
The emergence of real-time search also certainly says a lot about us, and how our increasingly wired society is becoming ever more hyperkinetic. In this world, compared with Twitter, Google suddenly begins to feel old and plodding. Its search results might be minutes, hours, or even days old. Yawn!
I agree. Yawn. If the GOOG is going to buy Twitter.com, the Mountain View folks need to do more than regale the New York Times’s writers with anecdotes about free time whilst omitting the 2X productivity the Google programming environment wrings from its engineers. So, 20 percent free time on an 80 hour output is what? Four Sixteen hours a week. With programming snippets in the restrooms and white boards in the laundry, I’m not sure how much free time translates to kick back and enjoy time at Google.
My take on Twitter is:
- The GOOG knows about this space, but its bureaucracy has slowed its reflexes
- The adults in charge such as the new CFO rains on the parade, adding another layer of cotton wool to the decision process
- The surge in Twitter and Twitter functions cropping up in other applications has created a Microsoft-like “we have a better way” faction.
The reality is that Google has allowed Twitter to run free just as Microsoft and Yahoo allowed Google to run wild in its first decade.
In my opinion, what makes Silicon Valley so much fun is that supremely confident folks continue to make the same errors. The difference today is the financial environment requires a different blend of expertise. I don’t think telling those in Silicon Valley is going to meet my needs, and I live next to a mine run off pond in rural Kentucky. I also don’t think the write up is going to do much to address the decision making change at Google, which to me is the angle that needs more inspection. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, February 26, 2009
Dead Trees Become Armoires
February 26, 2009
Hamilton Nolan’s “Five Print to Online Crossovers, and How Many Will Survive (Maybe None)” here is worth reading. Mr. Nolan does a good job of profiling five somewhat strained efforts to create a pile of gold from chunks of brass. Alchemy was all the rage in the 11 th century, and it seems that some publishers–what I call “dead tree” outfits — are reviving what was a lost art.
I don’t want to spoil your fun, but the analysis is darned interesting and the “Chance of Survival” comments are quite entertaining, yet useful to would be dead tree entrepreneurs.
Stephen Arnold, February 26, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
