Gatekeepers’ Last Gasp: Journalists Know Information
April 17, 2009
The Guardian (a UK dead tree publication) ran Seth Finkelstein’s “Shutdown of Wikia Search Proves Empty Rhetoric of Collaboration” here. I enjoyed the idea, the argument, and the writing. On the surface, the failure of the collaborative, people-fueled search system Wikia is a news story. In fact, in appropriate journalistic garb, the guts of the argument could be used in a first year writing class:
This strategy of mining user-generated discontent foundered in trying to monetise those sentiments. As anyone in politics can attest, it’s easy to have a crowd rant about dangers and to generate press coverage, but harder to turn those feelings into something vaguely useful. And, contrary to many pundits who have sought to find some way that Wikia Search could be said to have affected Google, there is no evidence it had any effect whatsoever. While Google’s “SearchWiki” interface has an obviously similar name, beyond that possible bit of marketing the underlying system is much more about personalisation than presenting results to others.
How delicious! “Vaguely useful.”
When I think about this article in the context of the fire fight now raging about online information and the traditional media (aka “dead tree outfits”), I chuckled. The article does a very good job of making clear that a gatekeeper has to step forward and impose order on the unruly crowd. Indeed. As civil disorder peppers cities from Athens to Zagreb, order is useful.
On one hand, Google seems to be the outfit best suited to manage the search side of the world. Whom do you suppose should handle the information side? Mr. Finkelstein’s approach left this addled goose with the idea that newspapers and publishers are the ideal candidates to tidy up the messy information businesses.
I have no idea who will craft “a representative trajectory of Web evangelism”. I do have a hunch that the dead tree crowd will have some ideas and expect to be paid to perform this valuable service.
Stephen Arnold, April 17, 2009
ISYS Search Adds Muscle
April 16, 2009
ISYS Search Software has been a reliable tool for the ArnoldIT.com for years. We started using the system when it was in Version 3.0, and now Version 9.0 runs happily on our machines. I was delighted to learn that ISYS Search Software has added an experienced search and content processing professional to its management team. Mike O’Donoghue has become the director of channels and alliances for Europe and the Middle East. Mr. O’Donoghue has 30 years’ experience in the information sector.
O’Donoghue’s hiring continues ISYS’s aggressive growth in staff, revenue and product development. Under his direction, the EMEA channel group has signed several new partners across Europe, helping ISYS establish new channels in Austria, Germany and the Benelux region.
Scott Coles, CEO, ISYS Search Software told Beyond Search:
Several market drivers in Europe have accelerated information access and discovery’s evolution from nice-to-have productivity tools to must-have infrastructure for risk mitigation. Mike brings nearly a decade of building European channels for enterprise search technologies, and his contributions are already evident in the amount of channel business we’re doing today.
You can learn more about Mr. Coles’s view of the search sector by reading this exclusive interview with him. More information about ISYS Search Software is available at www.isys-software.com.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
Twitter: Now a Thought Leader Gets It
April 16, 2009
I was delighted to read Steve Espinosa’s “How Twitter Will Win Local Search” here. The story appeared in Silicon Alley Insider. I have been reluctant to post my specific views of Twitter because I sell these addled ideas to even more addled clients. But when something runs in the pulsing “blogosphere”, I want to call attention to the information. One useful function of Twitter is providing very timely, quite specific information about local activities. At lunch, one of the goslings monitors Tweets flowing in real time from Twitter users in the Louisville area. (We don’t get many Tweets in Harrod’s Creek. Ground hogs and possums have yet to acquire iPhones.) Why is this important? The young goslings at ArnoldIT.com use it to locate lunch specials. One of the perks of putting up with the addled goose is a company provided meal at a sit down restaurant every work day. The Twitter thing works like a champ, and it gave me the confidence in my new Google: The Digital Gutenberg to assert that the Google may find itself on the outside looking in with regard to real time search.
Mr. Espinosa said:
You actually have a profitable revenue source that may not be the end all be all model, but will be a huge chuck of revenue that does not interrupt the user experience but actually makes it better.
I think he may be on the trail leading toward a business model. A happy quack to him for posting this analysis. The trick to understanding real time search is to think in terms of the utility of lots of eyeballs and users who may have an answer to a particular, location-centric query. The next step is to think about monetization options as Mr. Espinosa has. Will Twitter be the winner in this space? Who knows. Will some company emerge as an oxygen hog? Absolutely.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
Google: Lousy Economy, Web Search Share Rises
April 16, 2009
Short honk: I should just cut and paste previous Google search share write ups into a standing article called “Google Web Search Share Rises”. You will find the MSNBC (irony, of course) write up about Google’s continued dominance of Web search bittersweet. I found it funny. The article is here. The MSNBC write up “Google Widens Its U.S. Search Lead” stated:
Microsoft Corp’s share of the U.S. search market increased by 0.1 percentage points to 8.3 percent in March. (Msnbc.com is a joint Microsoft – NBC Universal venture.)
Keep in mind that the Google has a share of about 64 percent, which is in Harrod’s Creek officially a country mile. More amusing to me is the recent announcement that the Google has a deal with Universal for a video site. I wonder if MSNBC might become GOONBC? Just a thought.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
Price Revolts in the Future
April 16, 2009
I continue to be surprised at the aggressiveness in some of the mainstream Web publications. A representative example is the ZDNet story by Dennis Howlett, “Corrupting Consolidation.” The title threw me, and I think that quite a few people will skip the story because the two word phrase does not resonate. A better title is “Price Revolts in the Future for Enterprise Software?” I think you will want to read the story here and maybe print it out. There are some gems in the write up, and I hope Mr. Howlett’s viewpoint gets wide uptake. The key point in the write up in my opinion was:
This is where we’re at: mega vendors desperate to maintain earnings using a broken model that shovels more product onto the market, hoping that customers remain locked in while maintenance costs go through the roof. It’s toxic and corrupting in no less a way than you might find on Wall Street.
Tough stuff. The point is that in a lousy economic environment, companies have to control costs. Mr. Howlett revealed his approach:
I took the decision to cut all payments to the vendor concerned, calculating I could save the then 60% effective cost burden while I worked out a replacement. At the time, the vendor was one of a very small number that could tie me in knots if they chose. I took the risk and it worked out OK. Sure, there was a good amount of strong arming along the way but I dug my heels in and came out on the top side.
“Customer revolt” was the phrase that crossed my mind.
What about enterprise search or content management? Both of these types of enterprise software are expensive to license, customize, maintain, and operate. What happens if an open source search system catches fire or SquareSpace.com jumps into the enterprise Web content management cesspool?
My view is that there are three interesting options that warrant further study:
- Open source moves from the sidelines, pushes the stars off the field, and becomes the next big thing. There’s quite a bit of interest in open source and newcomers appearing despite the financial craters dotting the landscape. Example: www.lucidimagination.com and www.lemurconsulting.com
- The big boys give away their systems either by bundling them or shifting to a services model. IBM is heading this way with its push into business analytics consulting and the “news” releases to this effect. Microsoft may be headed in this direction with the star-crossed Fast Search & Technology acquisition
- Cloud computing delivered by the parental Amazon.com or the dozens of companies chasing this buzzword choked approach to time sharing and managed services. Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, and others are ready to give companies a way to cut costs by repurposing or rationalizing staff. Translation: fire people.
Will other ad supported online Web services take the same tough stuff stance as ZDNet and Mr. Howlett? I hope so. I am getting tired of news releases and me too companies.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
SharePoint 2010
April 16, 2009
Short honk: If you have a SharePoint tattoo on your arm, you will want to click here to read “SharePoint 2010: What’s in a Name? Not an Acronym.” The title is silly but there are some useful comments about what we might expect in the next point release of SharePoint. One interesting comment was:0
According to a SharePoint Buzz blog, posted in November, some of the features people are expecting include SharePoint Web Parts for FAST ESP, backup/restore/rollback and snapshot backups with virtual load balancing, support for JQuery and native support for ODF and PDF. The blog also wonders if SharePoint 2010 will only be available in 64-bit versions.
I think it will be interesting to see how a tool box such as Fast ESP will be hooked into SharePoint, which is an interesting collection of components. Lots of combinations for the SharePoint and Fast ESP wizards to sort out on billable time.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
Google: Social Adjustment for Facebook
April 16, 2009
Social adjustment in my grade school meant suspension. Social adjustment in one of the prisons I visited for a client project meant kill a guy. When I read this Datamation article — “Inside Google’s Facebook Killer” here—I thought about social adjustment. Now the write up by Mike Elgan took a more aggressive approach to describing Google’s social initiative. The phrase was “Facebook killer.” Mr. Elgan wrote:
Starting today, you can choose a “vanity URL” of sorts, meaning you can use your Gmail address as part of your Google Profiles URL. (The URL used to use a long string of numbers.) For example, my new URL is: www.google.com/profiles/mike.elgan Looking at it now, you’d never guess that Google Profiles is the biggest potential threat to Facebook anywhere.
Mr. Elgan points out that Google’s death beam is not at full power. Nevertheless, it does seem as if the GOOG wants to hop on the social bandwagon. Microsoft has a stake in the Facebook property, and Google has been on the outside of the candy store looking in.
Mr. Elgan noted:
Google Profiles should include a major section that functions as a Twitter client. It would show all your incoming Tweets, and share them with your “friends” or contacts on Google Profiles. Alternatively, you should be able to show and share only the tweets sent by people on your contacts list. In other words, either your full Twitter stream or a subset of that stream, would serve as your “Wall Posts.” The end result of this integration would be a social network far better than Facebook. Rather than being a link dead-end like Facebook, Profiles would be a launching pad of discoverability for everything you want to promote.
These are good ideas. Several observations:
- If Google does kill Facebook, will anti trust forces swing into action?
- Will Google be able to generate revenue once the Facebook funeral is over?
- Will Facebook, Twitter, and their ecosystems sit on their hands and watch the spectacle?
Interesting. I wonder if I should start collecting write ups about Google that feature the noun “killer”? Seems like a popular word at this time. I prefer “social adjustment of Facebook and its ex Googlers in its ranks.” Gentler, nicer. Euphemistic.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
Publishers: Bet the Farm
April 16, 2009
Uncertain about the vagaries of digital products, publishers are doing what we call in Harrod’s Creek, “betting the farm.” The idea is simple. The person who plays poker looks at her hand. She decides that the cards are a sure bet. Instead of raising a dollar or two, she goes whole hog (another farm colloquialism) and bets the farm; that is, she puts the deed to her two acres of rocky ground on the pile of money and says, “Call.” If you are a gambler with a math background, you may suggest that she’s nuts. If you are a Kentucky lottery customer, you say, “That’s smart, lady.”
These down home images waddled though my goose brain when I read Lynn Neary’s “Publishers Gamble on Blockbuster Book Deals” on the NPR.org Web site. You can read her story here. (There’s probably a link to the audio somewhere on the page, but these tired eyes can’t spot gray links, sorry.) The idea is that publishers are opening their checkbooks to get their ink stained paws on “sure winner” authors. What’s a sure winner? How about books by female humorists such as Tina Fey and Sarah Silverman, among others?
The strengths and weaknesses of this approach to media was documented in a memorable book called Carnival Culture by James Twitchell. I am certain the economists from Stanford University who read this Web log will point to earlier and probably less readable analyses of this aspect of the media business. If you want to take my recommendation, grab a copy from Amazon here. The strength of the “blockbuster” is that when a media company gets one, money rains in torrents. The problem is that when the blockbuster flops, the advance and the effort goes to the remainder bin or direct to video. A publisher with a blockbuster that occurs with a textbook adoption cycle is in a pickle. The risk of losing the text adoption for an economics or psych book can plunge the publishing company into a sea of red ink. The narrowing margins mean that the costs of updating become more burdensome over time. Like I said, pickle.
Ms. Neary wrote:
Publishing has been always a gamble… no one really knows what will take off is part of the fun. But he thinks these days the stakes are getting too high, with the publishers taking all the risks and writers getting paid whether the book sells or not.
My conclusion: publishing companies’ business strategy is pretty similar to my Harrod’s Creek neighbor who bets the farm on the flip of a card. I don’t have the nerves for this type of business model. I prefer to float in my mine run off choked pond and watch the wizards of traditional media deal with the information opportunities from afar. My network connection feeds by addled goose brain. I am not sure what sustains the publishing companies with the blockbuster tactic.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
True Knowledge: Semantic Search System
April 16, 2009
A happy quack to the readers who sent me a link to this ZDNet Web log post called “True Knowledge API Lies at the Heart of Real Business Model” here. I had heard about True Knowledge — The Internet Answer Engine — a while back, but I tucked away the information until a live system became available. I had heard that the computer scientist spark plug of True Knowledge (William Tunstall-Pedoe) has been working on the technology for about 10 years. The company’s Web site is www.trueknoweldge.com, and it contains some useful information. You can sign up for a beta account, read Web log posts, and get some basic information about the system.
About one year ago, the Financial Times’s Web log here reported:
Another Semantic Web company looking for cash: William Tunstall-Pedoe of True Knowledge says he needs $10m in venture capital to back the next stage of his Cambridge (UK)-based company, which is trying to build a sort of “universal database” on the Web.
In April 2009, the company is raising its profile with an API that allows developers to make Web sites smarter.
Interface. © True Knowledge
The company said:
True Knowledge is a pioneer in a new class of Internet search technology that’s aimed at dramatically improving the experience of finding known facts on the Web. Our first service – the True Knowledge Answer Engine – is a major step toward fulfilling a longstanding Internet industry goal: providing consumers with instant answers to complex questions, with a single click.
The company’s proprietary technology allows a user to ask questions and get an answer. Quite a few companies have embraced the “semantic” approach to content processing. The reason is that traditional search engines require that the person with the question find the magic combination that delivers what’s needed. The research done by Martin White and my team, among others, makes clear that about two thirds of the users of a key word search system come away empty handed, annoyed, or both. True Knowledge and other semantic-centric vendors see significant opportunities to improve search and generate revenue.
Architecture block diagram. © True Knowledge
Paul Miller, the author of the ZDNet article, wrote:
True Knowledge is certainly interesting, and frequently impressive. It remains to be seen whether a Platform proposition will set them firmly on the road to riches, or if they’ll end up finding more success following the same route as Powerset and getting acquired by an existing (enterprise?) search provider.
ZDNet wrote a similar article in July 2007 here. In 2008, Venture Beat here mentioned True Knowledge here in July 2008 in a story that referenced Cuil.com (former Googlers) and Powerset (now part of Microsoft’s search cornucopia). Hakia.com was not mentioned even though at that time in 2008, Hakia.com was ramping up its PR efforts. Venture Beat mentioned Metaweb, another semantic start up that obtained $42 million in 2008, roughly eight times the funding of True Knowledge. (Metaweb’s product is Freebase, an open, shared database of the world’s information. More here.) You will want to read Venture Beat’s April 13, 2009, follow up story about True Knowledge here. This article contains an interesting influence diagram.
I don’t know enough about the appetite of investors for semantic search systems to offer an opinion. What I found interesting was:
- The company has roots in Cambridge University where computational approaches are much in favor. With Autonomy and Lemur Consulting working in the search sector, Cambridge is emerging as one of the hot spots in search
- The language and word choice used to describe the system here reminded me of some Google research papers and the work of Janet Widom at Stanford University. If there are some similarities, True Knowledge may be more than a question answering system
- The company received an infusion of $4.0 million in a second round of funding completed in mid 2008. Octopus Ventures provided an earlier injection of $1.2 million in 2007.
- The present push is to make the technology available to developers so that the semantic system can be “baked in” to other applications. The notion is a variant of that used in the early days of Verity’s OEM and developer push in the late 1980s. The API account is offered without charge.
- There’s a True Knowledge Facebook page here.
I recall seeing references to a private beta of the system. I can’t locate my notes from my 2007 trips to the UK, but I think that may have been the first time I heard about the system. I did locate a link to a demo video here, dated late 2007 That video explains that the information is represented in a way “that computers can understand”. I made a note to myself about this because this type of function in 2007 was embodied in the Guha inventions for the Google Programmable Search Engine.
The API allows systems to ask questions. The developer can formulate a query and see the result. Once the developer has the query refined, the True Knowledge system makes it easy for the developer to include the service in another application. The idea, I noted, was to make enterprise software systems smarter. The system performs reasoning and inference. The system generates answers and a reading list. The system can handle short queries, performing accurate disambiguation; that is, figuring out what the user meant. The system made it possible for a user to provide information to the system, in effect a Wikipedia type of function. The approach is a clever way for the user to teach the True Knowledge system.
Monetizing Online: A Keeper for Newspaper CFOs
April 15, 2009
Please, click here to read “One Paper’s Online-Only Move Had Little Effect on Web Traffic, Study Says”, an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal’s Web log. The article describes the impact of shifting to online from traditional print for a sample of one. You can read a summary of the case example by an academic here. The study reveals that the newspaper suffered a decline in traffic. The assumption of the dead tree crowd was that online traffic would increase because readers of print would become readers of online news. Wrongo. For me the most interesting comment in the WSJ article was this statement:
“It doesn’t make for very pleasant reading,” he [WSJ source] acknowledges. “The Web is a fundamentally different medium, and you have to completely revise your expectations of how your audience is going to use your content if you’re publishing exclusively online.”
For more analysis of online, run a query on this Beyond Search Web log for “mysteries of online”. I posted a series of write ups that bring together observations and findings I have compiled over the last 30 years based on my experience in online. Hint: demographics and habit come into play. MBAs thinking often goes off the rails, but my, oh my, are the mavens confident. A zippy search system doesn’t work without traffic. Come to think about it, neither does online advertising.
Stephen Arnold, April 15, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
