Tweetmeme for Business
July 6, 2009
Tweetmeme is a real-time search engine provided by Twitter that gathers all links posted on Twitter and determines which are the most popular and categorizes them on the front page. Readers can easily subscribe to each of the available categories, gaining access to the most popular, up-to-the-minute content through their Twitter account.
Twitter and its tools are the latest rage in Social Networking and business should be taking full advantage of what they can offer. If your business posts a blog, Tweetmeme provides the freshest, most relevant topics to be used as inspiration for the blog posts. Business can also use Tweetmeme’s service to send out time-sensitive information to large groups of customers or prospects, such as a real estate agent using Tweetmeme to create a stream of relevant information for their blog or site.
Read more about what Tweetmeme can do for your business:
- http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/tweetmeme/
- http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/12/tweetmeme-launches-the-second-real-time-tweet-link-search-this-hour/
Melanie Van Nuys, July 6, 2009
Funnelback on the Move
July 5, 2009
Funnelback, an Australian enterprise search company, continues to land customers. In the US, the company licensed its search system to Pacific Network TV. Jim Tink posted a news story about the tie up on the Funnelback Web site. A reader in Australia told me that Funnelback has been added to the approved vendors list for the government of New South Wales. If you want more information about the company, you can explore the company’s Web site.
In a nutshell, Funnelback is a search system that includes a range of features, including folksonomy tagging, clustering, faceted navigation, and geospatial query processing. The company describes its system this way:
The core of the Funnelback search tool is its ranking function. Our ranking function combines many sources of evidence, such as the content and structure of the document, internal and external metadata, website structure, link structure, user interaction data, publication dates, and external textual annotations such as anchortext and tags. In order to achieve accurate and reliable rankings, we extract as much useful evidence as possible and weight it according to its value and reliability. All of the components of the system are well engineered and standards compliant while tolerant of prevalent violations of standards found in most applications. Data gathering components are able to recognize duplicate and near-duplicate content/sites. Our text filters reliably extract text content and metadata for indexing. Our link analysis tools recognize subtle affiliations as well as obvious ones. The indexer must know what to index and what not to index.
For more information, you can download Funnelback’s eight page white paper.
Stephen Arnold, July 5, 2009
Microsoft’s Revenue Vulnerability
July 5, 2009
Not long ago, I read an article by Glyn Moody. The story was “Why Microsoft Hates – No, Really Hates – ODF” here. The ODF stands for the Open Document Format. (You can learn more about this from the OASIS organization itself.) The idea is simple. Save text files in a format that is not proprietary.
The “hate” angle is, according to Glyn Moody, tethered to Microsoft’s dependence on revenue from its proprietary Office file formats. Open formats would make it easier for organizations struggling to pay hefty client access license fees to shift to another suite of application software. Glyn Moody mentions Open Office, but other options that cost less than Microsoft’s products exist.
For me the most significant part of the write up was:
What this means is that Microsoft is only making big money on its Office suite, for whose luxurious margins it must therefore fight tooth and nail. Which, judging by its behavior at the ISO, and some more recent stories, is exactly what it is doing in the face of growing pressure from open ODF-based alternatives like OpenOffice.org.
As I thought about her argument, I thought about the threat that Google’s push into the enterprise represents to Microsoft’s financial stability. Hypothetically Google could nibble away at Microsoft’s revenues from its breadwinning applications software products just enough to force Microsoft to dip into its cash reserve, raise prices, or make a foolish decision. Google does not have to win big to create a cash problem for Microsoft.
If Glyn Moody’s financial assertions are on target, Microsoft has a revenue vulnerability and a reason to fight initiative such as the ODF. I find it interesting to think about Microsoft having to undergo the type of staff reductions and cost cutting that Yahoo is now enduring.
Google does not have to do much or move quickly. Once the bleeding starts, Microsoft may have a tough time healing the many tiny wounds that Google seems to be trying to inflict.
Stephen Arnold, July 5, 2009
Lexalytics, Endeca and a Missing Search Box
July 5, 2009
I noted on the Lexalytics Web site a new design. I still lament the lack of a search box on the main page. I find that having to click and fumble is not as helpful as having a search system available to visitors. What makes it more unusual is that on the site I located this item, “Text Analytics – Enterprise Search”. The article explains that Lexalytics and Endeca have a business relationship. I also noticed that Lexalytics is a partner with Microsoft Fast. I wonder if either Endeca or Microsoft might gain from indexing the Lexalytics’ Web site and making a search function available. Google’s custom search engine is also available. The absence of a search box is:
- An oversight which is not positive for a company in the search and content processing business
- A business decision which makes me as a user do extra work
- Political because Lexalytics’ management can’t decide which of the partners’ systems to feature
- Something the addled goose is not sufficiently alert to discern.
I hope the search box makes an appearance soon. The big “add you email box” fooled me until I looked closely.
Stephen Arnold, July 5, 2009
Bing and Fail Over
July 4, 2009
Short honk: I had high hopes for Bing.com and its next generation, high availability data centers. The addled goose is inspecting goose ponds 4,000 miles from Harrods Creek and was not able to access Bing.com’s travel vertical. The goose thought he was at fault. I then read “Seattle Data Center Fire Knocks out Bing Travel, Other Web Sites” and learned that others were at fault. Whew. New acronym need: MGOL or Microsoft Goes Off Line.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Hadoop Caught in Loops
July 4, 2009
Dana Blankenhorn’s “Who Will Control Hadoop?” here raised an important question. The focus was close, but I considered his question in a broader context. Mr. Blankenthorn asked:
Do too many Hadoops spoil the code?
In a narrow sense, my view is let many flowers bloom. When the world was less fluid, flakey, and financially challenged, many efforts seemed like a good idea. Now, I am not so sure. Mr. Blankenthorn said:
But some reporters are beginning to ask who is really in charge of Hadoop. Is it Apache or Yahoo? Was Yahoo’s distribution a diss of Facebook, which previously developed its own Hadoop SQL, called Hive? Most projects have a community and a commercial arm. Hadoop’s importance has drawn a number of corporate sponsors to separately deliver their implementations. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook all have their own takes on Hadoop, alongside Apache and Cloudera. All these various Hadoops can be seen as a positive or a negative. As a positive, there is growth and momentum for the framework. As a negative, there are many organizations pulling Hadoop in different directions.
In a broad context, the value of open source software is that many hands working to create something that is not proprietary, not unstable, and not subject to the whims of a corporate titan is a foundation stone. On the other hand, fragmentation of an important technology makes some folks wary of open source.
The way online works is to reward one company with a virtual monopoly. This is a natural consequence of costs and user behavior. The problem is that when one outfit is in control, that organization follows the well worn path of profit and benefit maximization. That can’t be helped either.
In short, I think the same type of financial meltdown that has trashed some individuals’ plans for the future is likely to take place again. Tricky stuff, indeed.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Performance Fireworks: Microsoft Fast Fizzles, Google Explodes
July 4, 2009
I was sitting in an airport, and I clicked on a link for Microsoft Fast ESP. A video ran and presented me with a couple of professional fellows talking about Microsoft Fast search. The video was interesting, but I went back and snagged one screen frame from the presentation because it struck me as a way to explain the distance between the performance of Microsoft Fast and the performance of Google’s system. Now performance data for search systems is a murky area. I don’t want to get into a squabble about something being five times faster. The difference here makes a point, and I will leave it to Googlers and Microsofties to post corrected performance data in the Comments section of this Web log, assuming those companies’ professionals have time to read the thoughts of the addled goose.
First, the Microsoft data. Here’s the screenshot, and I want you to notice that the performance that is presented is five to 20 queries per second. That is pretty modest for a performance threshold even for a Microsoft team in Charlotte, North Carolina, where I have heard the pace of life is on par with Harrod’s Creek.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kTbcCNby8xE
I ask you to click here to look at the performance data I calculated for Google. The key point is that if the Google data are reasonably accurate, the Google is cranking along about about 1,700 queries per second. Even Yahoo appears to perform better than Microsoft Fast. See my write up here.
That’s a big gap. Assume the Google data are off by a factor of four. The Google is handling 400 queries per second. If we boost the Microsoft Fast performance by a factor of four to 20 queries per second to 80 queries per second, the Google appears to be the speed demon.
If you want performance fireworks, my thought is that the Google is the fire cracker if the data are correct.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Independence Day and the Internet as a Basic Human Right
July 4, 2009
I read a couple of weeks ago a short item in the Hindu here. The article’s title gave me pause: “Internet Access Is a Fundamental Human Right”. The story asserted:
The Internet has become such a part of today’s life, that it is now considered a necessity rather than a luxury. And, now a French court has ruled that access to the world wide web is a fundamental human right. “Under the Declaration of 1789 (founding principles of the Republic set down after the French Revolution), every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. “The Internet is a fundamental human right that cannot be taken away by anything other than a court of law, only when guilt has been established there,” the Constitutional Council in France has ruled.
Several comments:
- How will this right be fulfilled in such places as Soweto and similar infrastructure starved regions?
- Has the Internet become synonymous with communication, leaving its technology roots behind as unnecessary baggage?
- Will the leaders of countries eager to have hardware limit access to knowledge separate the “right of access” from the accuracy, completeness, and quality of the information available?
The addled goose struggles with politics and law. Hopefully the French will provide some exemplary implementations. I can think of a couple of areas in Marseille where a demo would be useful.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Ask, Search Marketing, and NASCAR – A Winner as NASCAR Attendance Drops
July 3, 2009
Michael Smith’s “Ask’s Next Question” provides a useful case study of search engine marketing. The story appeared in Sports Business Journal and reviews the Ask.com decision to put its marketing money into NASCAR, a rough around the edges version of the more sophisticated F1 series.
Beer, baseball caps, and barbeque characterize NASCAR, and Ask.com’s decision to build its Web search market share by sponsoring NASCAR was interesting. The approach was not original. The first search vendor to take this approach was Northern Light. That company sponsored a less blue collar race—the Indianapolis 500.
Mr. Smith wrote:
Examining the early returns, and despite the late start and a short 65-day window to conceive an activation program that launched at Daytona in February, the decision to leap into NASCAR seems to have paid off for Ask. Nielsen Online data shows that Ask’s market share has grown from 1.9 percent to 2.2 percent from January to June, although Ask remains fifth in the category behind ever-dominant Google, Yahoo!, MSN and AOL. Another Internet measurement company, comScore, has Ask fourth in the category.
That’s good news on the surface. The reality is that Google controls more than 65 percent of the search market, maybe as much as 75 percent. So, the question is, “How much did Ask.com spend for that 0.3 percent gain?” Another question I have is, “What other marketing opportunities have been lost because of the focus on the beer, baseball caps, and barbeque crowd?” I suppose that’s an unfair question, but it sure is fun to write “beer, baseball caps, and barbeque”.
These folks look like Web surfers to me. © Ask.com. Source: http://sp.ask.com/sh/i/a11/nascar/gallery/Talladega/800/ask_9_800.jpg
Mr. Smith added:
There’s also something about the fast-paced culture of a tech company that contributed to the rapid planning. In Ask’s office, results are measured daily. It’s in the company’s DNA to read and react quickly.
I think I would have said “bet the farm”, not “react quickly”. Ask.com strikes me as a company that has been struggling to find a niche. Lacking the marketing horsepower of Microsoft, the company has tried to find a short cut. No matter how enthusiastic the information in Mr. Smith’s write up, the pay off of 0.3 in share underscores the tough problem older search systems and newcomers alike face. I wonder if WolframAlpha.com will sponsor the English First Division Stoke City Football Club?
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2009
Vivisimo Lands HCPro Deal
July 3, 2009
Vivisimo has a new client. HCPro, a health care regulation and revenue cycle management company, will use the Velocity platform, to power MedicareFind.com. That Web site offers definable search of a comprehensive database of Medicare rules, regulations, and CMS documents governing reimbursement–a critical tool for many companies in the health care business. According to a press release here, “Velocity’s ease of implementation, flexible user interface and social search features were key business drivers in selecting Vivisimo to power MedicareFind.com.” MedicareFind.com is a part of HCPro Inc., a portfolio company of Halyard Investments. Halyard is a private equity firm with more than $600 million of capital under management focused on investing in media, communications, and business services companies. If this is the type of company Vivismo is getting contracts with, they may be an even bigger player in search very soon.
Jessica Bratcher, July 3, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
