Google Speak
July 28, 2009
Short honk: Google calls its “summer of code” an externship. You can find the reference in this Google Group’s post. I thought “summer of code” was an easy way for Google to spot future Googlers.
Stephen Arnold, July 28, 2009
Content Transformation: Easy, No. Expensive, Yes
July 27, 2009
Content transformation is an expensive proposition. I finished a project and learned that an in house information technology staff did not think about content transformation as a cost sink. The manager assumed that software handled most of the “heavy lifting.” The staff delegated the script fixes to deal with exceptions to contractors. The contractors billed their hours as “programming”. No one looked at the bills. A quick review by my researchers revealed that about one third of the information technology budget was consumed by content transformation; that is, taking information object A in one format and converting it into information object A1 with changes needed to make it indexable, searchable, findable, and updateable. In short, the technical budget was struggling with costs that no one took the time to look at from a bird’s eye view.
You can see why content transformation is expensive. There is a very useful write up from Sys-con outfit called “Processing XML with C# and .NET” with the subtitle “A solution that’s simpler than you might expect.” Yeah, right.
The guts of the article is a rundown of how to convert or transform XML with Microsoft’s tools. The most useful part of the write up is the included code snippets. Very nice. The omission, however, is commenting on how long it takes to adapt this code to handle exceptions from tera-scale information processing flows. There was a question in my mind about the performance of the methods based on the code samples. I also wanted to know, “How can one manage the many different variants of the scripts required to handle the rag tag collection of XML objects that flow through some search and content processing systems?”
To be fair, the write up was aimed at a certified Microsoft professional with a competence in Microsoft Dot Net and C#. The problem is, however, that the cost of this method is a big deal for the chief financial officer who has to budget for code fiddles.
The cost of transformation is a very big deal, and I think economical methods need emphasis. Methods that sell more expensive consulting are likely to run into some rough water.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
Chart for the AP and Its Fellow Travelers
July 27, 2009
The Associated Press wants to monetize its content. My hunch is that the move is designed to protect its state by state news service, which is of little or no interest to those under the age of 21. When content from the AP or its fellow travelers is shared, it is probably that the legal eagles will flock to services known to be sharing information.
What services are sharing content? Isn’t search a form of sharing?
Silicon Valley Insider created a useful chart pointing out that the sharers were Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, MySpace, and Microsoft. Email turned up in the list, but I am not sure if legal eagles can sue email. You can see the chart at Business Insider in the story “How People Share Content on the Web.” The Google makes the list, but it does not seem to leading in the sharing sector. Clean living on the part of Google or flawed data?
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
Bargain Basement Usability and SEO
July 27, 2009
I get asked about SEO and usability almost every day. Let’s get this fact out one more time: I like the dot command line interface and I think search engine optimization is a load of lignite coal.
But if you want to “fix up” your flawed Web site and maybe improve your Google ranking, then you will want to work through Web Designer’s Depot article “10 Tools to Improve Your Site’s Usability”. I located this article using the deeply flawed Digglicioius.com service. This outfit makes it impossible for me to get the source page’s url without extra effort. I posted a nasty gram to the Web site, but no action. No surprise there because Web site owners are trying to stay in business, avoiding the fate of TechFuga.com and SearchMe.com.
Among the more interesting tips in the article were these two points:
- Get free feedback about a Web site from Feedback Army
- Use the utility ClickTale to “see” what users really do when visiting your site.
My recommendation is keep the site simple and create original, compelling content. Last time I checked indexing robots don’t pay much attention to arts and crafts, delusions from those with MFA degrees, or color.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
NSA Chases Clouds
July 27, 2009
I was in New York City when Information Week published “NSA Using Cloud Model for Intelligence Sharing” by J. Nicholas Hoover. Public information about the NSA from the NSA is like a Twinkie. Looks good, but I am not sure of the calorie content. The notion of intelligence agencies using cloud services is one that has been around since the days of timesharing. There is too much data pushed to analysts, so technologies that allow the work to be distributed are essential.
For me the most interesting factoids from the story were:
- The fact that the author appears to have spoken to people familiar with the NSA is interesting. What’s with the public relations push? That’s a question of interest to me. Maybe in the new administration other intelligence outfits are getting more traction, and the NSA wants its four wheel drive to bite into the hillside. Don’t know. The context of the story was happily omitted by Information Week.
- This statement gave me pause: “The NSA effort is part of Intelligence Community Directive 501, an effort to overhaul intelligence sharing proposed under the Bush administration. Current director of national intelligence Dennis Blair has promised that intelligence sharing will remain a priority.” What’s clear is that a Bush directive is now getting attention. Quite a quick start in my view. The issue, however, is silos.
In short, the write up raised more questions than it answered.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
Open Source Dust Up
July 27, 2009
The idyllic scene is a group of math and computer wizards working in cheery surroundings. There are energy drinks, snacks with salt and sugar, and headphones dangling from necks and pockets. There is the “summer of code”, a glorified NFL training camp for programmers. There are love fests sponsored by a northern California publisher with muted conversations, balmy nights, and nerdly interaction.
That’s the myth of open source.
The reality is clear in the headlines of a flurry of articles hopping on a bandwagon pushed down the RSS highway. Miguel Helft, one of the writers at the smaller but profitable New York Times, wrote “For Mozilla and Google , Group Hugs Get Tricky.” You may be able to read the story online but if not, you can become a “member” of the New York Times or just look in the hard copy paper as I did. It arrived wrinkled and torn, but it did arrive in Harrod’s Creek this sunny morn.
The point of the story was in my opinion:
For starters, Mozilla and Google have long had an agreement that makes Google the standard home page when people start Firefox, and sends them to Google when they type something into the search box at the top of the browser. Google pays Mozilla hefty fees in return. The deal accounted for 88 percent of Mozilla’s $75 million in revenue in 2007, according to its most recent tax filings, and it was recently renewed through 2011. (The gusher of income from Google prompted the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation to set up a taxpaying subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation, in 2005.)
So open source goodness is about money. Big surprise.
Open source has a tendency to become a commercial quagmire after the base open source fractures into different armed camps. What’s the implication for open source as outfits like Google and Microsoft (reluctantly or enthusiastically) join the “community”?
- Market forces will disrupt the idyllic scene described in the first paragraph of this blog post
- Commercial companies will find clever (maybe too clever?) ways to claim open source as their preferred mode while finding ways to protect their money and possibly their code
- Proprietary services wrapped around open source in the IBM mode.
What’s this mean for individuals and organizations? Some financial benefits and an ankle bracelet, not handcuffs. Is open source the “silver bullet” for costs, flexibility, and features in the present financial climate? It is a partial solution that may well follow the well worn ruts from enterprise software SUVs driving to the open source love fests. There’s money selling water, T shirts, and other essentials to those at love fests.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
AdAge Realizes Google Is Scary
July 26, 2009
Ooooh, I am nervous now. The Google is 11 years old, disrupting business sectors left and right, and today I learned that AdAge realizes Google is scary. Nothing like a quick response from the Mad Ave crowd. You must read Simon Dumenco’s “The Coming Google Apocalypse (Hint: It’s Not Just About Media).” Maybe it is a bit late for this insight to provide much “advance warning” to the Mad Ave clients who have chugged along, fueled by indifference and technological confidence? Well, there are legal eagles who will come to the Mad Ave crowd I suppose.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Hello, Censorship and the New Web
July 26, 2009
Short honk: Lots of agitation about the alleged blocking of AT&T customers from the 4chan.org Web site. You can get some background by running a query on Google News. With regard to search: finding information on blocked sites is difficult. What are the implications of utilities blocking access to Web sites? Anyone remember Joe Stalin’s approach to information? If the information is not there, no problem with confusing options or messy information.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Media Moguls Want Money the Old Way. We Pay Them
July 26, 2009
I found the Bloomberg story “Diller Calls Free Web Content a ‘Myth, Joins Refrain” useful for my snippet file. I am doing a talk for the Magazine Publishers Association, and I want some current quotes to make clear the hopes and beliefs of media moguls. Mr. Diller knows how to make money. His judgment is not quite so good when it comes to Web search. He is the proud owner of Ask.com, the search engine of NASCAR. This is a sport that is struggling just like most Web search companies. At least eHarmony.com did not make the match up.
The Bloomberg story runs down some examples of media executives’ plans for getting those who connect to the Internet to pay for content. You can work through the examples yourself and decide which approach is right for you.
My thought after reading the story was that the information on my Web site and in this marketing blog is free. I run some Google ads, but the revenue doesn’t pay for Tess’s heartworm medicine. I don’t charge for the information available from ArnoldIT.com. I even have a couple of monographs available for free if you click around and do some hunting.
So categorical assertions aside, this Web log costs a reader nothing. I don’t market the Web log. I don’t care if people are annoyed at the comments the addled goose makes.
I think the point is that as long as there are individuals who have time and some ideas to share, there will be free content on the Internet. In fact, for a person wanting to keep track of the topics covered in Beyond Search, some of the for fee information comes in a distant second to what I provide.
The difference, of course, is that I have a reasonably zippy business model compared to traditional information companies. I don’t have to huff and puff. I don’t have to deny that the older models are not as flexible as they once were. I don’t have shareholders to reassure.
For that reason, there will be information available to anyone with an information connection as long as this addled goose can paddle and a handful of fellow geese flock to the information opportunities of the Internet. Quack.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Lucene / Solr to Bite the Big Search Dogs
July 26, 2009
Matt Asay’s “Open Source Lucene Threatens Microsoft, Google Enterprise Search” is a thought-provoker. The hook for the story is a chart from Indeed.com that shows hiring for Lucene, Solr, and Hadoop experts is on the rise. Matt Assay reported that he spoke with Lucid Imagination’s chief technical officer. Lucid Imagination is a hybrid company. The core is open source, and in my opinion, the firm will “wrap” proprietary services and possible products around the open source core.
The question is, “Is open source a threat to Microsoft and Google?” Several observations:
- Google plays the open source card. One might suggest that if open source wins, then Google will benefit. Google, after all, is plumbing, not just search. The fact that search is part of Google’s plumbing has some interesting implications. I, therefore, don’t buy the open source threat to Google.
- Microsoft is another kettle of fish. Microsoft faces a challenge from itself, Google, and open source. If the Microsoft Fast Enterprise Search Platform flops, Microsoft will bundle it with SharePoint and give it away as a utility. Microsoft-centric shops and those who see a steady paycheck as a SharePoint engineer will jump at this offer.
Where does open source search fit? I think there will be interest from organizations suffering cash crunches. The notion of no license fees and cafeteria style, open consulting is appealing. Start ups will find open source attractive as well. Some government agencies will follow the Obama administration’s suggestion that open source is good.
But—and this is a big “but”—open source firms must demonstrate that they can market, sell, deliver, and generate revenue from engineering and consulting services. The future to me looks like small open source search outfits that will be gobbled up by giants looking to control their ecosystem. Lemur Consulting is one acquisition opportunity. The lesser known Tesuji is another. Oracle pulled this trick with the Sun Microsystems buy out. Whither MySQL? Maybe no where. IBM is an open source champion. The company can sell services and tons of quasi-proprietary software, hardware, and partner services.
In short, open source is important. There are some twists not covered in Matt Asay’s write up, which strikes me as an article that could benefit from more analysis of the Google, Microsoft threat assertion. I don’t buy it.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
