Attensity: A New Angle
September 15, 2009
Attensity Group, http://www.attensity.com, is being smart and diversifying in the lousy economic climate. It’s pushing its Global Partner Network, already popular U.S. and Germany, worldwide. The network allows members to sell and distribute Attensity products; its comprehensive family of solutions (according to the company’s Web site) leverages semantic analytics to enable knowledge management professionals, business leaders, customer support personnel and customers to interpret and manage an organization’s unstructured data to get relevant and actionable answers — fast. This is deep extraction from spontaneous information sources like e-mail, texting, blogs, and web pages. Expanding this network not only revs up products sales but also provides Attensity with steady revenue from its share partners. We wish Attensity luck–most companies are looking to keep their chins above water in this economy, and Attensity is focused on growing for the future.
Jessica Bratcher, September 15, 2009
Forbes Taps Belief Networks for Semantics
September 15, 2009
Their are a number of what I would call publisher-centric information services. Examples range from Relegence.com (a unit of AOL, formerly Time Warner) to DayLife.com (funded in part by the New York Times Co.). Another outfit is Belief Networks. The Beyond Search team learned last week that Forbes.com will be using technology from Belief Networks, which specializes in semantic intelligence and predictive analytics, to power advanced search on its Web site. Belief Networks packages set up a semantic search that returns relevant advertising and content listings, including real-time social network entries and Twitter conversations. Forbes says it’s trying to “enrich” the web site experience and “engage” its readers. People go to Forbes.com looking for up-to-date or even before-the-date money- and business-focused topic matter. That’s why Forbes is looking to upgrade reader access to real time discovery and tracking of both structured and unstructured content. The Belief Networks’ method reminded us of the original Oingo service (which changed its name to Applied Semantics). Google acquired Oingo / Applied Semantics and made good use of the technology in a number of Google services. Perhaps Forbes will enjoy a similar Googley success?
Jessica Bratcher, September 15, 2009
Pragamatic Approach to the Free Business Model
September 15, 2009
Greg Sandoval conducted an interview with Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt. Mr. Masnick, like the addled goose, finds some of the antics of traditional publishing outfits amusing. The interview, in my opinion, is a must read. I want to quote one segment from the interview, which appeared on Cnet on September 13, 2009. The question Mr. Masnick answered was, “Are you profitable?” Mr. Masnick, according to the write up, replied:
We are profitable. The project itself has definitely been profitable. We didn’t want to set too high of expectations ourselves, we kind of wanted to see where it was going. Some of our basic assumptions we’ve learned were wrong but in a good way. We sort of naturally expected that least expensive levels would be the top sellers. That hasn’t been true. To date, the top seller has been the package called the Approaching Infinity Package, which is a book based on a series of Techdirt posts about understanding the economics and business models. We took those posts and expanded on it a little more. People are buying that package, which also comes with a T-shirt. It is our best seller so far.
I found this comment quite suggestive. The Disney approach of having collateral like T shirts and packages like a weekend package at Disneyworld strikes me as a potentially useful model to explore.
Stephen Arnold, September 15, 2009
Google Gives Traditional Media a Triumph
September 15, 2009
The Roman triumph celebrated certain military leaders. Google has appropriated the method and is showering content creators with technology, not flowers. In my opinion, the approbation is a political move to get publishers to work with Google (what I call “surfing on Google”), instead of fighting Google. I scanned a number of write ups about Fast Flip, Google’s new reading service. I found the Channel Web story — “Google Fast Flip: A Quick Browse through the News” – clear and concise. Will it work? Google is just as late in the building bridges business as the publishers are in the understanding Google business.
My view is that micropayments, AdWords type of administrative controls for a publisher’s content, and this type of reader technology were needed years ago. Both sides in this content dust up have made errors. Neither Google management nor the leaders of the publishing industry are likely to be mistaken for Mother Theresa. One example warrants a comment. As the rose petals and olive branches were being tossed, Google introduced another data management function that is going to have significant implications for those in the data and statistics business. “Liberate Your Data!” Yep, but from whom? Publishing and other commercial organizations. Google is a tactical player. It is a good idea to know what the game is, however.
Stephen Arnold, September 14, 2009
Bing and the UX
September 15, 2009
User experience is a big deal in the Microsoft search universe. UX is short hand for user experience. The idea is that style and flash are essential to building traffic and habituating users. I think that for some people the interface is a big deal as long as the search results are relevant and the information useful. The “new” visual search feature for Bing.com will force the dowdy Google search box to take some action. There is a tit for tat interaction in search at this time, and I am not sure if the search war arms race will end any time soon. The US and the USSR sniped at one another for half a century before the economic foundations of the USSR underwent a radical phase change. You can see a screen shot of the new (albeit limited use) visual search output on Cnet.com. The image appears in the story “Microsoft Launches Bing ‘Visual Search’”.
Source: Microsoft http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/search/archive/2009/09/14/visual-search-why-type-when-you-can-see-it.aspx
Megite and TechMeme have dozens of links to stories explaining the ins and outs, the ups and downs, and even the flips and flops of this innovation. One post I found interesting was Microsoft’s own “Visual Search – Why type When You Can See It?” The best part of the write up was the question, “Why type when you can see it?” Why, indeed? I think that visual search works for information objects that are visual. I am not sure how I would locate information on Riemann manifolds. A picture of an equation might be helpful to some, but I think certain topics require words.
Several observations on visual search are warranted:
- Focusing on the visual experience is important. But the plumbing – that is, the underlying index of content, the metatags for context, and the refreshing of the index – has to be pretty darned good. Pictures of a digital cameras can be useful but if the images are last month’s model, I don’t think the pictures will be too useful.
- The Apple approach to interface is usually (though not always) supported by Apple hardware. When the interfaces are attempted on underpowered machines, the interfaces become an annoyance. Apple’s advantage, if it has one, is that it controls hardware and software. Similar controls are not in place for Microsoft’s interfaces. Also, Microsoft’s own interfaces vary with product families; for example, the method of changing a font size varies within Word, Visio, and PowerPoint. UX is easy to spell and say. I think it is harder to do in a consistent, speedy implementation.
- UX can shift attention from what really matters in search; that is, the robustness of the metadata and the depth of the content pool. Google and Microsoft appear to be similar in many search results I examine. The difference often boils down to hits that are findable in Google but not in Microsoft’s Bing. I have a hunch that the Google index depth is greater than Bing.com’s. A Microsoft professional asserted to me that Bing.com’s index was equivalent to Google’s. I have no firm evidence to dispute this assertion.
Will UX lead to dominance in search? Good question.
Stephen Arnold, September 15, 2009
Googley Real Time Search
September 14, 2009
Manipulating Google urls is a bit of an exotic hobby, probably less popular than polo in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky. I wanted to pass along a tip that appeared in the Google Operating System Web log, “Even More Recent Google Search Results.” The GOS blog points to Ran Geva as the person who discovered a way to get Google to display the mosst recent index updates for a query. The syntax is, according to GOS:
The date restriction feature is quite flexible, but you need to know the syntax used by Google’s URLs: tbs=qdr:[name][value] where [name] can be one of these values: s (second), n (minute), h (hour), d (day), w (week), m (month), y (year), while [value] is a number.
Here is an example for the query “obama”: http://www.google.com/search?q=obama&tbs=qdr:s45
To make Google real time search user friendly, just create a short cut to a known good query and then substitute your own search string after the q=. If you have a good memory, use the string tbs=qdr:[name][value]. The name value pair allows you to control the time interval.
If you prefer point-and-click real time search, keep specialists such as Collecta, ITpints, Scoopler, or one of the user friendly services in mind.
Stephen Arnold, September 14, 2009
Google Opens Up Its Digital Books
September 14, 2009
I read an interesting news item on a Web site with which I have no familiarity. The site is Khabrein.info. The story was “Google Opens Up Its 10 Million Books Archive for Booksellers.” I knew Google was doing some soft shoe in an attempt to win over a hostile crowd for its book scanning slam dancing over the last five years. I did not know what the Khabrein Web site reported:
Google said in a statement that it believes strongly in an open and competitive market for digital books. “We will let any book retailer sell access to these books. Google will host the digital books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose…”
The story concluded with a strong statement: “Critics said that the proposal still left Google in near-complete control of the digital files.”
Stephen Arnold, September 14, 2009
Is Google Building a Star Trek Communicator?
September 14, 2009
The Google is assembling pieces of technology to perform some useful cross language functions. I recall seeing a Star Trek episode in which the Priceline pitchman or the pointy-eared wizard used a device to translate alien speech into Hollywood English. The question this patent application triggered in my mind was, “Is Google building a Star Trek communicator?” Read “Voice Recognition Grammar Selection Based on Context” (US20090228281) and see what you make of this description.
The subject matter of this specification can be embodied in, among other things, a method that includes receiving geographical information derived from a non-verbal user action associated with a first computing device. The non-verbal user action implies an interest of a user in a geographic location. The method also includes identifying a grammar associated with the geographic location using the derived geographical information and outputting a grammar indicator for use in selecting the identified grammar for voice recognition processing of vocal input from the user.
I think this is science fiction. Well, maybe only science semi-fiction.
Stephen Arnold, September 14, 2009
ZDNet Education Writer Wants Google Get a Break for Books
September 14, 2009
Wow. I wonder if cheerleading and supporting Google is going to be the new black. “Give Google a Break!” argues:
This book scanning thing is getting completely out of hand. I want Google to make money. I want them to make lots of it because that means that all of the services I use for free will remain free. It also means that they will have the capital to keep moving forward with bringing millions of books into the digital (and public) domain and advance the technology that will help electronic texts go mainstream.
I heard a similar sentiment on a recent Adam Carolla podcast. Mr. Carolla pointed to the profit motive as the reason for progress by pharmaceutical companies. I think Mr. Carolla is an entertainer and television / movie star. Is the method of argument the same in show business and the ZDNet Education online publication the same? Just slightly congruent? Anyone have a view point? I am undecided on this matter, but I think this is a step toward what I called the Pogue Opportunity in my essay “The Pogue Problem, Maybe the Future Opportunity?”
Stephen Arnold, September 14, 2009
Coveo Launches Thought Leader Initiative
September 14, 2009
Interesting item crossed my desk this evening (September 11, 2009): “Coveo Announces Thought Leaders of Enterprise Search – Seminar Series”. The news item stated:
[Coveo] announced the first seminar in its Thought Leaders of Enterprise Search – Seminar Series, taking place Thursday, October 1st, 2009, at Haley & Aldrich headquarters in Boston, MA. The Series will also be held in New York, San Jose, Brussels and Montreal.
The idea is to feature a customer describing the benefits of using the Coveo technology for enterprise search, content processing, and discovery. The Beyond Search team thinks this is a very good idea.
Stephen Arnold, September 14, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
