Search Engine List
November 22, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to this list of more than 200 search engines. We maintain our own list here at the goose pond, but we want to give our two or three readers a chance to see the kaleidoscope of choices available with a mouse click. A few on this list stirred fond memories of past eras of search; for example, Excite and its famous index updating quirks and the marketing unfriendly Dieselpoint ecommerce system. We noted three that were a bit of a surprise to us; to wit:
- Fast Search & Transfer identified as a company that was formerly Convera. I bet that’s surprise to the liquidated Convera investors, the Norwegian police team investigating. I think the info in the list’s description is off kilter.
- Rollyo. I had not thought about this semi-custom search engine service.
- And Accoona. I recall a bit of a dust up between this company and some constituents. According to the Search Engine List, Accoona is alive and well as part of Masterseek B2B.
There’s more, and I will leave the exploration to you.
Stephen Arnold, November 22, 2009
Oyez, oyez, Library of Congress. I was not paid to write this short article about the Search Engine List. If I had any money, I would hire one of my researchers to lend this site a helping hand.
Google Baby Steps to Video Conferencing Outfits
November 21, 2009
Video conferencing, telepresence, and plain old conference calls with PowerPoint decks on Scribd must feel like the the Mandubii tribe behind the walls of Alesia. The Mandubii probably had little interest in long term holiday planning. Caesar made it clear that Alesia and its inhabitants were not going to have a long, happy life. The Google, moving with baby steps, has cranked up its digital legions to march on Polycom, Cisco, Webex, GoToMeeting.com, and any other outfit in the video conferencing business. I know the “experts” will point out that the Google cannot do much to win the hearts and minds of big spenders like the Department of Defense. My view is that the “experts” may want to recalibrate their thinking. I found this article interesting: “Free Video Conferencing from Google.” The business hooks was lacking but the basic idea is clear. One question that “experts” may want to answer requires a quick look in the musty Econ 100 textbooks. I think the index may have an entry for “predatory pricing”. Worth a quick look. That “free” word is an annoyance in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
Okay, this is one I want to report to the Federal Communications Commission. No one paid me to point to the source article.
Exalead and Real Travel
November 21, 2009
I noted “Real Travel Chooses Exalead CloudView Search” in the SEO Journal. I have been a fan of the Exalead technology for a number of years. You can read an exclusive interview with Exalead’s founder in my Search Wizards Speak series. The last time I was in Paris, one of the Exalead engineers took me to Tennessee Fried Chicken for some “real southern” fried cooking.
The news is that Real Travel will “will use Exalead CloudView to deliver a ‘smart’ search-based application designed specifically for the travel industry.”
According to the Ulitzer, Inc. story:
“We [Real Travel] needed a powerful search solution that could scale with us and effectively integrate traditional travel data with unstructured web information,” said Ken Leeder, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Real Travel. “After a thorough review, our search and data architects concluded that a partnership with Exalead would enable us to accelerate our development efforts and provide travel shoppers with the rich information they need to plan their next trip.”
A happy quack to the Exalead team. Oh, Tennessee is noted for its Bar-B-Que and whiskey. Kentucky is horses, bourbon, and KFC.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
To the Department of Agriculture: I was not paid in comestibles or cash to write this article about Exalead.
Google and Its Desired Repositories
November 21, 2009
I find “desired repositories” quite enticing. I was going to call this write up “A Repository Named Desire” but I was fearful that some lawyer responsible for the Tennessee Williams’ play would object. Most of the Sergey-and-Larry-eat-pizza Google pundits follow the red herrings dragged by the Googlers toward the end of each week. Not me. I pretty much ignore the Google public statements because those have a surreal quality for me. The messages seem oddly disconnected from what Google’s deep thinkers are * actually doing *. When Google does a webinar, it is too late for the competitors to do much more than go to their health club and work off their frustrations.
That looks simple. From US20090287664. Notice that the types of repositories are extensible.
If you want to see some of the fine tuning underway with the Google plumbing, take a peek at 20090287664, Determination of a Desired Repository. This is a continuation of a 2005(!) invention in case you thought the method looked familiar. You can find the write up at your favorite US government Web site, the USPTO. (Don’t you just love that search interface. Someone told me that the search engine was from OpenText, and I am trying to verify that statement.)
Here’s what caught my attention:
A system receives a search query from a user and searches a group of repositories, based on the search query, to identify, for each of the repositories, a set of search results. The system also identifies one of the repositories based on a likelihood that the user desires information from the identified repository and presents the set of search results associated with the identified repository.
Seems obvious, right? Now think of this at Google scale. Different problem? It is in my book. What has the Google accomplished? Just one claim. Desired repositories at Google scale.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
Again, I want to report to the USPTO that I was not paid to write yet another cryptic comment about a Google plumbing invention.
Medical Disinformation: Is My Doc Getting Dis-Info?
November 21, 2009
I read an article, which if spot on, troubled me. The story appeared in TechDirt with the catchy title “Senate Exploring Med School Profs Putting Names On Ghostwritten Journal Articles In Favor Of Drugs.” I have some modest experience in the halls of Congress, and I have heard about the influence of big pharma. As a result, I am doubtful that much traction will come from the drag strip tires slapped on the information highway over this matter. Nevertheless, let me point you to the passage in the article that I found memorable:
…often the pharma companies would ghostwrite articles, and then get professors to basically put their names on the works, which were designed to emphasize the benefits of certain drugs, while hiding or de-emphasizing the risks.
My father is ill, and I am concerned about his care. The idea that some medications may not work as “advertised” bothers me. Heck, I take some medications. What about me? Maybe this marketing stuff has strayed outside the faded white lines on the information highway?
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
I think I will disclose to the US Senate Sergeant at Arms that I was not paid to write this article. Think it will help? Will some online vendors charge for possibly incorrect marketing collateral?
Google and Artificial Anchors
November 20, 2009
Folks are blinded by Chrome. What might be missed is what’s often overlooked—Google’s plumbing. Once you have tired of the shiny, bright chatter about Microsoft’s latest reason for its fear and loathing of Google, you may want to navigate to the USPTO and download 20090287698, “Artificial Anchor for a Document.” Google said:
Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products, for linking to an intra-document portion of a target document includes receiving an address for a target document identified by a search engine in response to a query, the target document including query-relevant text that identifies an intra-document portion of the target document, the intra-document portion including the query relevant text. An artificial anchor is generated, the artificial anchor corresponding to the intra-document portion. The artificial anchor is appended the address.
The system and method has a multiplicity of uses, and these are spelled out in Googley detail in the claims made for this patent application. In this free Web log, I won’t dive into the implications of artificial anchors. I will let you don your technical scuba gear and surf on the implications of artificial anchors. Chrome is the surface of the Google ocean. Artificial anchors are part of the Google ocean. Big, big difference.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
I want to disclose to the USPTO itself that no one paid me to be cryptic in this article.
MailArchiva: An Open Source Email Archiving Tool
November 20, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Junauza.com’s article “Open Source Email Archiving Software”. I was not aware of this software. With lawsuits all the rage, you may want to download this package and keep in handy. One never knows. The passage below provides the necessary links:
MailArchiva actually comes in two editions: the Open Source Edition (OSE) and Enterprise Edition (EE). See HERE to compare their features. If you want to download MailArchiva, you will have to sign-up HERE first.
I am downloading now. And if you have a corrupt email file, you may want to take a look at DiskGetor Data Recovery. There is a trial version.
Stephen Arnold, November 20, 2009
I want to disclose to the US Post Office that I was not paid to write about email which is rendering said institution somewhat out of step. You can’t lick email.
American Online Tries a Jarring HR Play
November 20, 2009
I try not to think much about America Online, aka AOL. I have not been thrilled with the company’s use of the Relegence.com technology, which I quite like. I heard that at one time AOL used the Fast Search & Transfer SA system, so I did not need to waddle my goose tail down that well worn path. I am really tired of Fast ESP and I think that unless I missed something, the Fast ESP technology was not the main event at the Microsoft developers’ conference or at the Microsoft shareholders meeting. If I overlooked an announcement, please, send me the links. What blipped my radar this afternoon at the BWI airport was this story: “We Need to Fire 2,500 Volunteers”. My goodness. Airplanes cannot be controlled. There’s crazy talk about President Obama from a taxi driver who earned $11 in seven hours on the job. The dollar is not exactly the currency of choice in some * big * countries. Against these warps, the woof from AOL that the company wants volunteers to be terminated. The notion is disturbing. Just call it straight:
Stephen Arnold, November 20, 2009
I want to report to the National Park Service that AOL did not pay me to write this opinion. In fact, a confused antelope would not have have paid me any attention for this story.
Telling Google What to Do: A New Sport
November 20, 2009
I am sitting in a tech briefing but my RSS reader pinged and delivered this article “Five Reasons Why Google Should Not Sell Handsets”. I have noticed that tech publications are delving into business consulting. Maybe I am hypersensitive, but I think that in the hunt for readers, the notion of offering Harvard Business Review type information is taking precedence over technology. This article offers reasons why Google should not do something that is as yet a rumor. My hunch is that the article is may be speculation about speculation. That’s okay, but are the reasons set forth based on a solid business foundation. I don’t want to repeat the five points. I will highlight one and offer a comment:
It would alienate handset makers – Unless Google believes it can become the King of Smartphones the way it already dominates search, how do you justify what a Google-branded phone would do to the rest of the industry? Why would anyone want to support Android with Google selling against them?
On the surface,the idea makes sense. Most businesses don’t want to annoy established vendors working in well known ways. The problem is that Google is not always ready to follow the parade. Examples abound. The IPO and the focus on search are two business examples. The result was that Google pretty much does what it wants. If someone gets with the program, that’s okay with Google. If not, Google moves on. Two years ago most telcos would have scoffed at the idea of Google as a global telco player. And today?
My thought is that if tech publications want to drift into the balmy seas of the good ship HBR, the business analyses should be based on facts, not opinions. Oh, just my opinion by the way.
Stephen Arnold, November 20, 2009
I wish to disclose to the FCC that no one paid me to offer this comment from the sidelines.
Google Chrome OS Means Bad News for Microsoft
November 20, 2009
Yesterday one of the goslings used a Windows computer to hook into one of my Macs. The reason was that the Mac’s Unix operating system ran certain tools needed for some mobile software development. I would have skinned the cat a different way, but he is younger than I, much younger. I thought of this exiting from Windows to use Unix tools when I read “The Future of Linux is Google.” If the write up is accurate, this means more than a Google news conference to talk about Chrome as an operating system. The implications are that Windows in all of its multifaceted glory will have an even more annoying issue to address. Google needs to bleed some revenue from the Microsoft franchise. That weakening may be what is needed to make this digital Hertz Avis situation more interesting. The just might be some legs under that open source horse.
Stephen Arnold, November 19, 2009
I need to disclose to the Third Army stable detail that this post with its horse reference was not funded by an equine or human source. Nay or neigh?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
