What Makes a Blue Chip Outfit? Maybe People?
June 26, 2010
Short honk: Easy to answer. Navigate to Business Week, the $5 million magazine. Skip Associated Content, the $90 million info machine. Read “Google, McKinsey, Goldman Tops with MBAs.” The top students at Kobe beef raising grad schools get herded to Google, McKinsey, and Goldman. What happens to those folks not in this elite segment of each business school class? I am not sure. Maybe some folks work at BP or in a municipal government office in Brooklyn? For me, the most interesting comment in Business Week’s story was:
Google was favored by nearly 1 out of 4 MBAs, with McKinsey a distant second at 15%. Three investment banks (JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley, plus Goldman) made the top 15, while three others (Bank of America, Credit Suisse, and Barclays Capital) made the top 25. With MBAs searching high and low for jobs during the recession, there were shake-ups throughout the list. Johnson and Johnson, Nestle, and Unilever all moved up in the rankings. And shifting priorities brought a few newcomers in to the ranking, including Teach for America.
The best students from the top schools go to the blue chip firms. What happens when Google hires more MBAs than engineers? I can’t imagine.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
Enterprise 2.0? How Is That Working for You?
June 26, 2010
At my SLA Spotlight session on June 15, 2010, I was asked my opinion about the most recent Internet tempest-in-a-teapot discussion. On one side are university boffins who argue that new media open new doors. On the other side, are stick-in-the-mud pundits who explain that tweeting kills one’s brain.
I said, “I don’t have much of an opinion. I am too old and too set in my ways to get excited about the hot new gizmos that some folks trot out like show horses.” My questioner wanted more sizzle and drifted away. I haven’t given the Enterprise 2.0, real time tweet, and Facebook friend worlds much thought. To be truthful, I have given it zero thought since June 15, 2010.
A few moments ago I read “Enterprise 2.0 Can Make Us Inefficient: Use in Moderation.” I realized that this most recent philosophy discussion means zip. If an organization can’t pay its bills, it is a flop. I don’t think tweets or fooling around with an iPhone will have much to do with it. Customers vote with their dollars. No votes, out of office.
Distractions come in many forms. Those who lack the ability to focus on a job will demonstrate that fine characteristic whether there is an iPad clutched in a hand or eyeballs directed at a YouTube.com video.
Who can disagree with moderation? Those at either end of the spectrum. The problem is that moderation does not sell enterprise solutions. So, how is that Enterprise 2.0 promise working for you? Is your company rolling in dough? Raising salaries? Reducing the work day? Increasing bonuses? Thought not.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
Search Vendors Try New Sales Hooks
June 25, 2010
Forget the surveys that companies run to make clear the problems in information access. Anyone who looks for information today knows that pinpointing information to answer a business question is not exactly bulletproof. Recommind, once a vendor anchored in the legal market, stretched its wings into the enterprise. My recollection is that some of the company’s technology reminded me of Autonomy’s original approach. Now Recommind seems to be pushing into a different space, one that combines indexing, risk management, some MBA speak, and a dash of legal lingo. Navigate to “Disconnect Between Legal and IT Getting Worse, Recommind Survey Reveals.”
In my experience, information technology organizations are definitely disconnected from most of the corporate functions. I don’t think IT is at fault. IT departments are trying to protect themselves from what I call “requests from the clueless.” I know business managers are under pressure. CFOs are wild eyed in their efforts to cut costs and maximize returns. The top executives are scrambling to find ways to buy their private island, get a new BMW, and create a life without BP scale risks, bloggers, and 20somethings who want to make their bones on the corpses of today’s market leaders. Many managers see a demo or chat with pals at the country club and come to the office on Monday with requests that are essentially impossible for an IT department to meet with available resources.
What’s the Recommind survey purport to tell me? IT and legal eagles are operating on different wave lengths. I need a survey to tell me this. I don’t even operate on the same wave length as my two attorneys and I pay these guys to try and help me. For me, here’s a quote that reveals more about client management and vendors than about IT departments:
At a time when e-Discovery and regulatory issues are gaining momentum, these results don’t exactly instill confidence across the enterprise.
Here’s my view of the situation:
- Certain vendors of search technology have to find a way to make sales to keep the money pipe full. The options are market like the devil or go to Satans’ spawn and get more funding. Which path would you take? I vote for marketing. I think these types of surveys are marketing efforts and when the results are released, I know the data are viewed by the survey sponsor as a way to generate sales leads.
- Obviously plain vanilla search is not a hot ticket. I think I was one of the first people to explain that search was dead in my Searcher article for Barbara Quint four or five years ago. No search vendor is going to bridge the gap between IT and the many over stressed units in an organization. Successful vendors find ways to solve problems, not tackle the management tensions that are human centric organizational issues.
- The new lingo does not convince me that content processing software can address deeper issues with management and governance.
You may have a different view, so read the survey results. Many search vendors have marketed themselves into a corner. Now organizations have to find solutions to information access problems. I don’t think there is much margin for error. Sure, some assert the economy is improving. That’s wonderful. But the glory days of search marketing are behind us, and I think more than catch phrases, house surveys, sponsored white papers, and fawning azure chip consultants will be needed.
Here’s my checklist for starters:
- Demonstrations that solve a problem
- Clear statements of what a findability-centric software system can and cannot do
- Avoidance of MBA crazy talk, jargon, unsupported assertions, and faux case analyses
- Partnerships that give a prospect confidence that the system can be made to work at a reasonable cost in a reasonable period of time
- Focus on solutions. Search and content processing vendors are not blue chip management consultants, never will be and probably cannot afford the ministrations of Bain, Booz, Boston Consulting, or McKinsey and, therefore, have little first hand information of what is required to tackle management challenges in an organizations.
Many search vendors are scrambling for a new sales hook. What approach will work? No clue have I.
Stephen E Arnold, June 25, 2010
Freebie
Semantic Search Retooled at Yahoo
June 25, 2010
Yahoo!’s Developer Network blog published a brief interview with Peter Mika, a wizard from Yahoo’s Research Division. The topic is semantic search, also the topic of a speech he delivered on the 19th, called “The future face of Search is Semantic for Facebook, Google, and Yahoo!”. But I wonder about the “growing interest” mentioned and how the short article frames semantic search as something that’s just now happening (“Semantic Search will also bring entirely new functionality.”) The future is already here; semantic search and developing metadata to use in search is fairly old hat. The article specifically mentions Sindice, a semantic search engine we noted in 2008. While I’m sure there’s good basic info on semantic search to be had, I’m more inclined to see this release as a pitch for Yahoo!’s SearchMonkey. In fact, how do these different semantic efforts fit together? Where’s the intersection with the Bing?
Jessica West Bratcher, July 25, 2010
Freebie
The Math Club Aces Its DMCA Test
June 25, 2010
Remember those tests with the weird scoring. An SAT whiz could get an 800. In Illinois, there was some odd duck Illinois State High School Test with a perfect score punching in a 25 or 30. The Google just scored big on its DMCA test. I learned about this skunking of Viacom in “Four Copyright Lessons From Google’s Viacom Victory.” Now I was not convinced about the lessons, but I did understand:
Earlier today, Judge Louis Stanton put his stamp on a case that the media and legal worlds have been waiting three years to see resolved: Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit against Google over its allegedly copyright-infringing clips on YouTube. Google walked away victorious, though Viacom has promised an appeal.
One highlight of the write up is a link to the decision. I will leave it to legal eagles to rip the entrails from this chunk of jurisprudential prose.
Is this a big deal? For now, the Math Club looks like the best in its class. The dunce cap fits squarely on the head of the oh-so-confident lawyers directing the Viacom assault. Will these advisors wear their new headgear in Washington, DC and New York, NY instead of the trendy worn baseball cap?
The Googlers may be wearing beanies with propellers and LCD lights tomorrow. The only possible draw back is that Viacom allegedly will appeal. Another round of billing means that BMW and condo sales will be healthy for the partners in the months and years ahead.
For Viacom, my hunch is that there will be some fire and brimstone from Sumner Redstone. The Viacom big dog may be interested in some ankle biting. Round 2 will be underway soon.
Stephen E Arnold, June 25, 2010
Freebie
Facebook Goes for Graph Curated Web Search
June 25, 2010
I whipped up the phrase to explain what Facebook is trying to do. Indexing the “Web” is an expensive proposition. Brute force indexing takes time. Google’s 1998 vision was clever, no Kleinbergian pun intended. Now Google continues to brute force index. The company has worked and invested to deal with the flood of new content and the changes to content already indexed. The real time content just adds to Google’s indexing challenge.
Is there a better way? Yep. Let people point out what pages they like and use these as a seed list. Then take a peek at what behaviors users evidence. Toss in some relationship analyses. Shake well. Serve to members. This is the recipe that Facebook hopes will put a needle in the steadily inflating Google search usage.
You can get the details in “Facebook Unleashes Open Graph Search Engine, Declares War On Google.” The write up has a dose of buzzwords. My take is easy to express.
First, cheaper. Facebook can index the content that members “like” and then add other content sources based on usage analysis and other number crunching. Google pays to index everything. Facebook indexes what users like and the math suggests will satisfy user information needs.
Second, advertising. With this approach to curated indexing, Facebook has a story to tell advertisers. Like Apple’s ad strategy, Facebook may be able to demand more dough because of the member behavior angle. Google may not be a Wal-Mart. Think Dollar General if Apple and Facebook can make their approach seduce advertisers.
Third, social. Google was in the running until Orkut got a flat tire. Google has not yet been able to close the gap between it and Facebook. Facebook, regardless of its weaknesses, seems to have figured out the hippy dippy social networking thing. I don’t get but other companies don’t either. Facebook has bolted search onto its juggernaut.
Interesting play. Will it work? I know that Microsoft will be rooting for Facebook and hoping its investment in the outfit pays off big time. A wounded Google would make some Microsofties happy, very happy.
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2010
Freebie.
Google and Its Pals: Similar to the Handling of Countries?
June 24, 2010
Developers are not countries. No armies, police, or bureaucracy. I read “Google Risks OEM Wrath for Unified Android UI Plan” and locked on the word “risk”. There is little short term risk in changing rules on the fly that leave developers with rising blood pressure. Open source can “fork”; that is, shatter into many little pieces. The notion of “unified” is what one allegedly gets when buying a commercial software system. The idea is that there is “one throat to choke.” According to the write up,
the top priority for the next Android update, codenamed Gingerbread, is to homogenize the user experience and address criticisms of fragmentation. This could severely curtail the freedom of licensees to create their own user interface overlays – most famously, Motorola’s Motoblur and HTC’s Sense.
What happens if Google forces developers to row the canoe in a cadence called by Google? What happens if a rower wants to set his or her own pace? Apple has never been shy about making it clear that there is one way to play the Apple game. Google seems to be discovering the wisdom of Jobs on the fly.
Some countries find Google’s facile behavior worthy of some attention. Developers can only complain. The question is, “Will the benefits of getting invited to a Google shindig be worth the costs, uncertainty, and figure-it-out-as-we-go approach that emerges from a 10 year old company trying to act like a start up?”
The “rogue coder” Wi Fi cuteness and the Bing-bang-gone splash page are just two examples of controlled chaos being more chaotic and less controlled. Apple and Microsoft may have Google unwittingly helping each company in the mobile space. Just my opinion. I really liked the unilateral image, the slow loading time, and the direct imitation of Bing. The action defines Google 2010, right? Minimal risk with unification, right? Android is open, right? (Lots of “rights”, right?)
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2010
Freebie
Google and the Wi Fi Mess
June 24, 2010
I have been trying to avoid writing any more about the Wi Fi harvesting mess. I am working on my for fee columns, and I am avoiding legal hassles. I feel obligated to document that although I am ignoring the dust up, others are not. I read in PCWorld “Google Under Multistate Privacy Microscope: How We Got Here” that now there is an alleged mutli state investigation gaining steam. That’s a big deal in my opinion. I am going to have to insert a reference in my columns to the issue. The problem continues to grow and seems to have taken on a life of its own. Here’s the passage in the PCWorld write up that caught my attention:
Google’s Wi-Fi data snooping brouhaha just got worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Monday announced his office is leading a multistate investigation into Google’s Wi-Fi data snooping gaffe. More than thirty U.S. states have already indicated interest in Blumenthal’s investigation.
With Google pushing aggressively into the enterprise, challenging Apple and Microsoft, and expanding its presence in mobile computing, this Wi Fi mess strikes me as Google’s oil spill. Instead of sea turtles, how many deals will die? As this Wi Fi spill spreads to multiple countries and now states in America, I thought about those Greek tragedies. I never understood how those at the top could find themselves in circumstances beyond their control.
Ah, lives of men! When prosperous they glitter – Like a fair picture; when misfortune comes – A wet sponge at one blow has blurred the painting. – Aeschylus
Remarkable turn of events.
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2010
Facebook Scaling
June 24, 2010
The service no one believes can grow may be slowing down. But Facebook remains a big dog site. Its users are happy campers asking other Facebook members where to find information. Others happily suck down Facebook videos, pictures, and ads. Whether the company is thinking about members’ privacy or feeling Googley, Facebook is barking and showing its teeth. If you want to know how the animal works, check out “Exploring the Software behind Facebook, the World’s Largest Site.” Don’t remind me that the Google may be bigger. I don’t care. I am suggesting you check out the information in the write up. For me, the most important message was open source. Useful links to Facebook information sources nestle within the write up as well. Worth reading and tucking in a reference file in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2010
Freebie
Real Time Search Systems, Part 4
June 24, 2010
Editor’s note: In this final snippet from my June 15 and June 17, 2010, lectures, I want to relate the challenge of real-time content to the notion of “aboutness.” An old bit of jargon, I have appropriated the term to embrace the semantic methods necessary to add context to information generated by individuals using such systems as blogging software, Facebook, and Twitter. These three content sources are representative only, and you can toss in any other ephemeric editorial engine you wish. The “aboutness” challenge is that a system must process activity and content. “Activity” refers to who did what when and where. The circumstances are useful as well. The “content” reference refers to the message payload. Appreciate that some message payloads my be rich media, disinformation, or crazy stuff. Figuring out which digital chunk has value for a particular information need is a tough job. No one, to my knowledge, has it right. Heck, people don’t know what “real time” means. The more subtle aspects of the information objects are not on the radar for most of the people in the industry with whom I am acquainted.
Semantics
I hate defining terms. There is always a pedant or a frustrated PhD eager to set me straight. Here’s what I mean when I use the buzzword “semantic”. A numerical recipe figures out what something is about. Other points I try to remember to mention include:
- Algorithms or humans or both looking at messages, trying to map content to concepts or synonyms
- Numerical recipes that send content through a digital rendering plant in order to process words, sentences, and documents and add value to the information object
- Figure out or use probabilities to take a stab at the context for an information object
- Spit out Related Terms, or Use For Terms
- Occupy PhD candidates, Googlers, and 20-something MBAs in search of the next big thing
- A discussion topic for a government committees nailing down the concept before heading out early on a Friday afternoon.
When semantics is figured out and applied, the meaning of Lady Gaga becomes apprehendable to a goose like me:
In order to tackle the semantics of a real time content object, two types of inputs are needed: activities or monitoring the who does what and when. The other is the information object itself. When the real time system converts digital pork into a high value wiener, the metadata and the content representation become more valuable than the individual content objects. This is an important concept, and I am not going to go into detail. I will show you the index / content representation diagram I used in my lectures:
The nifty thing is that when a system or a human beats on the index / content representation, the amount of real time information increases. The outputs become inputs to the index / content representation. The idea is that as the users beat on the index / content representation, the value of the metadata goes up.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
