Concept Searching Ads from Content Analyst
October 21, 2013
Another search vendor is buying Google ads embedded in content. Attivio has been a heavy user of online advertising based on my clicking and reading. What’s interesting is that this ad is embedded in an article about publishing. I was not logged in as a stateful user. Here’s the ad in context:
The advertiser is Content Analyst. This company has been a low profile outfit in terms of marketing. Will the ad in third party content “work” and make Concept Searching the next Autonomy? I don’t know. My hunch is that unlike Adsense, these embedded ads may be part of Google’s increasing effort to monetize anything it can. As a consumer of content, I find these embedded ads annoying and I skip them.
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2013
Oracle and Open Source
October 21, 2013
I will be giving my last public talk in 2013 at the upcoming Search Summit. I am revealing some data about the trajectory of commercial search versus free and open source search. My focus is not just on costs. I will address the elephant in the room that few of the sleek search poobahs elect to ignore—management.
As part of my preparation, I read an interesting public relations and positioning white paper from Oracle. The essay is “The Department of Defense (DoD) and Open Source Software.” You should be able to locate a copy at the Oracle Middleware Web page. But maybe not. Well, take that up with Oracle, Google, and whoever indexes public Web pages.
The argument in the white paper is that open source is useful within the context of commercial software. The premise is that a commercial company develops robust products like Oracle’s database and then rigorously engineers that product to meet the tough standards imposed by the US government. Then, canny engineers will integrate some open source software into that commercial solution. The client—in this case the Microsoft loving Department of Defense—will be able to get the support it needs to handle the demands of global war fighting.
There are three fascinating rhetorical flourishes in the white paper. These are directly germane to the direction some of the discussions of commercial and proprietary versus free and open source software have been moving. I will give a couple of case examples in my talk in early November 2013, and I assume that the slide deck for my talk will find its way into one or more indexing services. I won’t plow that ground again. Below are some new thoughts.
First, the notion that commercial and proprietary software is better than open source software is amusing. I think that any enterprise software is rife with bugs and problems that can never be fixed because there is neither time, money, or appetite to ameliorate the problems. I was at a meeting at the world’s largest software company when one executive said, “There are a couple thousand bugs in Word. Numbering is one issue. We will maybe get around to fixing the problem.” That was six years ago. Guess what? Numbering is still an interesting challenge in a long document. Is Oracle like the world’s largest software company? Oracle has some interesting features in its products? Check out this sample page. Make your own decision. Software has been, is, and will be complicated stuff. The fact that people correlate clicking a hot link with “simple” just adds impetus to the “this is easy” view of modern systems. No software is better. Some works within specific parameters. Push outside the parameters and you find darned exciting things.
Second, the idea that a large bureaucracy can make decisions based on cost benefits is crazy. Worldwide bean counters and lawyers work to nail down assumptions and statements of work that are designed to minimize costs and deliver specific functionality. How is that working out? If I read one more after the fact analysis of the flawed heath insurance Web site, I may unplug my computer and revert to paper and printed books. I did a major study of a government site in 2007. Guess what? The system did not work and still does not work. Are there analyses, reports, and Web pages explaining the issue? Sure. What’s the fix? People either go to a government office and talk to a human or make a phone call in the hope that the human on the other end of the line can address the issue. The computer system? Unchanged. My report? Probably still in a drawer somewhere.
Third, the idea that a publicly traded company cares about open source is amusing. Open source is simply a vehicle to reduce costs to the publicly traded company and generate consulting revenue. The fact is that most of the folks who embrace open source need some help from firms specializing in that open source product. I can name two companies, each with more than $30 million in venture funding, that have a business model built on selling proprietary software, consulting, and engineering services. Open source sure looks like a Trojan horse to me. Why does IBM embrace Lucene yet sell branded products and services? Maybe to eliminate some software acquisition costs and sell consulting.
A happy quack to http://goo.gl/lxKb6I
On one hand, Oracle is correct in pointing out that free and open source software looks cheaper than commercial and proprietary software in terms of licensing fees. Oracle is also correct that the major cost of software has little to do with the license fee.
On the other hand, Oracle adds some mist to the fog surrounding open source. When open source vendors have to generate revenue to pay back investors or build out their commercial business, the costs are likely to be high.
Open source software begins as a public spirited effort, a way to demonstrate programming skills, and a marketing effort. There are other reasons as well. But in today’s world, software is the weak link in most businesses. Systems are getting less reliable, despite the long string of nines that some companies use to prove their systems are wonderful. But like the optical character recognition program that is 99 percent accurate, the more content pushed through these system, the more the errors mount. Xerox continues to struggle with error rates in a technology that was supposed to be a slam dunk.
Net net: Read the Oracle white paper. Then when you work out a budget, focus less on the sizzle of open source and more on the basic management skills it takes to make something work on time and on budget. Remember. Publicly traded companies and open source companies that have taken money from venture capitalists have to generate a profit or they disappear.
The basics are important. The Oracle white paper skips over some of these in its effort to put open source in perspective. Any software project requires attention to detail, pragmatism, technical expertise, and money.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2013
Microsoft Beefs up Yammer
October 21, 2013
Microsoft bought Yammer in 2012 for $1.2 billion. The news was exciting for users who were eager for the improved social experience it would bring to SharePoint implementations. Now news is circulating that major updates are in the works. Read more in the ZDNet story, “Microsoft adds more e-mail, SharePoint integration to Yammer.”
The article begins:
“Microsoft is making good on its commitment to add more e-mail and SharePoint integration to its Yammer enterprise social-networking product. On October 15, as part of its “Working Social Tour” event in San Francisco, Microsoft execs shared more on how the Yammer roadmap is evolving.”
They go on to share that Microsoft will redesign the Yammer iPad app as well as the Windows Phone apps, improve the email user experience, and update the messaging interfaces.
Yammer takes SharePoint a little closer to relevancy when it comes to social networking capabilities. However, many users are still complaining that SharePoint does not meet expectations in its basic functions. Stephen E. Arnold, a longtime leader in the world of search and developer of ArnoldIT, is a critic of SharePoint. In a recent story, he reports that only 6% of users find their SharePoint deployments successful. It sounds like Microsoft would do well to spend less time on the bells and whistles and more time on search functionality and implementation.
Emily Rae Aldridge, October 21, 2013
Gartner Projects Disruption in Technology Field
October 21, 2013
Progress in technology is constantly prompting shake-ups in the business world. Now, reports Computerworld, “Gartner Warns of Vendor Upheaval in Technology Shift.” We wonder, will there be a complementary upheaval in azure chip consultants? The research firm presented the warnings at their recent technology symposium. Writer Patrick Thibodeau summarizes:
“Gartner analysts warned that a data explosion threatens to overwhelm, sensors will be everywhere, 3-D printing will change everything, and smart machines will replace people. CIOs that don’t adapt will become simple custodians of back-end systems. Companies that fail to change will join Kodak, Blackberry and Wang, each of which was slow to recognize new forces in technology.”
Though Gartner projects that IT spending will increase next year by 3.6 percent, established vendors may not see a slice of that revenue. In fact, nearly two-thirds of survey respondents expect to switch primary suppliers by 2017. Unless the big names like Microsoft, Oracle, and Cisco can pivot quickly, they may soon find themselves obsolete. The write-up goes on to say:
“Gartner analysts at the conference sketched out a near future driven by cheap sensor technology and robotic technologies. In health care, remote monitoring may replace a doctor visits. In agriculture, remote sensors will improve crop yields and reduce the cost of farming. Transportation systems, mining and construction, will shift to driverless vehicles and remove labor as a major cost.”
These are just a few examples Gartner gave of changes on the horizon. They also warned that competitors might start to emerge more quickly than in the past, and that companies will need to hire more talent just to craft good digital strategies. One conference attendee noted that most organizations are not prepared to embrace and run with emerging technologies. Will they be able to adapt in time?
Cynthia Murrell, October 21, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Finally a Geek and Nerd Litmus Test
October 21, 2013
How do you define a geek and how do you define a nerd? The Daily Mail examines the best way to categorize each from a study by software engineer Burr Settles. You can read the details in “Are You A Geek Or A Nerd? Scientist Creates Graph That Explains The Difference.” Settles studied 2.6 million tweets that contained each description. He devised a mathematical equation to predict the probability of a particular word being described as a nerdy or a geeky one. He placed his findings on a traditional x and y coordinate graph for users to see where their coordinates lay.
“Commenting on his findings, Settles said: ‘In broad strokes, it seems to me that geeky words are more about stuff, while nerdy words are more about ideas. ‘Geeks are fans, and fans collect stuff; nerds are practitioners, and practitioners play with ideas. Of course, geeks can collect ideas and nerds play with stuff, too. Plus, they aren’t two distinct personalities as much as different aspects of personality.’ “
The results blur in the middle with some crossover with certain words, but there remains some items that are distinctly nerdy or geeky. Being a nerd or a geek comes off as a state of mind and while the popular convention may slant in one direction, it should be up to the individual to select what they would like to be called. Labels can be cumbersome, though. Still, Settles’ geekery and nerdiness shine through by his analytics search.
Whitney Grace, October 21, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Time to Open Source Sentiments
October 21, 2013
Here is something new from Gigaom: “Stanford Researchers To Open Source Model They Say Has Nailed Sentiment Analysis.” Richard Socher and a team from Stanford have created a computer program that can classify the sentiment of sentence with 85% accurately. They tested the model on movie reviews with a positive or negative tone. Even more amazing is that Socher and his team are making the project available to everyone. Why not capitalize on it instead? After all, companies have been trying for years to analyze social media and would pay the big bucks for said technology.
What makes Sucher’s project different from other sentiment software is that is reads whole sentences rather than just words.
“The team then built a new model it calls a Recursive Neural Tensor Network (it’s an evolution of existing models called Recursive Neural Networks), which is what actually processes all the words and phrases to create numeric representations for them and calculate how they interact with one another. When you’re dealing with text like movie reviews that contain linguistic intricacies, Socher explained, you need a model that can really understand how words play off each other to alter the meaning of sentences. The order in which they come, and what connects them, matters a lot.”
Socher hopes to reach a 95% accuracy, but the technology will never be 100% accurate because of jargon, idioms, odd word combinations, and slang. The project is making landmark strides in machine learning, logical reasoning, and grammatical analysis.
It means better news for online translators and speech technology, but commercial sentiment analytics vendors may see a decline in their profits.
Whitney Grace, October 21, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Life Imitates Tom Cruise
October 20, 2013
Uh-oh! We might be punished for actions we have yet to commit using predictive analytics. According to TechEye.net, a plot out of a Hollywood movie is about to become reality: “Met Police Talks Up ‘Minority Report’ Predictive Software.” If you are not familiar with the Tom Cruise film, it is about a cop in the not too distant future where they use a combination of technology and psychics to stop crimes before they happen. An Inspector Knacker of the Metropolitan Police, from the article, claims that by using a crime statistics and criminal behaviors algorithm, illegal activities will be deterred. The idea that high-targeted areas will come to the attention of police, who will then station more officers in predicted area.
A pilot program was launched in Hackney, Wandsworth, Newham and Lewisham and there was a large reduction in crime. The Met Commissioner Bernard Howgan-Howe wants to use the technology on antisocial behavior and vehicle crime across London.
There is a strange pattern to criminals’ habits:
“Professor Shane Johnson, of University College London department for crime science, who is helping police develop the system, found that burglars’ tactics closely match the behavior of wild animals searching for food. Burglars return to sites they have found productive but move on when they realize supplies are exhausted, he said.”
It sounds more like tracking animal patterns in nature than a Hollywood blockbuster. NOVA may have their next award-winning documentary, however.
Whitney Grace, October 20, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Take the Coke and Pepsi Wars and Insert Search
October 20, 2013
Basic economics tells us that brand rivalry prevents a complete monopoly on a free-based market. The quintessential examples are Pepsi and Coke, but let us make the metaphor more modern with a comparison between Bing and Google. EWeek takes a look at Bing’s new claim that its search is more popular than Google in “Is The Bing It On Challenge A Little Off?” The “Bing It On Challenge” supposedly compared Google and Bing search result side-by-side and stripped of their branding. It showed that users preferred Bing 2:1. Yale professor Ian Ayres found these results questionable, because he found the results to be mostly identical.
When Microsoft was asked to share their data sets, they refused to release their results. Ayres got even more peeved when he found out how they collected their information and decided to run his own test:
“Admitting to being “slightly annoyed” in discovering that the claim was based on a study of a mere 1,000 participants, he said that he enlisted Yale law students to run an experiment using a similar sample size and the BingItOn.com Website. We found that, to the contrary of Microsoft’s claim, 53 percent of subjects preferred Google and 41 percent Bing (6 percent of results were ‘ties’),” reported Ayres. Secondary tests, which involved randomly assigned participants and a mix of popular, Bing-suggested and self-suggested search terms, failed to come close to Bing’s 2:1 advantage.”
Then the claim comes in that the results were not shared because they are not tracked and that results in the challenge were slanted in Bing’s favor. Microsoft burned itself on those two. Basic scientific method research would toss this test in the kindling pile immediately. No results or favoritism at all? One fact about marketing is that advertisements cannot make claims without proof. Oh boy! We are back on the Coke and Pepsi blind-fold taste test. Which search results belong to which search engine?
Whitney Grace, October 20, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
HealthCare Dot Gov: Insight from Within
October 19, 2013
“Why HealthCare.gov, the Obamacare Website, Doesn’t Work” is one of those analyses from real journalists. I find these write ups amazing. I want to capture a quote to note from the write up:
Most of the stuff inside government is not awesome, cutting-edge, cloud-based, and responsive. The skills we really want are not all that present in the incumbent system, and they’re very hard to go out and get.–Michael Slaby
I love the “not” part. Encouraging when nothing much seems to be working except free market online outfits rediscovering the efficacy of Vanderbilt’s and Morgan’s methods. Oh, Kentucky’s pork avalanche is working too.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2013
Super Search Cooks Dinner and Other Practical Skulls
October 19, 2013
The next time you go to a restaurant and ask to speak with the chef to give him your complements, you just might requesting to speak with IBM’s Watson. According to the MIT Technology Review in, “New Answer From IBM’s Watson: Recipe For Swiss-Thai Fusion Quiche” Watson can now cook. Marked as one of the “light” functions that Watson can perform, inventing recipes is one of the new ways devised to help people on the search and answer discovery.
IBM may have invented the next, best toy robot, but after winning Jeopardy they wanted to put Watson’s AI to more practical uses. While Watson has also been testing its skills in medical applications, the AI has trouble deciphering individual writing styles.
The best way to fix this problem is:
“Watson and other analytic technologies will get better if such records are formatted in clearer ways–with distinct fields for patient symptoms, actions taken, and outcomes, he said. With this in mind, IBM has been trying to customize business software to be Watson-ready (see “Watson’s New Job: IBM Salesman”). A larger point was articulated by Thomas Malone, director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. The future, he said, lies in building systems that can best leverage the capabilities of humans and computers. A growing body of research is finding that answers gleaned from a combination of humans and computers are more accurate than those generated by either group alone, he said.”
Right now, the best way to make Watson learn is to ask him questions based on a series of search parameters such as the recipes. The results may be strange, such as the papaya-cayenne-orange custard it developed, but oddly delectable.
Whitney Grace, October 19, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
