The Rise of Internet Ad Revenue Continues
May 16, 2014
The article titled US Internet Ad Revenue Surpasses Broadcast on SFGate announced the tipping point for TV and print advertising has arrived. This may not come as a huge surprise to Generations X and Y who have watched with increasing annoyance as ads increased on internet videos across the board. Gone are the days when a Hulu-aired episode had just one commercial, or a Youtube video began right away, rather than pausing for an ad. The article states,
“For the first time, U.S. Internet advertising revenue has surpassed that of broadcast television thanks to sharp growth in mobile and digital video ads.
That’s according to a report from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which said Thursday that Internet advertising revenue rose 17 percent to a record $42.8 billion in 2013. Broadcast TV ad revenue, in comparison, was $40.1 billion in 2013.
Mobile advertising revenue more than doubled to $7.1 billion from $3.4 billion in 2012…”
The article credits the alteration to companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook and their augmented attendance to mobile ads. The survey was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The article does not comment on the future of Internet advertising revenue, but it is easy to imagine that the numbers will only continue to rise.
Chelsea Kerwin, May 16, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Search: Dreams and a Million Miles
May 15, 2014
I read “Google ‘A Million Miles Away from Creating the Search Engine of my Dreams’, Says Larry Page.” Sigh.
The write up points to Mr. Page’s “founder’s letter.” I thought there were two founders. Guess not. Anyway, the point of the write up is that Google search is not particularly good.
More interesting is the assertion that Google wants to answer a user’s questions. No problem. Well, a tiny glitch. Users often do not know what question to ask. If one thinks about answering questions, the first step is to figure out what the user needs to know at a point in time in a particular fungible and non fungible context.
This, in my opinion, is a tough problem. Much tougher than figuring out what ad to show to a user. We know how well that works using technology like Applied Semantics’ methods and the cruft of a decade added on to what was Oingo.
Here’s the portion I noted:
But despite these advances Page admitted that “in many ways, we’re a million miles away from creating the search engine of my dreams, one that gets you just the right information at the exact moment you need it with almost no effort.”
Then:
Page explained: “Improved context will also help make search more natural, and not a series of keywords you artificially type into a computer. We’re getting closer: ask how tall the Eiffel Tower is, and then when ‘it’ was built. By understanding what ‘it’ means in different contexts, we can make search conversational.”
A couple of thoughts.
Google is one of the few companies positioned to deliver relevant results. The reality is that revenue takes precedence over relevance in my view. I give lectures for a an organization that focuses on law enforcement and intelligence professionals. My most popular lecture provides examples of ways to get through Google’s bullet proof vest of baloney and ersatz information. Why? Useful information IS in the Google index. Finding the information has become a major problem. And getting relevant results is becoming more difficult because as boat anchor access gives way to mobile access, users have neither the screen real estate, time, or expertise to fire queries into a foot of Kevlar.
Because Google is the go to system for metasearch systems, the results in metasearch systems display similar problems with relevance. The Google approach rewards non information, making the metasearch systems output results that are not much more useful than those produced by straight on Google queries.
Google’s belief or fantasy that it is a search and retrieval system reaches back to the dorm and Backrub. The reality is that search is the digital equivalent of a mule. A “query” is generated by some human, system, or algorithmic action. The retrieval system then matches the “query” to one of the indexes Google houses. The results are what you get when you see most Google pages.
Example:
The searcher is an award winning technology journalist who now labors in the ArnoldIT vineyards. The situation is looking for a restaurant in Washington, DC, a short walk from Google’s office. The journalist keys in Cuba Libre to get the address. Note that the journalist, one of my law librarians, and I are standing in front of Cuba Libre. The Google system shows a map and the map does not locate Cuba Libre. The journalist looked at me and asked, “What’s up?” My response: The new Google is what’s up.
I am delighted that ZDNet summarized a founder’s letter. I am thrilled that the myth of search is being propagated. I am happy knowing that as long as Google sees search as a million miles away, my three hour seminar will attract a large audience.
Now navigate to Google and try to find out where I am giving my next talk. Let me know how that works out for you using Google search.
And enterprise search? Don’t get me started.
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2014
Bill Suggests Replacing NTIS with Google Search
May 15, 2014
The article titled There’s a ‘Let Me Google That For You’ Bill on Talking Points Memo relates the substance of a bipartisan bill (sponsored by Tom Coburn and Clair McCaskill). The bills purpose is to save the taxpayer money by resorting to Google and eliminating the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The article states,
“The bill is meant to cut down on “the collection and distribution of government information” by prioritizing using Google over spending money to obtain information from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). NTIS, run by the Department of Commerce, is a repository of 3 million scientific, technical, engineering, and business texts. The bill would abolish the NTIS and move essential functions of the agency to other agencies like the National Archives.”
If the bill’s name sounds familiar, you have probably heard of the website it is named after, in which the website redirects you to Google. The bill is put forward to prevent waste by federal agencies in obtaining government documents for money when they are available online free of charge. Sounds like a no-brainer, especially since NTIS was founded in 1950, decades before the Internet was even a possibility. You can read the full bill here.
Chelsea Kerwin, May 15, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Radical Goal Setting Credited for Google’s Growth
May 15, 2014
A surprisingly brief article on BetterWorks Blog explains, as the title suggests, How Google Grew from 40 to 40,000 Employees. The simple answer is goal setting, but it is how this process is managed at Google that accounts for the rapid growth of the company. The acronym OKR stands for Objective – Key Result. A developer advocate named Don Dodge is quoted in the article explaining the OKR process,
“Every quarter every group at Google sets goals, called OKRs, for the next 90 days. Most big companies set annual goals like improving or growing something by x%, and then measure performance once a year. At Google a year is like a decade. Annual goals aren’t good enough. Set quarterly goals, set them at impossible levels, and then figure out how to achieve them. Measure progress every quarter and reward outstanding achievement.”
This methodology was begun when most companies were using a top down process for goal setting that often involved executives setting objectives without clear instructions on how to achieve them or when to aim for results. John Doerr is credited with the new system, which implements goal setting at the individual, team and company level and ensures transparency and communication at all levels of the company. The goal setting system is certainly an excellent place to start for growth, but of course, one needs a Google type revenue stream to make this work.
Chelsea Kerwin, May 15, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
SharePoint Mobility Functionality Depends on Third Party Solutions
May 15, 2014
By now readers are probably tired of hearing about SharePoint and its evolving mobile capabilities. But the truth is, a lot is written about SharePoint and mobile because it is what users are looking for next in the platform. Business 2 Community gives another spin on the topic in their article, “Third-Party Apps Mend SharePoint’s Mobility Pains.”
The article refers to a survey that was conducted among SharePoint users:
“Seismic, an enterprise mobile content management solution, conducted a survey of the 2014 SharePoint Conference global attendees. The findings revealed that 30 percent of business professionals believe better mobile capabilities will drive the adoption of SharePoint. While SharePoint users are accessing the content management system via computers, smartphones and tablets, they’re continuing to experience pain points with mobile.”
The article then goes on to list the common complaints about SharePoint’s mobile capabilities, or lack thereof. And once again, third party solutions are being pointed out as the relief in this situation. Stephen E. Arnold also covers SharePoint news on his Web site, ArnoldIT.com. He has also found that customization and mobile capabilities drive SharePoint adoption and satisfaction, but until SharePoint embeds better abilities, users will continue to turn to third party solutions.
Emily Rae Aldridge, May 15, 2014
Deletions: From an Index, From a Data Structure, From Back Ups
May 14, 2014
I read “Europe’s Top Court: People Have Right to Be Forgotten on Internet.” Fascinating. The real news article said, “People can ask Google to delete sensitive information from its Internet search results.” The source of the assertion was Europe’s top court. After I read the item, I wondered what was being “deleted” and “from where”? When it comes to removing content, the concept of deletion may need some of Mr. Bill Clinton’s “is” type thinking. Content can disappear. An example would be information from government servers. In some cases, the removal of content is intentional. In others, a system administrator performs and operation and – poof – content is history.
Digital information is like “dark matter.” It may be hard to detect, but some people know that it is very real. For example, poke around the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. There is some interesting information on that system that may be otherwise difficult, if not impossible, to access.
Then there is the problem of deleting content from data management systems. I am confident that Europe’s top court knows that removing an item from an index does not remove the item from the data management system, back ups, or mirrors of content residing “out there” on the Internet or on a researcher’s personal computer.
The notion of deleting is fuzzy to me.
Almost as fascinating is the question of who gets to “remove” what? What are the procedures for getting content deleted from Google or any other system? How does one know that the information is gone? Run a query on a free Web search engine? A commercial system?
Like many ideas in the category “barn burned and horses gone”, deleting content from the “Internet” may be a challenging issue to resolve. In the case of removing content from some of the major online search systems, a Costco has already been erected on the site where the barn once stood, horses grazed, and sun touched information farmers once raised their data crops.
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2014
Using Real Data to Mislead
May 14, 2014
Viewers of graphs, beware! Data visualization has been around for a very long time, but it has become ubiquitous since the onset of Big Data. Now, the Heap Data Blog warns us to pay closer attention in, “How to Lie with Data Visualization.” Illustrating his explanation with clear examples, writer Ravi Parikh outlines three common ways a graphic can be manipulated to present a picture that actually contradicts the data used to build it. The first is the truncated Y-axis. Parikh writes:
“One of the easiest ways to misrepresent your data is by messing with the y-axis of a bar graph, line graph, or scatter plot. In most cases, the y-axis ranges from 0 to a maximum value that encompasses the range of the data. However, sometimes we change the range to better highlight the differences. Taken to an extreme, this technique can make differences in data seem much larger than they are.”
The example here presents two charts on rising interest rates. On the first, the Y-axis ranges from 3.140% to 3.154% — a narrow range that makes the rise from 2008 to 2012 look quite dramatic. However, on the next chart the rise seems nigh non-existent; this one presents a more relevant span of 0.00% to 3.50% on the Y-axis.
Another method of misrepresentation is to present numbers, particularly revenue, cumulatively instead of from year-to-year or quarter-to-quarter. Parikh notes that Apple’s iPhone sales graph from last September is a prominent example of this tactic.
Finally, one can mislead one’s audience by violating conventions. The real-world example here presents a pie chart in which the slices add up to 193%. The network that created it had to know that cursory viewers would pay more attention to the bright colors than to the numbers. The write-up observes:
“The three slices of the pie don’t add up to 100%. The survey presumably allowed for multiple responses, in which case a bar chart would be more appropriate. Instead, we get the impression that each of the three candidates have about a third of the support, which isn’t the case.”
See the article for more examples, but the upshot is clear. Parikh concludes:
“Be careful when designing visualizations, and be extra careful when interpreting graphs created by others. We’ve covered three common techniques, but it’s just the surface of how people use data visualization to mislead.”
Cynthia Murrell, May 14, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Airbnb Offers Prospective Hosts Guidelines for Higher Search Results Placement
May 14, 2014
Now here is an intriguing definition of search. Airbnb’s blog examines “How Search Works on Airbnb.” You may have heard of the site, which connects travelers to folks who have space to rent out. The post is directed at hosts looking to receive prominent positioning in Airbnb search results, and explains that rankings are based on considerations that affect a traveler’s experience. The write-up states:
“The factors that affect search can be broken down into a few high-level categories:
1. Quality of the listing. How appealing is the listing to guests and how good is the trip experience the host provides?
2. Ease of booking. How reliably and easily can a guest book the space?
3. Guest preferences. How well does the listing match the specific preferences and criteria of the person searching?
“It’s important to note that we are constantly working on improving search to better match guests and hosts, so the factors we use and how we use them may change over time. Because we take so many factors into account, comparing listings based on just a few characteristics doesn’t tell the whole story. Most importantly for hosts, you have control over many of the factors that we discuss below, so you can have an impact on where you appear compared to other listings.”
The post goes on to elaborate on each factor. For example, under “quality of the listing,” the article advises hosts on how to create an appealing listing with reviews and photos. See the article for more if you are curious. We think it’s interesting to see how some companies are tailoring their vertical searches to their unique audiences.
Cynthia Murrell, May 14, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
On the Structure of Clickbait
May 13, 2014
Ah, clickbait. It is a persistent irritant most of us failed to predict at the dawn of the Internet. If you have ever wondered about the construction of the alluring headlines, Michael Reid Roberts at the American Reader delves into the formula in “Life Sentences: the Grammar of Clickbait!” Roberts begins with the commonsense observation that “clickbait is ruining journalism.” Though he mentions cagey Buzzfeed in passing, he chooses for his primary example the good-intentioned but imminently annoying Upworthy.
Below is the article’s description of how to create an Upworthy-esque headline. Note that the last part of the following quote references the real Upworthy headline, “There’s a World War Happening Online Right Now. And You Might be a Mercenary in It.” Roberts writes:
“The key element in these titles is the relationship between the first sentence and the second. The first is relatively traditional, while the second sentence is short, annoyingly informal, and conspiratorial. We might call these couplets epodal because of the relative line lengths, but I think the effect is more similar to catalexis in that the second line’s brevity emphasizes something unfinished or incomplete. The second sentence is intentionally vague: click here to finish the thought, answer the question, solve the riddle! And, like most unfinished stories, the conclusion is rarely satisfying. But as someone who rarely clicks on Upworthy links, I have come to appreciate the beauty of these teases. Read the above titles again, but without registering the hyperlink: now they read like Buddhist koans. You want to know how you might be a war mercenary, but can you know, really? Bask in the not-knowing.”
The article is peppered with sample headlines, both ones straight from the site and ones Roberts made up using the formula he’s deduced. He delves into a couple phrases that recur frequently in Upworthy clickbait: “restore your faith in humanity” and “you won’t believe what happens next.” Sound familiar? See the article for more of Roberts’ analysis of this thoroughly modern phenomenon.
Cynthia Murrell, May 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
The Hadoop Elephant Offers A Helping Trunk
May 13, 2014
It is time for people to understand that relational databases were not made to handle big data. There is just too much data jogging around in servers and mainframes and the terabytes run circles around relational database frameworks. It is sort of like a smart fox toying with a dim hunter. It is time that more robust and reliable software was used, like Hadoop. GCN says that there are “5 Ways Agencies Can Use Hadoop.”
Hadoop is an open source programming framework that spreads data across server clusters. It is faster and more inexpensive than proprietary software. The federal government is always searching for ways to slash cuts and if they turn to Hadoop they might save a bit in tech costs.
“It is estimated that half the world’s data will be processed by Hadoop within five years. Hadoop-based solutions are already successfully being used to serve citizens with critical information faster than ever before in areas such as scientific research, law enforcement, defense and intelligence, fraud detection and computer security. This is a step in the right direction, but the framework can be better leveraged.”
The five ways the government can use Hadoop is to store and analyze unstructured and semi-structured data, improve initial discovery and exploration, making all data available for analysis, a staging area for data warehouses and analytic data stores, and it lowers costs for data storage.
So can someone explain why this has not been done yet?
Whitney Grace, May 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
