Magic May Not Come From Pre-Made Taxonomies
June 17, 2015
There are hundreds of companies that advertise they can increase information access, retrieval and accuracy for enterprise search by selling prefabricated taxonomies. These taxonomies are industry specific and are generated by using an all-or-nothing approach, rather than individualizing them for each enterprise search client. It turns out that the prefabricated taxonomies are not guaranteed to help enterprise search; in fact, they might be a waste of money. The APQC Blog posted “Make Enterprise Search Magical Without Money” that uses an infographic to explain how organizations can improve their enterprise search without spending a cent.
APQC found that “best-practice organizations don’t have significantly better search technology. Instead, they meet employees’ search needs with superior processes and approaches the content management.”
How can it be done?
The three steps are quite simple:
- Build taxonomies that reflect how people actually think and work-this can be done with focus groups and periodically reviewing taxonomies and metadata. This contributes to better and more effective content management.
- Use scope, metadata, and manual curation to ensure search returns the most relevant results-constantly the taxonomies for ways to improve and how users are actually users search.
- Clear out outdated, irrelevant, and duplicate content that’s cluttering up your search results-keep taxonomies updated so they continue to deliver accurate results.
These are really simple editing steps, but the main problem organizations might have is actually implementing the steps. Will they assign the taxonomy creation task to the IT department or information professionals? Who will be responsible for setting up focus groups and monitoring usage? Yes, it is easy to do, but it takes a lot of time.
Whitney Grace, June 17, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Enterprise Search: The Last Half of 2015
June 16, 2015
I saw a link this morning to an 11 month old report from an azure chip consulting firm. You know, azure chip. Not a Bain, BCG, Booz Allen, or McKinsey which are blue chip firms. A mid tier outfit. Business at the Boozer is booming is the word from O’Hare Airport, but who knows if airport gossip is valid.
Which enterprise search vendor will come up a winner in December 2015?
What is possibly semi valid are analyses of enterprise search vendors. The “Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Search” triggered some fond memories of the good old days in 2003 when the leaders in enterprise search were brands or almost brands. You probably recall the thrilling days of these information retrieval leaders:
- Autonomy, the math oriented outfit with components names like neuro linguistic programming and integrated data operating layer and some really big name customers like BAE
- Convera, formerly Excalibur with juice from ConQuest (developer by a former Booz, Allen person no less)
- Endeca, the all time champ for computationally intensive indexing
- Fast Search & Transfer, the outfit that dumped Web search in order to take over the enterprise search sector
- Verity, ah, truth be told, this puppy’s architecture ensured plenty of time to dash off and grab a can of Mountain Dew.
In 2014, if the azure chip firm’s analysis is on the money, the landscape was very different. If I understand the non analytic version of Boston Consulting Group’s matrix from 1970, the big players are:
- Attivio, another business intelligence solution using open source technology and polymorphic positioning for the folks who have pumped more than $35 million into the company. One executive told me via LinkedIn, that the SEC investigation of an Attivio board member had zero impact on the company. I like the attitude. Bold.
- BA Insight, a business software vendor focused on making SharePoint somewhat useful and some investors with deepening worry lines
- Coveo, a start up which is nudging close to a decade in age, and more than $30 million in venture backing. I wonder if those stakeholders are getting nervous.
- Dassault Systèmes, the owner of Exalead, who said in the most recent quarterly report that the company was happy, happy, happy with Exalead but provided no numbers and no detail about the once promising technology
- Expert System, an interesting company with a name that makes online research pretty darned challenging
- Google, ah, yes, the proud marketer of the ever thrilling Google Search Appliance, a product with customer support to make American Airlines jealous
- Hewlett Packard Autonomy, now a leader in the acrimonious litigation field
- IBM, ah, yes, the cognitive computing bunch from Armonk. IBM search is definitely a product that is on everyone’s lips because the major output of the Watson group is a book of recipes
- IHS, an outfit which is banking on its patent analysis technology to generate big bucks in the Goldmine cellophane
- LucidWorks (Really?), a repackager of open source search and a distant second to Elastic (formerly Elasticsearch, which did not make the list. Darned amazing to me.)
- MarkLogic, a data management system trying to grow with a proprietary XML technology that is presented as search, business intelligence, and a tool for running a restaurant menu generation system. Will MarkLogic buy Smartlogic? Do two logics make a rational decision?
- Mindbreeze, a side project at Fabasoft which is the darling of the Austrian government and frustrated European SharePoint managers
- Perceptive Software, which is Lexmark’s packaging of ISYS Search Software. ISYS incorporates technology from – what did the founder tell me in 2009? – oh, right, code from the 1980s. Might it not be tough to make big bucks on this code base? I have 70 or 80 million ideas about the business challenge such a deal poses
- PolySpot, like Sinequa, a French company which does infrastructure, information access, and, of course, customer support
- Recommind, a legal search system which has delivered a down market variation of the Autonomy-type approach to indexing. The company is spreading its wings and tackling enterprise search.
- Sinequa, another one of those quirky French companies which are more flexible than a leotard for an out of work acrobat
But this line up from the azure chip consulting omits some companies which may be important to those looking for search solutions but not so much for azure chip consultants angling for retainer engagements. Let me highlight some vendors the azure chip crowd elected to ignore:
Google: India Disconnects
June 16, 2015
I read “Google’s Big Project to Sell Super Cheap Phones in India Appears to Be Failing.” When I read the title, I wondered how Google’s other “pump up the channel” plays are working out. The shift from desktop search and advertising to the mobile platform may be leaving Adwords behind. But Google has, I thought, dozens of super wizards who hail from… wait for it … India. If any outfit could figure out how to do a slam dunk, it should be Google.
According to the write up:
The three Indian phone manufacturers that were initially involved in producing the low-cost devices have no plans to create future versions of the smartphone, The Economic Times reports.
I highlighted in pale pink this statement:
Sanjay Kalirona, who heads up the mobile phones unit at Intex, told The Economic Times: “Everything was finalized, the product was ready but market response was not there, so we dropped the idea.”
How bad were the numbers?
Sales data for Indian Android One phones shows that the devices accounted for between 2% to 2.5% of smartphone sales in India from September 2014 until May 2015. And sales estimates from Convergence Catalyst estimates the total number of Android One handsets sold in India since launch at less than 1 million units.
That strikes me as Microsoft and Amazon phone territory.
Poor Google. First, Europe, then China, and now India are not feeling the Google vibe. I love the GOOG. Disappointment. Perhaps some resources will flow into the Google Search Appliance? Or, what about more Loon balloons?
Stephen E Arnold, June 16, 2015
Apple: Search Not Important. The Mom Approach Is.
June 16, 2015
Imagine the difficulty of pitching a six figure information retrieval service today. On one hand, there are suitable open source alternatives for search. On the other hand, there are users who prefer to do the 7-11 thing; that is, find a convenient source of good enough stuff.
That’s the Apple approach, which in my opinion, denigrates the importance of proactive online information access. Take what’s provided. Want a peach iced tea. The 7-11 has a lemon iced tea. Take what’s available. Good enough.
Navigate to “Apple News Curation Will Have Human Editors and That Will Raise Important Questions.” I am not too concerned about publishers. That crowd lost my interest decades ago. What does interest me is that the article does not put the notion of humans making choices in the context of customers just accepting what an Apple, Facebook, or Google provides.
I did highlight this passage:
Curating lists of apps is one thing, but having Apple employees curate the news flow could be more controversial depending on how the company ultimately works with select publishers and surfaces content from its preferred sources.
But associating the loss of interest in or the ability to look for information, figure out what is accurate or more nearly accurate, is not associated with the research function. Search vendors take another whack on the snoot.
It is tough to sell search when the customers prefer to drop by a convenience store and let that experience dictate the set of things from which one chooses.
Stephen E Arnold, June 16, 2015
Quick Tips for Increased SharePoint Productivity
June 16, 2015
For organizations that utilize SharePoint, increased efficiency is a continuous goal. Users want to get more out of their installation without a huge time commitment. Technology Tell covers some tips and tricks in their recent article, “8 SharePoint Tips for Greater Productivity.”
The article begins:
“As far a strategic workflows go within the corporate world, SharePoint is arguably one of the best productivity tools. It’s a platform that provides businesses and teams with opportunities to thrive. SharePoint grants access to streamlined methods for communication, management and motivation. But to be truly effective, SharePoint needs to be organized in terms of infrastructure, and its functions must be correctly carried out.”
What follows are eight simple tips for streamlining infrastructure and therefore usage. Stephen E. Arnold is also a good resource for additional tips and tricks. His Web service ArnoldIT.com has a helpful SharePoint feed that collocates SharePoint news and strategies. His lifelong career in search has made him an expert in the field, and his straightforward approach saves time and energy for the reader.
Emily Rae Aldridge, June 16, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Wisdom of Verizon AOL Deal Questioned
June 16, 2015
Sarah Lacy, founder and editor-in-chief at PandoDaily, is highly skeptical of the official rational behind Verizon’s recent acquisition of AOL. She posits, “Can’t We All Agree the Justifications for this AOL/Verizon Deal are Bat#### Insane?” The post begins:
“What is it about AOL mergers that make no sense?
“I’ve spent the morning intermittently reading various reports by the financial press about Verizon’s surprise/not surprise acquisition of AOL. Early on, they seem divided on whether it was about buying ad tech or content, with many pundits saying Verizon was going the Comcast route… and then it became clear that AOL’s biggest media asset, the Huffington Post, would likely be spun off. The press was similarly divided on whether or not Armstrong was long shopping this company or simply got wowed by how awesome Verizon is during a meeting at Sun Valley.
“But everyone — including the company– insists this deal was about two buzzwords: Mobile. Video. AOL put out some dizzying justifications and everyone nodded like they totally understood.
“Wait, what?”
Lacy doesn’t buy the idea that Verizon acquired AOL for its mobile and video chops (she has a point there). In fact, it quickly becomes clear that the writer’s main problem is with AOL chairman and ex-Googler Tim Armstrong, for she spends much virtual ink delineating his errors, past and present. (She’s especially critical of his handling of the Huffington Post.) Lacy also refutes official statements about this deal one by one, comparing the whole situation to a nonsensical Lewis Carroll scene. See the article if you, too, think this deal is fishy (or if, for some reason, you desire ammo against Mr. Armstrong.)
Cynthia Murrell, June 16, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Exorbyte Offers Entity Detection
June 16, 2015
Germany based Exorbyte is a leading European solutions company for search and analysis in structured/unstructured data. Business On tells us that Exorbyte has released a feature to help users manage their email inboxes: “Input Management: Exorbyte Automates Identity Determination.” Using Google Translate to give us the details, the article explains that Exorbyte now offers a Full Page Entity Detect, a tool that extracts the identity data from full-text documents and compares them with reference databases.
Full Page Detect is advertised as taking out the guess work in figuring out where data originates in documents. The process is described as:
“The identity data can be extracted directly from the digitized full-text documents such as letters, faxes and e-mails and efficiently compared with reference databases – virtually independent of language. It doesn’t matter whether the data in question is incorrect or incomplete. Exorbyte’s Full Page Detect Entity is able to read the valid data and organize it without fail for customers.”
Full Page Detect’s main selling point is that it can recognize information in documents no matter where it is placed in the document. It uses Exorbyte’s leading Matchmaker technology, which is extremely reliable in detecting errors and keeping analysis on track.
Exorbyte offers a useful service for people trying to summarize their emails without having to open every single one. It streamlines the email process and makes it more efficient.
Whitney Grace, June 16, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
France: Annoying the GOOG. Do the French Change a Cheese Process?
June 15, 2015
I have do chien in this fight. I read “France Orders Google to Scrub Search Globally in Right to Be Forgotten Requests.” Since I had been in a far off land then beavering away in a place where open carry enhances one’s machismo, the story may be old news to you. To me, it was like IBM innovation: Looked fresh, probably recycled.
Nevertheless, the article reports that the folks who bedeviled Julius Caesar are now irritating the digital Roman Empire. I learned:
France’s Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), the country’s data protection authority, has ordered Google to apply delisting on all domain names of its search engine. CNIL said in its news release that it’s received hundreds of complaints following Google’s refusals to carry out delisting. According to its latest transparency report, last updated on Friday 12 June, Google had received a total of 269,314 removal requests, had evaluated 977,948 URLs, and had removed 41.3% of those URLs.
I had an over the transom email from a person who identified himself with two initials only. He wrote:
For some reason the person was unhappy with Google’s responsiveness. I pointed the person to the appropriate Google Web page. But the two initial person continues to ask me to help. Yo, dude, I am retired. Google does not perceive me as much more than a person who should be buying Adwords.
Apparently, folks like my two letter person feels similarly frustrated.
As I understand the issue, France, like some other countries, wants the Google to remove links to content a person or entity filling in the form to move quickly and with extreme prejudice.
We will see. The Google does not do sprints, even when the instructions come from a country with more than 200 varieties of cheese, a plethora of search and retrieval systems, and some unsullied landscapes.
My hunch is that it may be quicker to create a Le Châtelain Camembert than to modify Google’s internal work flows. Well, maybe Roquefort or a Tomme de Savoie. Should France stick with cheese and leave the Googling to Google?
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2015
Paper.Li Enterprise Search Punts
June 15, 2015
Short honk: I monitor the automated “newsletter” called The Enterprise Search Daily. I am not sure how one receives this publication, but I use this url. In the last few days, there has been minimal—maybe zero—enterprise search news. The publication appears to recycle information about Big Data and text analytics. We will continue to report on the search flounders, oops, I mean, search vendors who offer enterprise search solutions. The problem is that venture backed enterprise search start ups will have to do some fancy dancing to explain why a search for enterprise search brings up items like this:
The Beyond Search team will soldier on with one comment: Enterprise search does not do Big
Data without some careful wordsmithing.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2015
IBM: The Me Too Principal
June 15, 2015
Short honk: Big company innovation boils down to a handful of tactics. The most common is buying another outfit and using that firm’s achievements as one’s own. This is a variation of the entitlement culture or “look what money can buy”. Another approach is to hire an innovator and having that individual build a group. An interesting example of this tactic is Microsoft’s hiring Babak Amir Parviz (yep, the fellow with musical names). Then Google hires Dr. Amirparviz. The next jump is that Dr. Parviz (same fellow now) joins Amazon. Each company inherits his wizardry. The third tactic is to imitate which works reasonably well. Autonomy offered a “Portal in a Box” years ago. Other companies quickly followed with their own “in a box” strategy. The apex of the me too is the Google “search in a box” appliance.
Now navigate to the font of business and management expertise—the New York Times. Read if you can find it “IBM Invests to Help Open-Source Big Data Software — and Itself.” The big idea is that IBM is getting into Big Data software. You know, the trend which allowed IBM to convert a search utility like Vivisimo into the Big Data big dog. Well, apparently not. The write up states:
The company is placing a large investment — contributing software developers, technology and education programs — behind an open-source project for real-time data analysis, called Apache Spark.
And Spark in case you have not been following the breathless news releases from various open source commercial players like Lucidworks (Really?). The write up states:
But if Hadoop opens the door to probing vast volumes of data, Spark promises speed. Real-time processing is essential for many applications, from analyzing sensor data streaming from machines to sales transactions on online marketplaces. The Spark technology was developed at the Algorithms, Machines and People Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. A group from the Berkeley lab founded a company two years ago, Databricks, which offers Spark software as a cloud service. Spark, Mr. Picciano said, is crucial technology that will make it possible to “really deliver on the promise of big data.” That promise, he said, is to quickly gain insights from data to save time and costs, and to spot opportunities in fields like sales and new product development.
And IBM has lots of programmers:
IBM said it will put more than 3,500 of its developers and researchers to work on Spark-related projects. It will contribute machine-learning technology to the open-source project, and embed Spark in IBM’s data analysis and commerce software. IBM will also offer Spark as a service on its programming platform for cloud software development, Bluemix. The company will open a Spark technology center in San Francisco to pursue Spark-based innovations.
The write up explains that IBM has a plan. The gray lady puts it this way via the mouth of the an estimable azure chip consulting firm:
IBM makes its money higher up, building solutions for customers,” said Mike Gualtieri, a analyst for Forrester Research. “That’s ultimately why this makes sense for IBM.”
But… but… hasn’t IBM suffered declining revenues and profit erosion over the last three years? Irrelevant item. Set a spark to that tinder and watch the marketing collateral burn. And Vivisimo? Don’t know. Never did.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
