Flawed Search As a Tactic
August 10, 2015
I read “Why Facebook’s Video theft Problem Can’t Last.” My initial reaction was, “Sure it can.” The main point of the write up struck me as:
But then popular YouTuber Hank Green leveled a number of allegations at Facebook’s video team, including a charge of rampant copyright infringement from Facebook users who are uploading videos from YouTube and other platforms without creators’ consent. Facebook has responded that it has measures in place to address copyright infringement, including allowing users to report stolen content and suspending accounts guilty of repeated violations.
I noted this statement:
For Facebook, video represents an irresistible new business opportunity. Early experiments with running natively inside the News Feed showed that it kept users on the site longer — and kept them from clicking external links that took them to YouTube and elsewhere.
Money and irresistible are words which flow.
The gem appears deep in the write up:
Facebook hasn’t made it easy for creators like Green to find instances of copyright infringement — there’s no way to filter Facebook searches for videos. And even if the stolen videos can be found, creators must fill out multiple forms, meaning it could be several days (and countless views) before a stolen video is taken down.
I find it interesting that search and retrieval may not do the trick. Then the bureaucratic process adds a deft touch.
I will file this item in my follow up folder. I know I can search my system for text files. Search which does not allow one to find information may be a tactic which serves other purposes. Is flawed search a business advantage? If one cannot find something, does that mean the “something” is not there?
Stephen E Arnold, August 10, 2015
The Girl with the Advert Tattoo
August 10, 2015
It looks like real publishing companies are now into tattoos or, at least, into leveraging ink’s growing popularity. The Verge reports, “The Desperate Book Industry and ‘Tatvertising’ are a Perfect, Tragic Match.” Reporter Kaitlyn Tiffany tells us that Hachette Austrailia put out the call for a model willing to be tattooed and photographed as part of a promotion for the next Steig Larsson book, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web.” Tiffany likens the effort to a practice, widely considered predatory, that was common just after the turn of the millennium: websites paying those desperate for cash to have ads tattooed on them, (sometimes on their faces!) But, hey, at least those people were paid good money; apparently the reward for this scheme was meant to be the tattoo itself. The article elaborates:
“But why the [heck] does it need to be a real tattoo? When reached for comment, a representative from Razor & JOY, the advertising agency in charge of the campaign, told me, ‘The character of Lisbeth doesn’t do things in half measures — and so we wanted our marketing to capture this passion.’ The representative also explained that the compensation for the woman who is cast would be something… less than monetary: ‘This campaign is an opportunity to give a truly passionate fan a free tattoo that is unique to a strong literary character.’ And a new type of degrading, unpaid labor in the publishing industry was born.”
I’m not sure I’d personally consider this scheme “predatory,” but apparently Tiffany was not alone in her outrage. I visited the link she supplies in her article, and was greeted with a take-back notice; it reads, in part, “The campaign was conceived with good intentions … but some people have been offended. As this was never our intention, we have listened and we have decided we will not continue with the tattoo element of the campaign.” At least the company was wise enough to make a change in response to criticism. I wonder, though, what they will come up with next.
Cynthia Murrell, August 10, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
A Call for More Friendly Enterprise Search Results
August 10, 2015
An idea from ClearBox Consulting would bring enterprise search results in line with today’s online searches. The company’s blog asserts, “Enterprise Search? We Need Some Answers on a Card.” Writer Sam Marshall likes the way Google now succinctly presents key information about a user’s query in a “card” at the top of the results page, ahead of the old-school list of relevant links. For example, he writes:
“Imagine you want to know the time of the next train between two cities. When you type this into Google, the first hit isn’t a link to a site but a card like the one below. It not only gives the times but also useful additional information: a map, trip duration, and tabs for walking, driving, and cycling. Enterprise search isn’t like this. The same query on an intranet gives the equivalent of a link to a PDF containing the timetable for the whole region. It’s like saying ‘here’s the book, look it up yourself’. This is not only a poor user experience for the employee, but a direct cost to the employer in wasted time. I’d like to see enterprise search move away from results pages of links to providing pages of answers too, and cards are a powerful way of doing this.”
Marshall emphasizes some advantage of the card approach: the most important information is right there, separated from related but irrelevant data; cards work better on mobile devices; and cards are user-friendly. Besides, he notes, since this format is now popular with sites from Facebook to Twitter, users are becoming familiar with them.
The card concept could be enhanced, Marshall continues, by personalizing results to the individual—tapping into employee profiles or even GPS data. For more information, see the article; it utilizes a hypothetical query about paternity leave to well-illustrate its point. Though enterprise search is not exactly known for living on the cutting edge of technology, developers would be foolish not to incorporate this (or a similar) efficient format.
Cynthia Murrell, August 10, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Misinformation How To: You Can Build a False Identity
August 9, 2015
The Def Con hit talk is summarized in “Rush to Put Death Records Online Lets Anyone Be Killed.” The main idea is that one can fill out forms (inject) containing misinformation. Various “services” suck in the info and then make “smart” decisions about that information. Plug in the right combination of fake and shaped data, and a living human being can be declared “officially” dead. There are quite a few implications of this method which is capturing the imaginations of real and would be bad actors. Why swizzle through the so called Dark Web when you can do it yourself. The question is, “How do search engines identify and filter this type of information?” Oh, right. The search engines do not. Quality and perceived accuracy are defined within the context of advertising and government grants.
Stephen E Arnold, August 9, 2015
How Do We Fail Thee? Let Me Say Some Ways
August 9, 2015
I read “Post Mortems.” The write up is an earthworm. That is my jargon for a list of disconnected items. Humans love lists. Right, Moses? This list points to information about failures. Most of the items have brief comments such as:
Kickstarter. Primary DB became inconsistent with all replicas, which wasn’t detected until a query failed. This was caused by a MySQL bug which sometimes caused
order byto be ignored.
and
Microsoft. A bad config took down Azure storage.
Interesting. Hopefully the earthworm will be fattened with examples like “Germans in ‘Brains Off, Just Follow Orders’ Hospital Data Centre Faff.” the main idea is some dutiful workers removed air conditioners from a server room.
Stephen E Arnold, August 9, 2015
Math and Morality: Revenue Is More Important Than Either
August 8, 2015
I read “Should Search Algorithms Be Moral?” Not too many outfits in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, have a full time, benefits included position for a philosopher. That’s probably better for the philosophers. Kentucky is into horse racing, bourbon, political fancy dancing, and fried chicken.
The article explores the notion of moral math. Okay, interesting. I learned:
Google has never claimed to deliver the best information. Google’s search algorithm is designed for efficiency: To provide the results users are most likely looking for and to move them on to their next site as quickly as possible. In order to do that, they pool and analyze our every digital fidget to best Google has never claimed to deliver the best information.
You can work through the original.
In my experience, what matters is revenue. My hunch is that math at the GOOG serves the folks who wants dollars and cents. Addition and subtraction work just fine. The philosophy part is a cost that the new CFO might chop out if the anti Google, pro fine folks in the European Commission find the disconnect between Google’s practice and philosophy too jarring. I wonder what Foundem’s view of Google’s philosophical approach is?
Stephen E Arnold, August 8, 2015
Does Math Make Distinctions?
August 8, 2015
I read “What Does a Data Scientist Do That a Traditional Data Analytics Team Can’t?” Good marketing question. Math, until the whole hearted embrace of fuzziness, was reasonably objective. Survivors of introductory statistics learned about the subjectivity involved with Bayesian antics and the wonder of fiddling with thresholds. You remember. Above this value, do this; below this value, do that. Eventually one can string together numerical recipes which make threshold decisions based on inputs. In the hands of responsible, capable, and informed professionals, the systems work reasonably. Sure, smart software can drift and then run off the rails. There are procedures to keep layered systems on track. They work reasonably well for horseshoes. You know. Close enough for horseshoes. Monte Carlo’s bright lights beckon.
The write up takes a different approach. The idea is that someone who does descriptive procedures is an apple. The folks who do predictive procedures are oranges. One lets the data do the talking. Think of a spreadsheet jockey analyzing historical pre tax profits at a public company. Now contrast that with a person who looks at data and makes judgments about what the data “mean.”
Close enough for horse shoes.
Which is more fun? Go with the fortune tellers, of course.
The write up also raises the apparent black-white issue of structured versus unstructured data. The writer says:
Unstructured or “dirty” data is in many ways the opposite of its more organized counterpart, and is what data scientists rely on for their analysis. Data of this type is made up of qualitative rather than quantitative information — descriptive words instead of measurable numbers — and comes from more obscure sources such as emails, sentiment expressed in blogs or engagement across social media. Processing this information also involves the use of probability and statistical algorithms to translate what is learned into advanced applications for machine learning or even artificial intelligence, and these skills are often well beyond those of the average data analyst.
There you go. One does not want to be average. I am tempted to ask mode, median, or mean?
Net net: If the mathematical foundation is wrong, if the selected procedure is inappropriate, if the data are not validated—errors are likely and they will propagate.
One does not need to be too skilled in mathematics to understand that mistakes are not covered or ameliorated with buzz words.
Stephen E Arnold, August 8, 2016
American Sign Language Emojis: Will Search Vendors Adapt?
August 7, 2015
Short honk: Forget words in English. “There’s Finally a Good Way to Text in Sign Language” explains that a new mobile keyboard app allows American Sign Language speakers to send text messages to a hearing impaired individual. The write up states:
Signily also includes animated signs for many popular ASL phrases that don’t have exact English translations. This makes texting a more natural experience for signers.
How does one parse and search these messages? Think look up table maybe? Will semantic vendors be able to make sense of animated signs?
Sure, semantic search is just super. And the meeting to discuss this?
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2015
Android: No Fragmentation, You Haters
August 7, 2015
I posted a story in Beyond Search a couple of years ago called “Google Asserts No Android Fragmentation.” One of the readers of that story posted this comment on April 12, 2012. I don’t know Mr. Juliano, and I assume he is, like any other reader of Beyond Search, a person on superior intellect and insightful analyses. He wrote (an I leave his post uncorrected since one doesn’t fiddle with an expert’s statements):
There is no such thing as fragmentation on Android. I bought an android phone and it came with whatever OS version it came with (I have no idea what version it is) nor do I care what version it is. All I care is that it works. Compared to Apple, it does circles around iOS. “fragmentation” only seems to matter to developers (i personally believe this is just made up by apple shills to try to discredit android since it has overtaken iOS devices world wide).
I thought of this post when I read “One Look at This Ridiculous Diagram Tells You Why the Android Business Is Such a Disaster Right Now.” I assume that this Business Insider article was written by an individual lacking the discernment of Mr. Juliano. Let me show you a tiny version of the “diagram.”
The point is that there are lots and lots of different colors in the chart. I particularly like the motif of the lower right hand quadrant.
The write up states:
That [the fragmentation visualization] is a ridiculous number of different Android devices. (Apple, by comparison, has about four different iPhones for sale at any one time.) Nobody needs that level of choice.
The write up references brand fragmentation. Plus the article includes a quote to note:
Android companies need to concentrate on making one or two really excellent phones and tablets and let the devil take the hindmost. Because the current strategy ‚ throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks — is obviously failing.
We have, therefore, an honest difference of opinion. On one side, we have the informed Beyond Search reader. On the other, we have the Business Insider write up.
I will leave it to you to figure out whether Google has fumbled the Android ball. Like the Google European Community market dominance legal matter, perhaps the Google is demonstrating that it may have some issues with its mobile “strategery”.
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2015
IBM Spends to Make Watson Healthier, Hopefully Quickly
August 7, 2015
I noted the article “IBM Adds Medical Images to Watson, Buying Merge Healthcare for $1 Billion.” The company is in the content management business. Medical images are pretty much of a hassle whether in the good old fashioned film form or in digital versions. The few opportunities I have had to looked at murky gray or odd duck enhanced color images, I marveled at how a professional would make sense of the data displayed. Did this explanation trigger thoughts of IBM FileNet?
The image processing technology available from specialist firms permitting satellite or surveillance image analysis are a piece of cake compared to the medical imaging examples I reviewed. From my point of view the nifty stuff available to an analyst looking at the movement of men and equipment were easier to figure out.
Merge delivers a range of image and content management services to health care outfits. The systems can work with on premises systems and park data in the cloud in a way that keeps the compliance folks happy.
According to the write up:
When IBM set up its Watson health business in April, it began with a couple of smaller medical data acquisitions and industry partnerships with Apple, Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic. Last week, IBM announced a partnership with CVS Health, the large pharmacy chain, to develop data-driven services to help people with chronic ailments like diabetes and heart disease better manage their health.
Now Watson is plopping down a $1 billion to get a more substantive, image centric, and—dare I say it—more traditional business.
The idea I learned:
“We’re bringing Watson and analytics to the largest data set in health care — images,” John Kelly, IBM’s senior vice president of research who oversees the Watson business, said in an interview.
The idea, as I understand the management speak, is that Watson will be able to perform image analysis, thus allowing IBM to convert Watson into a significant revenue generator. IBM does need all the help it can get. The company has just achieved a milestone of sorts; IBM’s revenue has declined for 13 consecutive quarters.
My view is that the integration of the Merge systems with the evolving Watson “solution” will be expensive, slow, and frustrating to those given the job of making image analysis better, faster, and cheaper.
My hunch is that the time and cost required to integrate Watson and Merge will be an issue in six or nine months. Once the “integration” is complete, the costs of adding new features and functions to keep pace with regulations and advances in diagnosis and treatment will create a 21st century version of FileNet. (FileNet, as you, gentle reader, know as the 2006 acquisition. At the time, nine years ago, IBM said that the FileNet technology would
“advance its Information on Demand initiative, IBM’s strategy for pursuing the growing market opportunity around helping clients capture insights from their information so it can be used as a strategic asset. FileNet is a leading provider of business process and content management solutions that help companies simplify critical and everyday decision making processes and give organizations a competitive advantage.”
FileNet was an imaging technology for financial institutions and a search system which allowed a person with access to the system to locate a check or other scanned document.)
And FileNet today? Well, like many IBM acquisitions it is still chugging along, just part of the services oriented architecture at Big Blue. Why, one might ask, was the FileNet technology not applicable to health care? I will leave you to ponder the answer.
I want to be optimistic about the upside of this Merge acquisition for the companies involved and for the health care professionals who will work with the Watsonized system. I assume that IBM will put on a happy face about Watson’s image analysis capabilities. I, however, want to see the system in action and have some hard data, not M&A fluff, about the functionality and accuracy of the merged systems.
At this moment, I think Watson and other senior IBM managers are looking for a way to make a lemon grove from Watson. Nothing makes bankers and deal makers happy than a big, out of the blue acquisition.
Now the job is to find a way to sell enough lemons to pay for the maintenance and improvement of the lemon grove. I assume Watson has an answer to on going costs for maintenance and enhancements, bug finding and stomping, and the PR such activities trigger. Yep, costs and revenue. Boring but important to IBM’s stakeholders.
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
