Yahoo: Semantic Search Is the Future
August 16, 2015
I love it when Yahoo explains the future of search. The Xoogler has done the revisionism thing and shifted from Yahoo as a directory built by silly humanoids to a leader in search. Please, do not remember that Yahoo bought Inktomi in 2002 and then rolled out a wild and crazy search system in cahoots with IBM in 2006. (By the way, that search solution brought my IBM multi cpu, DASD equipped, RAM stuffed server to its knees. At least, the “free” software installed.)
Now to business: I read “The Future of Search Relies on Semantic Technologies.” For me, semantic technologies have been part of search for many years. But never mind reality. Let’s get to the Reddi-wip in the Yahoo confection.
Yahoo asserts:
Search companies are thus investing in information extraction and data fusion, as well as more and more advanced question-answering capabilities on top of the collected information. The need for these technologies is only increasing with mobile search, where providing results as ten blue links leads to a very poor user experience.
I would point out that as lousy as blue links are, these links produce about $60 billion a year for the Alphabet Google thing and enough zeros for the Microsoft wizards to hang on to its online advertising business even as it loses enthusiasm for other aspects of the Bing thing.
Yahoo adds:
We are a consumer internet company, so for us there is little difference between our internal and external representations.
My comment is a simple question, “What the heck is Yahoo saying?”
I also highlighted this semantic gem:
At Yahoo Labs, we work in advancing the sciences that underlie these approaches, i.e. Natural Language Processing, Information Retrieval and the Semantic Web.
I like the notion of Yahoo advancing science. I wonder if these advances will lead to advances in top line revenue, stabilizing management, and producing search results that are sort of related to the query.
Mid Tier Consulting Firm Identifies the New Economy
August 16, 2015
The information economy is officially over. There is a new economy in town, and you need to listen up. I can hear R Lee Ermey, the drill sergeant in Platoon saying, “You are dumb, Private Pyle, but do you expect me to believe that you don’t know left from right?”
I read “Big Data Fades to the Algorithm Economy.” I thought Big Data was the future. Guess I was wrong again. I learned that “Algorithms are all around us.” Gee, I did not know that.
I learned:
For organizations, the opportunity will first center on monetizing their proprietary algorithms by offering licensing to other non-competing organizations. For example, a supply chain company can license its just-in-time logistics algorithms to a refrigerator manufacturer that seeks to partner with a grocery chain to automatically replenish food based on your eating habits. Why invent or slowly develop sophisticated algorithms at huge cost when you can license and implement them quickly at low cost?
There is “fevered questioning” underway. Gee, I did not know that. In my experience, I see more “fevered confusion.”
But the fix is “proprietary algorithms.”
Okay, what is an algorithm?
A formula or set of steps for solving a particular problem. To be an algorithm, a set of rules must be unambiguous and have a clear stopping point. Algorithms can be expressed in any language, from natural languages like English or French to programming languages like FORTRAN.
It seems to me that a procedure qualifies as an algorithm if it works. A proprietary algorithm is, I assume, a trade secret.
I am delighted that math is not involved; otherwise, there is the problem with companies built on procedures endlessly recycled from books like Algorithms in a Nutshell, Algorithms, The Art of Computer Programming, and other standard texts with loads of numerical recipes.
I understand. The mid tier consulting firm is defining a business process as an algorithm. Magic. Well, if Big Data won’t sell – If enterprise search won’t sell — If content management won’t sell, just go with algorithms.
How quickly will McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Booz, and SRI pick up on this conceptual breakthrough? Any moment now. I assume each company’s blue chip consultants know left from right — usually. Other outfits may get confused. Left? Right?
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2015
Quote to Note: What Alphabet Spells
August 16, 2015
I read “News Corp’s CEO Bizarre Obsession With Made Up Lies About Google.” I am fascinated with “real” journalists approach to information. Here’s the passage I noted:
That Google’s newly conceived parent company is to be called Alphabet has itself created a range of delicious permutations: A is for Avarice, B is for Bowdlerize, through to K for Kleptocracy, P for Piracy and Z for Zealotry.
The Alphabet Google is making news without the fancy words. I am not sure what kleptocracy means. More interesting to me was this item, which I assume is true: “Google Skirted Drone Test Rules by Using a Deal with NASA.” Google’s approach seems more efficient than other firms’ methods.
I do like that kleptocracy thing, however.
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2015
ABC.xyz: Just Big Enough
August 15, 2015
I read a remarkable write up called “Week in Tech: Google Was Only the Beginning for Larry and Sergey.” The write up asserts:
Google simply wasn’t big enough to house Alphabet’s ambition.
Shouldn’t that be Messrs. Brin’s and Page’s ambition?
Nevertheless, the article bubbles with enthusiasm; for example:
And that’s just how low on the list of priorities the little subsidiary company by the name of Google had become in the eyes of its co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. It’s almost as if they now see their parenting job complete and they’re happy to wave Google off to lead its own life. Now tech’s most terrific twosome have a new litter of offspring, which have even bigger potential to change the world.
I talked for about 40 minutes with a bright reporter from a major Canadian publication. The topic was Alphabet. My view was slightly different from the one in this evanescent Trusted Review write up.
My comments to the journalist focused on these points:
- After the Backrub years and the Google years (think in terms of two decades), Alphabet and Google have one revenue stream: Online advertising. Google has tried with math club sticktoativity. But the efforts have come to naught. Nothing makes money like the modified GoTo.com/Overture.com/Yahoo.com online advertising method.In short, Google remains the one trick revenue pony as Steve Ballmer, MBA, said.
- The management expertise at Google is not up to Jack Welch-type standards. With lots of “presidents” possible, the burden of figuring out how to diversify revenue shifts from Messrs. Brin and Page to others.
- Google faces a person (Margrethe Vestager) in the European Commission who is not too happy with Google’s approach to search results. Whom will this person and her stalwart team sue? Alphabet or the old fashioned Google? Perhaps this shift in company structure is a fairly clumsy move to get ready for the down checks which seem to be rolling down the information highway.
- Search is no longer interesting. The notion of the “all the world’s information” may be more difficult than solving the problem of life extension, generating revenue from the China and Russian markets, and dealing with the natterings of mere elected officials.
I am not anti Google. Hey, that outfit paid for Tyson’s dog food for several years. I am just not star struck because so much of Google’s early success resulted from three historical events which the cheerleaders don’t know. I think these folks cut history class when the information was presented.
First, Alta Vista tanked, and Messrs. Brin and Page scooped up some talent who possessed the raw engineering experience and expertise to build a variant of the Kleinberg CLEVER system, mix in the Alta Vista memory stuff, and cook up some useful search outputs until the IPO.
Second, Yahoo was unable to do much with its online ad business. The Googlers, like Raphael, entered the Domus Aurea and received inspiration. Prior to the IPO, the inspiration had a price tag, but the revenue free Google suddenly had a business model, not objective search results.
Third, the competition in the period from 1996 (early Backrub) to 2002 (functioning Google search) was clueless. There was the waffling of Fast Search & Transfer, the cluelessness of Yahoo’s management, and the portal mania which swept through Web search. Good systems like Muscat and Hotbot never had a chance. The Google emerged as the victor after the opposing armies went to Shake Shack to ponder their future.
Now the Alphabet Google reorganization makes official the end of a search era. Like enterprise search, some useful functions emerged. But the precision, recall, and relevance has morphed into something less useful to me but not to the author of “Google Was Only the Beginning.” I like the past tense too.
What’s next?
Cognitive computing and Watson? Smart software which understands Farsi slang? Humans who know how to locate, vet, and process information? Big Data and Hadoop plus open source wrappers? Videos on a smartphone? Predictive methods which deliver information before I know I need that information. An Uber like service for high value competitive intelligence?
Oh, right. We have the mobile Google methods. And they are about ads. Boring. Why not go to the moon, invent nano methods to address genetic disorders, and use balloons to deliver Internet access to Sri Lanka?
Which Alphabet letters will spell $60 billion a year in the original Google’s ramp time?
Stephen E Arnold, August 15, 2015
Semantic Search Word Play: Nail and Hospital Edition
August 15, 2015
I find the semantic search hoo-hah fascinating. Not long ago, I reported that Yebol, which some semantic wizard was promoting, bit the dust in 2010. No matter. The semantic search boomlet continues to echo. I don’t hear it in my neck of the woods, but apparently some folks are tuned to this semantic razzle dazzle.
The write up which caught my attention this morning is “Semantic Search: Is It Time for a Think Building Campaign?”
My answer is, “No.”
Let’s look at the argument because I am often wrong, off base, and addled. What do you expect from a goose living in rural Kentucky where 300 baud is a speedy network connection.
The write up points out a traffic hungry person could sign up for directories. Anyone remember those? Yahoo was one, but the Xoogler has anchored Yahoo’s revisionist history is “search.” I don’t expect much in the history department. Sorry.
The article leaps to this point:
The biggest reason to re-evaluate the power of moderated local directories, and related resources, has to do with Google’s shift towards semantic search. If you aren’t aware of this transition, the premise is simple: instead of simply matching keywords to pages that exist in the search engine’s databases, Google’s engineers are trying to get better about understanding the context of the search, and the intent of the searcher.
Sounds great, right. The problem is that Google engineers (not the Alphabet crowd) are trying to find ways to pump up the advertising revenue. I am not sure “semantics” is going to help as much as other types of content processing activities.
Nevertheless, the write up then makes this interesting statement:
This sounds technical but it’s conceptually straightforward. Imagine for a moment that I pick up my iPhone and tell Google’s app that I’ve “driven a nail through my leg”. Matching that exact search phrase isn’t important to me in interpreting results – what matters is that I want “hospital” instead of a “hardware store.” That’s the essence of semantic search.
Now, hold one’s mules, please. The person who pounds a nail through one’s leg may not need a hospital. If the nail misses the femur and threads around (not through) the popliteal, posterior tibial, anterior tibial, peroneal, planar, and dorsalis pedis arteries—one might pull out the nail.
Here in Kentucky, the person who performs this act of self mutilation or willful or unintentional abuse might want a link to this health care facility:
Disagree? That’s what makes horse races.
The write up points out that one can purchase “reputation.” The article points to WhiteSpark and MOZ Local.
The conclusion to the write up certainly is upbeat:
Taking advantage of citations and directories can still help you improve your findability – on search engines and elsewhere in the real world – but only if you’re focused on providing valuable information for potential customers, instead of trying to beat those ever-changing algorithms. In many ways semantic search takes us back to the golden days of the Web, when in terms of working online anything was possible as long as you had passion, belief in yourself, and energy to work at it.
Yep, the golden days. The issue I have with the write up is that semantic search as a way to distort Google’s already flakey relevance algorithms is an example of SEO adaptation. The carnival has arrived. The SEO snake oil sales person will cure your site’s pancreatic cancer and maybe help a a customer avoid pounding nails into one’s body parts.
Stephen E Arnold, August 15, 2015
Madison Avenue Sets Data Science Straight
August 15, 2015
The baloney manufactured by the data science crowd has amazed me. I look for comments about making statistics and math easy in my old familiar places. I don’t pay attention to the wonderful world of advertising.
I followed a link a story in Advertising Age. I like the name. We are indeed in the age of advertising. The title of the article is “Don’t Confuse Business Intelligence with Real Data Science, Says AOL Platforms Chief Tech Officer.”
Yes, AOL, now a unit of an even more exceptional outfit. Even better, AOL has been piloted to the pinnacle of success by a Xoogler.
The main point of the write up is that some folks are confusing “different data practices.” The article says:
People sometimes confuse business intelligence with data science, Mr. Demsey [Verizon/AOL wizard] said. Although cloud computing and open sourced frameworks have served to democratize data science, there’s a big difference between using data to create charts and graphs and actually combining and transforming data, the work of a data scientist, he said. Data science is predictive while oftentimes business intelligence employs backward-looking data, he added.
The passage I highlighted is this one:
Expect the sophisticated marketer’s increasing focus on connecting digital and offline dots to factor in heavily to the integration of AOL and Verizon. “We’re in the process right now of putting things together in a way that is authentic and makes sense,” he said, noting Verizon’s “human, technology, customers and data.” “It’s a continuum. It’s never going to be over.”
I agree that folks are confusing the data (big, real time) with methods (analytics, “intelligence”). The Madison Avenue world certainly knows the difference between the oxymoronic business intelligence concept and the nebulous data science thing.
The problem is what I learned from the article is that Verizon is going to connect dots. Is this business intelligence? Is this data science? Is this more baloney?
Stephen E Arnold, August 15, 2015
Oracle: The Ostrich Syndrome
August 14, 2015
I read “Oracle’s Chief Security Officer Mary Ann Davidson Just Made as Rookie Mistake.” No, it has nothing to do with trying to breathe life into Oracle Secure Enterprise Search or increasing the content processing speed of Endeca. Those might be really difficult tasks.
According to the write up:
Oracle Chief Security Officer Mary Ann Davidson was forced to remove a blog post after she made a mistake that made her sound out of touch with the security space. In her online post, she claimed that security researchers who point out flaws in Oracle software may be in violation of the company’s license agreement. She said reverse engineering is not allowed under the company’s own TOS.
Quite a good idea if one is struggling with the Java thing, open source database annoyances, and push back about certain licensing policies and fees.
I read this and thought of the creature which buries its head in the sand.
To make the issue more interesting, Oracle removed the post which allegedly said:
“If we determine as part of our analysis that scan results could only have come from reverse engineering, we send a letter to the sinning customer, and a different letter to the sinning consultant-acting-on-customer’s behalf – reminding them of the terms of the Oracle license agreement that preclude reverse engineering, So Please Stop It Already”
I love the “already.” There is a robust market sector which identifies and provides information about vulnerabilities to those who are not into the ostrich approach to information.
Isn’t this disappearing, revisionistic information trend fascinating. What you do not know cannot possibly harm you. Ignorance is bliss. Be happy.
Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2014
Alphabet Google: A Variant of the Dog Ate My Homework
August 14, 2015
I read a story which I assume is true. I had a brief brush with teaching in graduate school. I heard some amazing things. Most of them focused on a common theme:
I need more time to complete my paper.
I never heard anyone say, “The dog ate my homework.” I did hear that a student was caught in a family squabble and various legal actions triggered several days of absences. Once my short, confusing instructional experience ended, I assumed that I would not hear any more of the dog ate my homework excuse.
I was wrong.
Navigate to “EU Extends Google Antitrust Investigation Response Deadline.” I learned:
Google now has until August 31 to answer the charges made against it. It’s the second time that Google has had the deadline for responding to the claims made against it extended, with the web firm’s initial deadline of July 7 previously moved back to August 17.
Google has been busy. Google is now alphabet. The Google that used to include Loon balloons and beating death is now the “old” Google. I am not confused, but I assume that figuring out who and what is under EU scrutiny takes some time to figure out.
What’s fascinating is that Google did the student thing. Even more surprising is that the EU seems to be a flexible deadline setter.
Woof, woof. The dog does not have indigestion. Will the disobedient dog make another attempt to consume GOOG or Alphabet or – wait, wait, don’t tell me – maybe GOOGL outputs again?
Ploy or time management issues? You decide.
Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2015
Revisionism: Hit That Delete Key for Happiness
August 14, 2015
The Jive Aces are into happy songs. Reddit has figured out how to make some folks who love revisionism happy. I wonder if the Jive Aces have a tune for removing content to create digital happiness.
Navigate to “Reddit Responds after Being Threatened, Banned and Unbanned by the Russian Government.” The main point is that one cannot find information if it is not in the index. Magic. Better and cheaper than reprinting history books in certain countries.
The write up says:
One thing that is clear is that Russia doesn’t play around though when it comes to speech encouraging drug use online. In 2013, Roskomnadzor blacklisted Wikipedia in its entirety for a single article on “Cannabis smoking.” Reddit doesn’t address concerns over restrictions of free speech from the Russian government in this statement, but instead seems to say that whatever the situation, wherever it’s posted, Reddit and Reddit alone has the final call. It sounds like a lot of redditors are perplexed by Reddit’s right to “restrict content,” but in the time being it seems that stability, rather than free speech, is Reddit’s main priority.
Cue the music:
Even when the darkest clouds are in the sky
You mustn’t sigh and you mustn’t cry
Spread a little happiness as you go by
That’s it. Reddit is spreading a little happiness. Are Russian content mavens smiling? I assume they are having a “golden shoes day.” When information is disappeared, that makes someone happy.
Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2015
Insight Into the Zero-Day Vulnerability Business
August 14, 2015
An ironic security breach grants a rare glimpse into the workings of an outfit that sells information on security vulnerabilities, we learn from “Hacking Team: a Zero-Day Market Case Study” at Vlad Tsyrklevich’s blog. Software weak spots have become big business. From accessing sensitive data to installing secret surveillance software, hackers hunt for chinks in the armor and sell that information to the highest (acceptable) bidder. It seems to be governments, mostly, that purchase this information, but corporations and other organizations can be in the market, as well. The practice is, so far, perfectly legal, and vendors swear they only sell to the good guys. One of these vulnerability vendors is Italian firm Hacking Team, known for its spying tools. Hacking Team itself was recently hacked, its email archives exposed.
Blogger Vlad Tsyrklevich combs the revealed emails for information on the market for zero-day (or 0day) vulnerabilities. These security gaps are so named because once the secret is out, the exposed party has “zero days” to fix the vulnerability before damage is done. Some may find it odd just how prosaic the procedure for selling zero-days appears. The article reveals:
“Buyers follow standard technology purchasing practices around testing, delivery, and acceptance. Warranty and requirements negotiations become necessary in purchasing a product intrinsically predicated on the existence of information asymmetry between the buyer and the seller. Requirements—like targeted software configurations—are important to negotiate ahead of time because adding support for new targets might be impossible or not worth the effort. Likewise warranty provisions for buyers are common so they can minimize risk by parceling out payments over a set timeframe and terminating payments early if the vulnerability is patched before that timeframe is complete. Payments are typically made after a 0day exploit has been delivered and tested against requirements, necessitating sellers to trust buyers to act in good faith. Similarly, buyers purchasing exploits must trust the sellers not to expose the vulnerability or share it with others if it’s sold on an exclusive basis.”
The post goes on to discuss pricing, product reliability, and the sources of Hacking Team’s offerings. Tsyrklevich compiles specifics on dealings between Hacking Team and several of its suppliers, including the companies Netragard, Qavar, VUPEN, Vulnerabilities Brokerage International, and COSEINC, as well as a couple of freelancing individuals. See the article for more on each of these (and a few more under “miscellaneous”). Tsyrklevich notes that, though the exposure of Hacking Team’s emails has prompted changes to the international export-control agreement known as the Wassenaar Arrangement, the company itself seems to be weathering the exposure just fine. In fact, their sales are reportedly climbing.
Cynthia Murrell, August 14, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
