Sinequa and Microsoft SharePoint: The Emperor Has No Search!
September 9, 2015
The French are endlessly entertaining. A number of information access outfits have emerged from the super sophisticated French academic machine. Most of these outfits are mostly unknown outside of France. I am not sure about the reason. For example, have you been keeping pace with the push of Antidot, Dassault Exalead, and Polyspot into the US market? Are you tracking the Spotter acquisition? What about the open source search solutions available?
I was in the wilds of Canada. A reader sent me a link to a LinkedIn thread about Gartner’s absolutely fantastic analyses of enterprise search. (Nope, don’t fret. I won’t rehash my earlier comments about this brilliant piece of work. I will not remind you that the report omitted a few outfits.)
On with the mission.
The post was/is “Don’t Forget These Solutions That Did NOT Qualify for 2015 Gartner MQ on Enterprise Search” and written by a professional at the consulting firm Search Technologies. (Search Technologies has some of its roots in the Excalibur/ConQuest/Convera era I believe). The “MQ” is the author’s way of referencing the Gartner Magic Quadrant. Yes, indeed, it is magic.
The author pointed out that Gartner ignored based on its extensive quantitative and poetical analyses Endeca (an Oracle outfit), Microsoft SharePoint (owner of the outstanding Fast Search & Transfer Technology from the late 1990s), Elasticsearch (which is now Elastic and inking deals in second string outfits like Goldman Sachs), and MarkLogic (which I think may be a data management system).
The meat of the thread was this comment by one of France’s most prescient experts on information access, who is also hooked up with Sinequa and presumably reflects the collective insight of that firm, which was founded in 2002.
Sinequa wrote:
Sorry, Graham but SharePoint is not an enterprise search platform. [Editor: We fixed the punctuation and spelling of SharePoint, gentle reader.]
Okay, there you have it. Two outfits disagree about search in SharePoint. Both are in the search game. Both are clearly wizards and mavens in the search thing.
I would humbly submit that Microsoft indeed does offer search in SharePoint. The methods can be mind breakers. See, for example, this write up about crawled properties in SharePoint 2013.
Better yet, check out the “Search in SharePoint 2013” from the horse’s mouth or as Donald Trump prefers, the horse’s whatever.
I want to reflect on what the statement “Sorry, Graham but SharePoint is not an enterprise search platform.”
My thoughts are:
- Sinequa is an enterprise search platform. If SharePoint is not an enterprise search platform, therefore, you, gentle reader, must license the French system Sinequa to deliver you to information access heaven. If you sign the deal in Paris, you may be delivered to an okay French restaurant.
- SharePoint is a box of Legos. Once a licensee builds something like a content management system for employees, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to look up if the person in the next cube or on contract and working from Starbuck’s is in the system. Wrong. Dear, dear Microsoft provides. Goodness, even Windows 10 offers a way to find a person if an expert has cracked the SharePoint and Windows 10 permissions and access codes.
- Sinequa is just reminding a consultant that real information access vendors do not make silly mistakes. I find that when I mispronounce a French word or phrase, native French speakers are ever so helpful. My fave is faire le pont, which means take more days off.
Why do I trouble myself to write this?
First, the silliness of arguing with the Gartner’s mathematical analyses of enterprise search vendors warrants not one whit of criticism. Perfection has been attained. This is not a European Philae lander bounce around thing.
Second, Sinequa feels strongly that Graham definitely needs to be set straight. Who better than a vendor of information access systems which was sidestepped by Microsoft when it was tire kicking before the 2008 Fast Search acquisition? Is there a sour French whine?
Third, LinkedIn loves these threads which attract a robust two comments. There are so many LinkedIn members involved in enterprise search. I mean two comments. Be still my heart.
What’s that say about Gartner? What’s that say about enterprise search? What’s that say about LinkedIn?
Answer: Three Michelin stars for paupiettes de porc.
Stephen E Arnold, September 9, 2015
The Sad eCommerce Search Realities
September 9, 2015
We love it when articles make pop cultures references as a way to get their point across. Over at Easy Ask, an articled entitled “ ‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want’ – The Realities of eCommerce Search” references the Keith Richards and Mick Jagger song explaining how a Web site loses a customer. The potential customer searches for an product, fails to find using the search feature, so the person moves onto a new destination.
What happens is that a Web site search function might not understand all the query terms or it might return results that fail to meet the shopper’s need. The worst option any eCommerce shop could show a shopper is a “no results found” page. It might be a seem like simple feature to overcome, but search algorithms need to be fine tuned like any other coding. The good news that decent eCommerce searches have already been designed.
“How can you avoid these misunderstandings? One approach is to employ search software that understands the words in the search and how they relate to each other and the site’s catalog. These search engines are called ‘Contextual Search’ and employ ‘Natural Language Processing’ software. Remember diagramming sentences in elementary school and identifying the nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Knowing the role of a word in a website search helps find the right products.”
Contextual search that uses natural language processing treats queries based on a user’s true intentions, rather than giving each term the same weight. Contextual search is more intuitive and yields more accurate results. The article finishes by saying the customers “get what they need.” Ah, what a wise use of The Rolling Stones.
Whitney Grace, September 9, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Bing Snapshots for In-App Searches
September 9, 2015
Developers have a new tool for incorporating search data directly into apps, we learn in “Bing Snapshots First to Bring Advanced In-App Search to Users” at Search Engine Watch. Apparently Google announced a similar feature, Google Now on Tap, earlier this year, but Microsoft’s Bing has beaten them to the consumer market. Of course, part of Snapshot’s goal is to keep users from wandering out of “Microsoft territory,” but many users are sure to appreciate the convenience nevertheless. Reporter Mike O’Brien writes:
“With Bing Snapshots, developers will be able to incorporate all of the search engine’s information into their apps, allowing users to perform searches in context without navigating outside. For example, a friend could mention a restaurant on Facebook Messenger. When you long-press the Home button, Bing will analyze the contents of the screen and bring up a snapshot of a restaurant, with actionable information, such as the restaurant’s official website and Yelp reviews, as well Uber.”
Bing officials are excited about the development (and, perhaps, scoring a perceived win over Google), declaring this the start of a promising relationship with developers. The article continues:
“Beyond making sure Snapshots got a headstart over Google Now on Tap, Bing is also able to stand out by becoming the first search engine to make its knowledge graph available to developers. That will happen this fall, though some APIs are already available on the company’s online developer center. Bing is currently giving potential users sneak peeks on its Android app.”
Hmm, that’s a tad ironic. I look forward to seeing how Google positions the launch of Google Now on Tap when the time comes.
Cynthia Murrell, September 9, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
IBM Watson and Its Voice
September 8, 2015
i read “IBM Gets Watson to Sound Like Stephen Hawking.” Before I read the write up, I was disconcerted. After I read the article, I was offended. My annoyance comes from the antics of IBM and the approach of the Cnet story.
I reacted negatively to this statement:
What’s moving for me (I’m not sure in which direction) is that Watson sounds distinctly — to my ears, at least — like Stephen Hawking. The syllabic inflections have that British-Transatlantic hybrid thing going on. It’s all a little familiar, all a little like Hawking’s Intel-based vocal projections.
Why cover Watson’s ads? I will answer the question: “There’s not much else about Watson to cover.” Even IBM sidesteps Watson when it describes the wonders of IBM OmniFind Enterprise Search 3.
The real news about IBM is not the goal of delivering exaflop computing or curing cancer with Lucene, home brew code, and acquired technology. The news is that IBM continues to dump staff. One can track the cuts at the Endicott Alliance site. The Wall Street wizards swizzle around the fact that IBM has turned in more than a dozen quarters of declining revenue. The hapless licensee of legacy Informix staggers when the fees for support come from Big Blue.
Referencing Stephen Hawking and his “voice” does not make me happy. Ignoring the significant issues at IBM gives me a headache. Maybe Watson has a recipe to remedy these situations. Maybe not.
Perhaps Watson should lose its voice?
Stephen E Arnold, September 8, 2015
Hey, Online Ad Fraud. Exaggerated for Sure
September 8, 2015
With digital information now the Land of Mad Ave, I enjoy thinking about advertising fraud. Hey, online fraud, you are overstated. I read “Widely cited Ad Blocking Study Finding $21.8 Billion Loss Is Incorrect.” Advertising is a pristine discipline. There is no stage magicianship. There is no 17.65 commission. There is no “Let’s do horses on a beach” thinking.
Nevertheless, the write up makes this point to unbelievers:
the study ignored the law of supply and demand. To get to the $21.8 billion dollar figure, it assumed that the blocked ads, if added to the overall pool of ad inventory, would command the same rates as those in a market without them. But in a real world situation, if ad blocking went away, the market would flood with an increased supply of ad inventory, dropping rates for all ads and leading to a much smaller loss figure than $21.8 billion. A word about ad blocking: the term may be a bit of a misnomer. The technology doesn’t “block” existing ads but rather prevents them from ever being served. Advertisers pay for ads when they show up on a web page (called an impression) after being served. So when an ad is “blocked,” the advertiser doesn’t waste any money, but rather doesn’t spend it. This cash remains available to spend on a smaller pool of inventory. Same cash (demand), less inventory (supply), should result in higher prices for ad inventory that remains after blocking. Those extra dollars from higher prices end up in the hands of publishers, the ones supposedly “losing” the $21.8 billion dollars.
I understand. I know that devices which prevent easy fast forwarding through commercial are an anomaly. I know that when ads blare when I open a Web page as I puzzle over the weird “allow or disallow” option are rare birdies. I know that when I think information is distorted by a commercial relationship that I just don’t have the right attitude.
Advertising, skewed search results, and infomercials are not an issue. Relax. Buy ads.
Stephen E Arnold, September 8, 2015
Algorithms Are Objective As Long As You Write Them
September 8, 2015
I read “Big Data’s Neutral Algorithms Could Discriminate against Most Vulnerable.” Ridiculous. Objective procedures cannot discriminate. The numerical recipes do what they do.
Ah, but when a human weaves together methods and look up tables, sets thresholds, and uses Bayesian judgments, well, maybe a little bit of bias can be baked in.
The write up reports:
So how will the courts address algorithmic bias? From retail to real estate, from employment to criminal justice, the use of data mining, scoring software and predictive analytics programs is proliferating at an exponential rate. Software that makes decisions based on data like a person’s ZIP code can reflect, or even amplify, the results of historical or institutional discrimination.”[A]n algorithm is only as good as the data it works with,” Solon Barocas and Andrew Selbst write in their article “Big Data’s Disparate Impact,” forthcoming in the California Law Review. “Even in situations where data miners are extremely careful, they can still affect discriminatory results with models that, quite unintentionally, pick out proxy variables for protected classes.”
And I liked this follow on:
It’s troubling enough when Flickr’s auto-tagging of online photos label pictures of black men as “animal” or “ape,” or when researchers determine that Google search results for black-sounding names are more likely to be accompanied by ads about criminal activity than search results for white-sounding names. But what about when big data is used to determine a person’s credit score, ability to get hired, or even the length of a prison sentence?
Shift gears. Navigate to “Microsoft Is Trying to Stop Users from Downloading Chrome or Firefox.” Objective, right?
Two thoughts. The math oriented legal eagles will sort this out. Lawyers are really good at math. Also, write your own algorithm and tune it to deliver what you want. No bias there. You are expressing your inner self.
It’s just a process and billable.
Stephen E Arnold, September 8, 2015
Datameer Declares a Celebration
September 8, 2015
The big data analytics and visualization company Datameer, Inc. has cause to celebrate, because they have received a huge investment. How happy is Datameer? Datameer’s CEO Stefan Groschupf explains on the company blog in the post, “Time To Celebrate The Next Stage Of Our Journey.”
Datameer received $40 million in a round of financing from ST Telemedia, Top Tier Capital Partners, Next World Capital, Redpoint, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Software AG and Citi Ventures. Groschupf details how Datameer was added to the market in 2009 with the vision to democratize analytics. Since 2009, Datameer has helped solve problems across the globe and is even helping make it a better place. He continues he is humbled by the trust the investors and clients place in Datameer, which feeds into the importance of analytics for not only companies, but also anyone who wants supportable truth.
Datameer has big plans for the funding:
“We’ll be focusing on expanding globally, with an eye toward APAC and Latin America as well as additional investment in our existing teams. I’m looking forward to continuing our growth and building a long-term, sustainable company that consistently provides value to our customers. Our vision has been the same since day one – to make big data analytics easy for everyone. Today, I’m happy to say we’re still where we want to be.”
Datameer was one of the early contenders in big data that always managed to outshine and outperform its bigger name competitors. Despite its record growth, Datameer continues to remain true to its open source roots. The company wants to make analytics available to every industry and everyone. What is incredibly impressive is that Datameer has numerous applications for its products from gaming to healthcare, which is usually unheard of. Congratulations to Datameer!
Whitney Grace, September 8, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Algorithms Still Need Oversight
September 8, 2015
Many have pondered what might happen when artificial intelligence systems go off the rails. While not spectacular enough for Hollywood, some very real consequences have been observed; the BBC examines “The Bad Things that Happen When Algorithms Run Online Shops.”
The article begins by relating the tragic tale of an online T-shirt vendor who just wanted to capitalize on the “Keep Calm and Carry On” trend. He set up an algorithm to place random terms into the second half of that oft-copied phrase and generate suggested products. Unfortunately, the list of phrases was not sufficiently vetted, resulting in a truly regrettable slogan virtually printed on virtual examples. Despite the fact that the phrase appeared only on the website, not on any actual shirts, the business never recovered its reputation and closed shortly thereafter. Reporter Chris Baranuik writes:
“But that’s the trouble with algorithms. All sorts of unexpected results can occur. Sometimes these are costly, but in other cases they have benefited businesses to the tune of millions of pounds. What’s the real impact of the machinations of machines? And what else do they do?”
Well, one other thing is to control prices. Baranuik reports that software designed to set online prices competitively, based on what other sites are doing, can cause prices to fluctuate day-to-day, sometimes hour-to-hour. Without human oversight, results can quickly become extreme to either end of the scale. For example, for a short time last December, prices of thousands of products sold through Amazon were set to just one penny each. Amazon itself probably weathered the unintended near-giveaways just fine, but smaller merchants selling through the site were not so well-positioned; some closed as a direct result of the error. On the other hand, vendors trying to keep their prices as high as feasible can make the opposite mistake; the article points to the time a blogger found an out-of-print textbook about flies priced at more than $23 million, the result of two sellers’ dueling algorithms.
Such observations clearly mean that consumers should be very wary about online prices. The bigger takeaway, though, is that we’re far from ready to hand algorithms the reigns of our world without sufficient human oversight. Not yet.
Cynthia Murrell, September 8, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Ebsco Discovers Discovery and Finds Lunch Other Ways
September 7, 2015
If you are in Paris in September 2015, you might want to swing by and catch the Ebsco Subscription Services lecture about “Bien choisir son portail documentaire, un enjeu statégique pour l’enterprise.” Ebsco, like other vendors of expensive “real” content is feeling the economic squeeze. The solution is to find a way to sell library-oriented information to a broader world. The idea is to package up software and expensive information from “real” publishers in a buzzword bundle.
Here’s what the Ebsco expert will explain:
To meet the new needs of research and professional content in business and in particular to help professionals identify, query and operate more easily useful resources, Ebsco Discovery Service has developed a new generation of information portals, marketed as discovery solutions. Ebsco Discovery Service provides company employees with a single access, not only to all [I love these categorical affirmatives] professional information available within the company in paper or electronic format; for example, journals, magazines, books, databases, etc.), but especially to the most reliable and latest information for all [here we go again with precise logical explanations] their research, their business documents, their briefs, their training program, etc.
I noted the two etc. Very comprehensive.
The question is, “Will Ebsco be able to make headway in markets outside of libraries?” Like other for fee content companies, the costs of marketing, technology, and licenses continue to rise.
Diversification is necessary for Ebsco and similar firms. Perhaps Ebsco will succeed. Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, LexisNexis, and other old school outfits are facing the same challenges as Ebsco.
My hunch is that Ebsco and these other old school firms missed out on business and technical information “plays” which were captured by faster moving, more strategic competitors.
For business information today, I find it essential to review the information available on LinkedIn and similar non traditional publishing platforms.
I dearly love the Harvard Business Review and Nature, but I find the information stale and out of touch with my information needs. The here and now problems senior managers face demand different types of information services. Diffeo, maybe? What about Recorded Future?
The decline of the commercial database sector which was thriving in the 1980s is history. Now the aggregators face the same challenge.
Discovering a solution is more difficult than a pleasant afternoon in Paris in September. I assume that “excellence in all we do” means having lunch at L’Atelier de Joel Robuchon. How does one choose a restaurant after a lecture about discovery? I did not use Ebsco, gentle reader. I used a modern, real-time service with hooks into streams of social content.
The indexes of HBR and other “academic” content are for another time, another world.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2015
College Professors: Adjuncts and Hoodwinking
September 7, 2015
I read “Academics Are Being Hoodwinked into Writing Books Nobody Can Buy.” (I almost typed “wants to buy” but I caught myself. Wow, near miss.)
The idea is that at a university a professor knows a subject, perhaps arcane, but the idea is that someone teaching at a big time institution knows stuff.
The write up points out:
So I’d [a savvy college professor] been asked to write a book about whatever I wanted, and this editor didn’t even know whether I’d written anything before. It didn’t matter. It would sell its 300 copies regardless. Not to people with an interest in reading the book, but to librarians who would put it on a shelf and then, a few years later, probably bury it in a storeroom. Most academics get these requests. A colleague was recently courted by an editor who, after confessing they only published expensive hardbacks (at around £200), explained that this was an opportunity for my colleague to enhance his academic record. He was told he could give them pretty much anything, like an old report, or some old articles.
The best line in the article, in my opinion, is this one:
So why don’t academics simply stay away from the greedy publishers? The only answer I can think of is vanity.
Does this mean that some adjuncts and other academic faunae are easily manipulated by publishers? Amazing. I wish I were still in college. I would learn so much. Is there an index of expensive books which no one can afford? Publishers would never hoodwink a university level instructor. Of course not. Only students appealing an unjust grade do the hoodwink thing.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
