What Is Your Database Worth?
September 11, 2015
I don’t have a single answer to this question. There is an interesting database valuation item in “CrunchBase Is Spinning Out, Backed by Emergence Capital.”
CrunchBase is an aggregator of technology company information. I think the service does a good job with companies in the Sillycon Valley area. The coverage tails a bit for Rust Belt start ups, but that’s no surprise.
The database attracts two million “visitors” each month. I remain uncertain about the meaning of a “visitor,” but when most Web sites get a few hundred or fewer hits, two million seems like a lot. It is almost identical in hype thought to Facebook’s one billion users in a 24 hour period. I was pretty good at math in grade school too.
The write up’s gem was this statement:
Eight-year-old, San Francisco-based CrunchBase looks to become a standalone company in the very near future. According to several sources, the unit, which calls itself the “definitive database of the startup ecosystem,” is finalizing a term sheet with the venture firm Emergence Capital Partners for an investment of between $5 million and $7 million.
Assume that the $7 million number is on the money. That works out to $0.30 per visitor. That is almost a million in my book.
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2015
Coveo: A Real Life Search Implementation Success
September 11, 2015
If we detect some serious Coveo cheerleading in this recent article found on RT Insights, that might be because the story originated at that company. Still, “How Real-Time Enterprise Search Helps Seal Financial Deals” does illustrate the advantages of consolidating data resources into a more easily-used system.
The write-up describes challenges faced by London investment firm 3i Group. The global company had been collecting an abundance of data about its clients’ deals, but was spending many worker hours retrieving that information from scattered repositories. Coveo Enterprise Search to the rescue! The platform implementation included a user-friendly UI, actionable analytics, and security measures. The article continues:
“As a result of the implementation, 3i Group reports 90 percent faster access to deal-related intelligence as well as a 20 percent reduction in staff and resources required to respond to compliance requests. 3i Group’s staff members use the platform to search across 3.66 million file share documents, 6.39 million Exchange emails, 897,000 SharePoint documents, and 107 million Enterprise Vault records. For the first time, 3i Group staff members are able to perform a single search across all of the company’s knowledge repositories by using either a browser-based interface or an integrated search interface within SharePoint. 3i Group’s compliance team was provided with a dashboard that enabled them to search and correlate content from across 3i Group’s entire data set, and quickly evaluate permissions and user access rights for every 3i Group record or knowledge asset.”
Founded in 2005, Coveo maintains offices in California and the Netherlands, with its R&D headquarters in Quebec. (The company is also hiring as of this writing.)There is no doubt that being able to reach and analyze all data from one dashboard can be a huge time-saver, especially for a large organization. Just remember that Coveo is but one of several strong options; some are even open source.
Cynthia Murrell, September 11, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Fighting the Academic Publishers Gets You Fired
September 11, 2015
Academic publishers, such as Springer and Elsevier, have a monopoly on academic publishing and they do not want to lose their grasp. In the Slashdot science forum, a report from The Guardian was posted “Paywalled Science Journals Under Fire Again” describing how the academic publishers won a battle in Australia.
The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) fired their editor Professor Stephen Leeder, when he expressed his displeasure over the journal outsourcing its functions to Elsevier. Leeder might have lost his job, but he will speak at a symposium at the State Library of NSW about ways academic communities can fight against the commoditization of knowledge.
What is concerning is that academic publishers are more interested in turning a profit than expanding humanity’s knowledge base:
“Alex Holcombe, an associate professor of psychology who will also be presenting at the symposium, said the business model of some of the major academic publishers was more profitable than owning a gold mine. Some of the 1,600 titles published by Elsevier charged institutions more than $19,000 for an annual subscription to just one journal. The Springer group, which publishes more than 2,000 titles, charges more than $21,000 for access to some of its titles. ‘The mining giant Rio Tinto has a profit margin of about 23%,’ Holcombe said. ‘Elsevier consistently comes in at around 37%. Open access publishing is catching on, but it requires researchers to pay up to $3000 to get a single open access article published.’”
Where does the pursuit of knowledge actually take place if researchers are at the mercy of academic publishers? One might say that researchers could publish their work for free on the Web, but remember that anyone can do that. Being published under a reputable banner adds to study’s authenticity and also helps it get used to support other research. The problem lies in the fact that big academic publishers limit who accesses their content to subscription holders and often those subscriptions are too expensive for the average researcher to afford on their own. Researchers want to have access to more academic content, but it is being locked down.
Whitney Grace, September 11, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Who Will Be the IDC Cognitive Guru?
September 10, 2015
You remember Dave Schubmehl. He is the IDC “search” expert who recycled some of my content. He then sold a report based on my work via Amazon. My meek attorney was able to get the document removed. Not even a legal eagle could fathom how eight pages of analysis could command $3,500. Mr. Bezos knows that $9.99 is a sweet spot. I suppose the masters of management at IDC thought that $3,500 report would sell like hot cakes to the consumers of romance novels, streaming video, and household commodities.
I noted a tweet (show below) that suggests his unit at IDC is going like gang busters. New staff with undergraduate degrees are needed. Uber drivers, are you paying attention?
When a consulting firm adds headcount, that’s news. I hope that the Renaissance men and women at IDC can make sense of “cognitive computing.” Google pushes “deep learning.” I suppose there will be more buzzwords as the “experts” in enterprise search flail for purchase on the slopes of Mount Make a Sale.
Most of the experts have answers to the most difficult problems in business. The only hitch in the git along occurs when the “experts” do not have certain knowledge. Oh, another modest problem is recycling another’s information without taking the time to issue a contract.
I am confident that the customers of Amazon really did want to buy that $3,500 report. Mid tier consulting firms are the cat’s pajamas. I wonder if that comes from asking IBM Watson questions.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2015
IHS Mines Gartner for Goldfire
September 10, 2015
If you want to read a “pat Goldfire on the back” statement, navigate to “IHS is Recognized as a Visionary in Gartner’s 2015 Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Search.”
I assume you, gentle reader, are up to speed on Invention Machine. No, strike that. You are up to speed on Goldfire, the IHS (Information Handling Service) enterprise search system.
If not, you can dig into the news release for details about how Goldfire can, and I quote:
- Decrease product development cycle time
- Increase the innovation pipeline
- Accelerate market share and competitive position
- Drives top-line margin expansion, and
- Increase productivity gains
There’s not much about search and retrieval, but that’s a minor detail.
What’s important in the news release is this statement which appears in the IHS Magic Quadrant write up about Goldfire:
Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
There it is. The “research” is opinion based.” I think I understand that a Gartner report is not to “be construed as statements of fact.” Okay. I did not know that because I understood (obviously incorrectly) that a rigorous analytic process formed the foundation of the vendor selection and categorization.
Guess not. Wow. Who knew? Oh, I know. The PR firms issuing news releases from enterprise search vendors who are leaders, visionaries, etc.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2015
Does Alphabet Fancy Health Care, Finance, and Insurance?
September 10, 2015
I read “The 3 Major Industries AI and Big Data Will Reshape This Decade.” I asked myself, “What does this spell for the company formerly known as Google?”
The write up asserts:
We live in an age of disruption — and that’s a good thing. Industries will be transformed. Major companies will fall. Old systems will collapse as entrepreneurs figure out how to optimize and reinvent inefficient businesses, products, and services to provide consumers (us) with all things better, faster and cheaper.
Despite this positive disruption, health care, finance, and insurance will be changed a bunch.
The question is, “Will Google target these industries as a growth opportunity for its smart software and Big Data acumen?”
My hunch is that Alphabet and its former Googley self will go after money in these and other places.
However, I would remind those fans of disruption to check out the consequences of the math club’s approach to societal behavior. There is the “immigration crisis.” There is the dust up in the Ukraine complemented by nervous Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians. Heck, while I am listing disruptions, I suppose I can toss in the folks in Finland too. There is the excitement in the South China Sea. Mix in some poor behavior, fundamentalism, and some unemployment, and the opportunity to make money in health care, finance, and health insurance is indeed pregnant with opportunity.
Google has to generate more revenue as its “Machine Learning: the High Interest Credit Card of Technical Debt” makes clear. Google is on a roll. Not even puny nation states can slow the chipper outfit.
The singularity looks great when view through the eyes of a Googler wearning Google Glass 2.0. Others may see a differently rendered scene.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2015
A Fun Japanese Elasticsearch Promotion Video
September 10, 2015
Elasticsearch is one of the top open source search engines and is employed by many companies including Netflix, Wikipedia, GitHub, and Facebook. Elasticsearch wants to get a foothold into the Japanese technology market. We can assume, because Japan is one of the world’s top producers of advanced technology and has a huge consumer base. Once a technology is adopted in Japan, you can bet that it will have an even bigger adoption rate.
The company has launched a Japanese promotional campaign and a uploaded video entitled “Elasticsearch Product Video” to its YouTube channel. The video comes with Japanese subtitles with appearances by CEO Steven Schuurman, VP of Engineering Kevin Kluge, Elasticsearch creator Shay Bannon, and VP of Sales Justin Hoffman. The video showcases how Elasticsearch is open source software, how it has been integrated into many companies’ frameworks, its worldwide reach, product improvement, as well as the good it can do.
Justin Hoffman said that, “I think the concept of an open source company bringing a commercial product to market is very important to our company. Because the customers want to know on one hand that you have the open source community and its evolution and development at the top of your priority list. On the other hand, they appreciate that you’re innovating and bringing products to market that solve real problems.”
It is a neat video that runs down what Elasticsearch is capable of, the only complaint is that bland music in the background. They could benefit from licensing the Jive Aces “Bring Me Sunshine” it relates the proper mood.
Whitney Grace, September 10, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
The AI Evolution
September 10, 2015
An article at WT Vox announces, “Google Is Working on a New Type of Algorithm Called ‘Thought Vectors’.” It sounds like a good use for a baseball cap with electrodes, a battery pack, WiFi, and a person who thinks great thoughts. In actuality, it’s a project based on the work of esteemed computer scientist Geoffrey E. Hinton, who has been exploring the idea of neural networks for decades. Hinton is now working with Google to create the sophisticated algorithm of our dreams (or nightmares, depending on one’s perspective).
Existing language processing software has come a very long way; Google Translate, for example, searches dictionaries and previously translated docs to translate phrases. The app usually does a passably good job of giving one the gist of a source document, but results are far from reliably accurate (and are often grammatically comical.) Thought vectors, on the other hand, will allow software to extract meanings, not just correlations, from text.
Continuing to use translation software as the example, reporter Aiden Russell writes:
“The technique works by ascribing each word a set of numbers (or vector) that define its position in a theoretical ‘meaning space’ or cloud. A sentence can be looked at as a path between these words, which can in turn be distilled down to its own set of numbers, or thought vector….
“The key is working out which numbers to assign each word in a language – this is where deep learning comes in. Initially the positions of words within each cloud are ordered at random and the translation algorithm begins training on a dataset of translated sentences. At first the translations it produces are nonsense, but a feedback loop provides an error signal that allows the position of each word to be refined until eventually the positions of words in the cloud captures the way humans use them – effectively a map of their meanings.”
But, won’t all efficient machine learning lead to a killer-robot-ruled dystopia? Hinton bats away that claim as a distraction; he’s actually more concerned about the ways big data is already being (mis)used by intelligence agencies. The man has a point.
Cynthia Murrell, September 10, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Quote to Note: Google Friction in Happy Ad Land
September 9, 2015
Tucked into the business section of the September 7, 2015 New York Times was a story with the not too SEO friendly title “Competitors Say Google Is Slowing App Installation.” The write up is not indexed in Google News. I just checked.
The short item talks about mobile ads for apps. The article recycles a Google blog post which talks about penalizing “please, install our app” ads. Yikes. Penalties.
But for me the important item in the article was this quote, attributed to a Xoogler named Mike Dudas. He said:
This seems like a really strong move in deterring people from installing apps.
Ah, freedom. I too enjoy the smell of napalm in the morning. Wait. I have a question? Who is the enemy? Android centric developers? Do I hear the thump thump of choppers?
Stephen E Arnold, September 9, 2015
Google and Alta Vista: Who Remembers?
September 9, 2015
A lifetime ago, I did some work for an outfit called Persimmon IT. We fooled around with ways to take advantage of memory, which was a tricky devil in my salad days. The gizmos we used were manufactured by Digital Equipment. The processors were called “hot”, “complex”, and AXP. You may know this foot warmer as the Alpha. Persimmon operated out of an office in North Carolina. We bumped into wizards from Cambridge University (yep, that outfit again), engineers housed on the second floor of a usually warm office in Palo Alto, and individuals whom I never met but I had to slog through their email.
So what?
A person forwarded me a link to a what seems to be an aged write up called “Why Did Alta Vista Search Engine Lose Ground so Quickly to Google?” The write up was penned by an UCLA professor. I don’t have too much to say about the post. I was lucky to finish grade school. I missed the entire fourth and fifth grades because my Calvert Course instructor in Brazil died of yellow jaundice after my second lesson.
I scanned the write up, which you may need to register in order to read the article and the comments thereto. I love walled gardens. They are so special.
I did notice that one reason Alta Vista went south was not mentioned. Due to the brilliant management of the company by Hewlett Packard/Compaq, Alta Vista created some unhappy campers. Few at HP knew about Persimmon, and none of these MBAs had the motivation to learn anything about the use of Alta Vista as a demonstration of the toasty Alpha chips, the clever use of lots of memory, and the speed with which certain content operations could be completed.
Unhappy with the state of affairs, the Palo Alto Alta Vista workers began to sniff for new opportunities. One scented candle burning in the information access night was a fledgling outfit Google, formerly Backrub. Keep in mind that intermingling of wizards was and remains a standard operating procedure in Plastic Fantastic (my name for Sillycon Valley).
The baby Google benefited from HP’s outstanding management methods. The result was the decampment from the HP Way. If my memory serves me, the Google snagged Jeff Dean, Simon Tong, Monica Henzinger, and others. Keep in mind that I am no “real” academic, but my research revealed to me and those who read my three monographs about Google that Google’s “speed” and “scaling” benefited significantly from the work of the Alta Vista folks.
I think this is important because few people in the search business pay much attention to the turbo boost HP unwittingly provided the Google.
In the comments to the “Why Did Alta Vista…” post, there were some other comments which I found stimulating.
- One commenter named Rajesh offered, “I do not remember the last time I searched for something and it did not end up in page 1.” My observation is, “Good for you.” Try this query and let me know how Google delivers on point information: scram action. I did not see any hits to nuclear safety procedures. Did you, Rajesh? I assume your queries are different from mine. By the way, “scram local events” will produce a relevant hit half way down the Google result page.
- Phillip observed that the “time stamp is irrelevant in this modern ear, since sub second search is the norm.” I understand that “time” is not one of Google’s core competencies. Also, many results are returned from caches. The larger point is that Google remains time blind. Google invested in a company that does time well, but sophisticated temporal operations are out of reach for the Google.
- A number of commenting professionals emphasized that Google delivered clutter free, simple, clear results. Last time I looked at a Google results page for this query katy perry the presentation was far from a tidy blue list of relevant results.
- Henry pointed out that the Alta Vista results were presented without logic. I recall that relevant results did appear when a query was appropriately formed.
- One comment pointed out that it was necessary to cut and paste results for the same query processed by multiple search engines. The individual reported that it took a half hour to do this manual work. I would point out that metasearch solutions became available in the early 1990s. Information is available here and here.
Enough of the walk down memory lane. Revisionism is alive and well. Little wonder that folks at Alphabet and other searchy type outfits continue to reinvent the wheel.
Isn’t a search app for a restaurant a “stored search”? Who cares? Very few.
Stephen E Arnold, September 9, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
