The Microsoft Enterprise Search Vision
April 27, 2009
I read Fran Foo’s “Microsoft Chooses R&D over Buyouts” here. What fascinated me was this statement in the AustraliaIT.news.com.au report of a top Microsoft executive’s view of preparing for the future. Kevin Turner, Microsoft’s global COO, allegedly said:
“In the consumer area we aren’t the market leader but we’re investing in search, MSN, Windows Live and Office Live to become a world-class digital advertising company,” he said. “The landscape is fluid and you have to keep innovating and growing faster than your competition or you’re going to become obsolete.”
Acquisitions can pump up revenue. R&D is often less certain. Google has relied on formal and personal innovation tactics, along with fast cycle live-die cycles, and acquisitions. Balance seems important to the GOOG. Furthermore, applied research can be difficult to make work in certain technical contexts. A good case example is Yahoo’s Panama ad system. In fact, R&D dollars can be blown away with an unexpected twitch in the datasphere.
Ms. Foo wrote,
“Globally, Microsoft registered a 32 per cent drop in profit and the first decline in quarterly revenue in its 23-year history as a publicly listed company.”
What I found interesting was that I scanned Ms. Foo’s article during a “game plan” keynote by Bjorn Olstad, a senior executive in the Microsoft enterprise search unit. At the Boston Search Engine Meeting, Mr. Olstad focused on the future and few tech specifics about enterprise search. The future described by Microsoft reminded me of a Steve Jobs‘s presentation a couple of years ago just without fungible products. I was impressed with iPhone like mobile devices and large touch screen surfaces in Mr. Olstad’s PowerPoint. Even more interesting was the vocabulary he used to Microsoft’s vision of the future in enterprise search; for example:
- On-the-fly computing
- Algorithmic orchestration of the user experience
- Consumption enhanced modes of discovery.
Now Microsoft has to take Mr. Turner’s R&D money and Mr. Olstad’s description of the future and deliver products and services. I hasten to add that that the enterprise search products ideally will be stable, scalable, documented, compatible, feature complete, and affordable by organizations under the same revenue pressure as Microsoft itself. I think that is an interesting task with an uncertain timeline and an unknowable payoff. Oracle sees acquisition, although risky, as a path that may yield more concrete benefits. Shares in the value stock category may need more performance-oriented tactics for stakeholders. R&D or strategic acquisition? Time will tell.
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Exclusive Interview: Donna Spencer, Enterprise Systems Expert
April 20, 2009
Editor’s Note: Another speaker for what looks like a stellar conference agreed to an interview with Janus Boye. As you know, the Boye 09 Conference in Philadelphia takes place the first week in May 2009, May 5 to May 7, 2009, to be precise. Attendees can choose from a number of special interest tracks. These include a range of topics; including strategy and governance, Intranet, Web content management, SharePoint, user experience, and eHealth. Click here for more conference information. Janus Boye spoke with Donna Spencer on April 16, 2009.
Ms. Spencer is a freelance information architect, interaction designer and writer. She plans how to present the things you see on your computer screen, so that they’re easy to understand, engaging and compelling: Things like the navigation, forms, categories and words on intranets, websites, web applications and business systems.
The full text of the interview appears below.
Why is it so hard for organizations to get a grip on user experience design?
I don’t know that this is necessarily true. There are lots of organizations creating awesome user experiences. Of course, there are a lot who aren’t creating great experiences, but it isn’t because they can’t get a grip on user experience, it is because they care more about themselves than about their customers. If they really cared about their customers they’d do stuff to make their experiences great – and that’s possible without even knowing anything formal about user experience. But because they don’t care about their customers, they will fail, as they should…
Is content or visual design most important to the user experience?
Content (or functionality) is ultimately what people visit a website, intranet or application for. So it’s really, really important to get that right. If the core of the product is bad, it isn’t going to work.
But the visual design is often the part that helps people to get to the content. If the layout is poor, the colours and contrast awful and the site looks like it was designed in 1995, that’s going to stop people from even trying.
So both are important, though if I ever had to choose, I’d go for great content.
Is your book on card sorting really going to be released in 2009?
Yes, by the time the conference is on, there should be real, printed books. 150-odd pages of card sorting goodness. I hear that it should be out around 28 April. Really. I promise.
Does Facebook actually offer a better user experience after the redesign?
That’s a really interesting question. I can only speak for myself, but the thing that struck me about the redesign is that all of a sudden Facebook feels like a different beast. It used to be a site where friends were, but also where there were events, and groups and silly apps. Now it just feels like twitter that you can reply to. It feels like they have done a complete turn-around on who they actually are.
So for me the experience is worse. I can get a better idea of what my friends are doing, but I do that via twitter. Now it’s much harder for me to experience groups, events and all the other things we used to do there. I’m definitely using it less.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a company based in Denmark?
Because they rock! But really, their core business overlaps a lot with what I do. I’m interested in the content the conference offers and I think my experience offers a lot to the attendees. Plus I’ve never been to Philly, and travelling to new places is a wonderful learning experience.
Lou Rosenfeld on Content Architecture
April 15, 2009
Editor’s Note: The Boye 09 Conference in Philadelphia takes place the first week in May 2009, May 5 to May 7, 2009, to be precise. Attendees can choose from a number of special interest tracks. These include strategy and governance, Intranet, Web content management, SharePoint, user experience, and eHealth. You can get more information about this conference here. One of the featured speakers, is Lou Rosenfeld. You can get more information here. Janus Boye spoke with Mr. Rosenfeld on April 14, 2009. The full text of the interview appears below.
Why is it so hard for organizations to get a grip on user experience design?
Because UX is an interdisciplinary pursuit. In most organizations, the people who need to work together to develop good experiences–designers, developers, content authors, customer service personnel, business analysts, product managers, and more–currently work in separate silos. Bad idea. Worse, these people already have a hard time working together because they don’t speak the same language.
Once you get them all in the same place and help them to communicate better, they’ll figure out the rest.
Why is web analytics relevant when talking about user experience?
Web sites exist to achieve goals of some sort. UX people, for various reasons, rely on qualitative research methods to ensure their designs meet those goals. Conversely, Web analytics people rely on quantitative methods. Both are incomplete without the other – one helps you figure out what’s going on, the other why. UX and WA folks two more groups that need help communicating; I’m hoping my talk in some small way helps them see how they fit together.
Is your book “Information Architecture for the World Wide Web” still relevant 11 years later?
Nah, not the first edition from 1998. It was geared toward developing sites–and information architectures–from scratch. But the second edition, which came out in 2002, was almost a completely new book, much longer and geared toward tuning existing sites that were groaning under the weight of lots of content: good and bad, old and new. The third edition–which was more of a light update–came out in 2006. I don’t imagine information architecture will ever lose relevance as long as there’s content. In any case, O’Reilly has sold about 130,000 copies, so apparently they think our book is relevant.
Does Facebook actually offer a better user experience after the redesign?
I really don’t know. I used to find Facebook an excellent platform for playing Scrabble, but thanks to Hasbro’s legal department, the Facebook version of Scrabble has gone the way of all flesh. Actually, I think it’s back now, but I’ve gotten too busy to fall again to its temptation.
Sorry, that’s something of an underhanded swipe at Facebook. But now, as before, I find it too difficult to figure out. I have a hard time finding (and installing) applications that should be at my fingertips. I’m overwhelmed – and, sometimes, troubled–by all the notifications which seem to be at the core of the new design. I’d far prefer to keep up with people via Twitter (I’m @louisrosenfeld), which actually integrates quite elegantly with the other tools I already use to communicate, like my blog (http://louisrosenfeld.com) and email. But I’m the wrong person to ask. I’m not likely Facebook’s target audience. And frankly, my opinion here is worth what you paid for it. Much better to do even a lightweight user study to answer your question.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a company based in Denmark?
Because they asked so nicely. And because I hope that someday they’ll bring me to their Danish event, so I can take my daughter to the original Legoland.
Janus Boye, April 15, 2009
Bob Boiko, Exclusive Interview
April 9, 2009
The J Boye Conference will be held in Philadelphia, May 5 to May 7, 2009. Attendees can choose from a number of special interest tracks. These include strategy and governance, Intranet, Web content management, SharePoint, user experience, and eHealth. You can get more information about this conference here.
One of the featured speakers, is Bob Boiko, author of Laughing at the CIO and a senior lecturer at the University of Washington iSchool. Peter Sejersen spoke with Mr. Boiko about the upcoming conference and information management today.
Why is it better to talk about “Information Management” than “Content Management”?
Content is just one kind of information. Document management, records management, asset management and a host of other “managements” including data management all deal with other worthy forms of information. While the objects differ between managements (CM has content items, DM has file, and so on) the principles are the same. So why not unite as a discipline around information rather than fracture because you call them records and I call them assets?
Who should be responsible for the information management in the organization?
That’s a hard question to answer outside of a particular organizational context. I can’t tell you who should manage information in *your* organization. But it seems to me in general that we already have *Information* Technology groups and Chief *Information* Officers, so they would be a good place to start. The real question is are the people with the titles ready to really embrace the full spectrum of activities that their titles imply
What is your best advice to people working with information management?
Again, advice has to vary with the context. I’ve never found two organizations that needed the same specific advice. However, we can all benefit from this simple idea. If, as we all seem to believe, information has value, then our first requirement must be to find that value and figure out how to quantify it in terms of both user information needs and organizational goals. Only then should we go on to building systems that move information from source to destination because only then will we know what the right sources and destinations are.
Your book “Laughing at the CIO” has a catchy title, but have you ever laughed at you CIO yourself?
I don’t actually. But it is always amazing to me how many nervous (and not so nervous) snickers I hear when I say the title. The sad fact is that a lot of the people I interact with don’t see their leadership as relevant. Many (but definitely not all) IT leaders forget or never knew that there is an I to be lead as well as a T. It’s not malicious, it has just never been their focus. I gave the book that title in an attempt to make it less ignorable to IT leaders. Once a leader (or would be leader) picks the book up, I hope it helps them build a base of strength and power based on the strategic use of information as well as technology.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a company based in Denmark?
Janus and his crew are dynamite organizers. They know how to make a conference much more than a series of speeches. They have been connecting professionals and leaders with each other and with global talent for a long time. Those Danes get it and they know how to get you to get it too.
Peter Sejersen, J Boye. April 9, 2009
Googzilla to Newspaper Titans: Keep Customers Happy
April 8, 2009
I absolutely love the intellectual ultimate fighting championship underway. In one corner is Googzilla–oops–I mean Google. In the other corner is the entire newspaper industry. Seems like a fair fight to me. The GOOG is a global behemoth. The company has a killer business model that provides users with oodles of “free” information and services. Sure, a motivated customer can buy services from the Google, but the fusion power of Googzilla is its business model that sells access to its customers. Google’s brand is a hot one. Google love is rampant. Sure, there are some complainers, when it comes to search systems, the Google is the love bunny.
When I read “Google’s Schmidt To Newspaper Publishers: Don’t ‘P#&% Off’ Consumers” here, I had to honk merrily. I know the top Googlers don’t think the grousing–er, escalating hostility–is amusing. In my opinion, I don’t think most of the Googlers understand what the newspapers’ problem is. PaidContent.org’s article does a great job of capturing the facts of the top Googler’s speech. What the article underscores is the general cluelessness of both sides of this battle about one another’s business zeitgeist. As I read the story, I though of Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Same deal. Google is the future. The newspaper industry is the castle artisan. Everything the Connecticut Yankee did was magic. Same problem. Pretty funny when Mark Twain tells the story. Not so humorous for the traditional publishing companies. The traditional newspaper folks are trying fix a water problem with incantations. The Yankee repairs the leak. Pragmatism wins out over shamanism every time in Mr. Twain’s world.
I found this passage from the excellent PaidContent.org write up most interesting:
But Schmidt came down harder on concerns about intellectual property and fair use: “From our perspective, we look at this pretty thoroughly and there is always a tension around fair use … I would encourage everybody, think in terms of what your reader wants. These are ultimately consumer businesses and if you piss off enough of them, you will not have any more.”
If I were a betting goose, I would wager that some in the newspaper industry might have interpreted Mr. Schmid’s comments a somewhat arrogant. Not much Mark Twain in Mr. Schmidt’s alleged comment. Good advice in my opinion. Probably ignored though.
Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2009
Exclusive Interview with David Pogue
April 8, 2009
This year’s most exciting conference for online professionals in Philadelphia is now only four weeks away. In addition to top notch speakers like David Pogue, the networking opportunities at a J. Boye conference are excellent.
One attendee said, “What I like about the J. Boye Conferences is that they bring together industry experts and practitioners over high-quality content that seems to push participants’ professional limits and gets everyone talking. So if you want to learn – but participate as well – consider joining us in Philadelphia this May.”
Instead of product pitches, the speakers at a J. Boye conference deliver substance. For example, among the newest confirmed case studies are Abercrombie & Fitch, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Pan American Health Organization, Hanley Wood and Oxford University (UK).
For a preview of what you will experience. Here’s an exclusive with David Pogue, technology expert and New York Times’s journalist. Sign up here and secure one of the remaining seats.
Why is Google so much more used than its competitors?
Mostly because it’s better. Fast, good, idiotproof, uncluttered, ubiquitous. There’s also, at this point, a “McDonald’s factor” happening. That is, people know the experience, it’s the same everywhere they go, there’s no risk. They use Google because they’ve always used Google. It would be very hard, therefore, for any rival to gain traction.
David Pogue, one of the featured speakers at JBoye 09 in Philadelphia May 5 to 7, 2009.
When will Gmail become the preferred email solution for organizations?
August 3, 2014. But seriously, folks. Nobody can predict the future of technology. Also, I’m sure plenty of organizations use it already, and it’s only picking up steam. Gmail is becoming truly amazing.
Will Google buy Twitter – and what will it mean if they do?
I don’t know if they’ll buy it; nobody does. It would probably mean very little except a guaranteed survival for Twitter, perhaps with enhancements along the way. That’s been Google’s pattern (for example, when it bought GrandCentral.)
Why is it so hard for organizations to get a grip on user experience design?
The problems include lack of expertise, limited budget (there’s an incentive to do things cheaply rather than properly), and lack of vision. In other words, anything done by committee generally winds up less elegant than something done by a single, focused person who knows what he’s doing.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a Denmark-based company?
Because they obviously have excellent taste. 🙂
Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2009
EveryZing: Exclusive Interview with Tom Wilde, CEO
March 16, 2009
Tom Wilde, CEO of EveryZing, will be one of the speakers at the April 2009 Boston Search Engine Meeting. To meet innovators like Mr. Wilde, click here and reserve your space. Unlike “boat show” conferences that thrive on walk in gawkers, the Boston Search Engine Meeting is content muscle. Click here to reserve your spot.
EveryZing here is a “universal search and video SEO (vSEO) firm, and it recently launched MediaCloud, the Internet’s first cloud-based computing service for generating and managing metadata. Considered the “currency” of multimedia content, metadata includes the speech transcripts, time-stamped tags, categories/topics, named entities, geo-location and tagged thumbnails that comprise the backbone of the interactive web.
With MediaCloud, companies across the Web can post live or archived feeds of video, audio, image and text content to the cloud-based service and receive back a rich set of metadata. Prior to MediaCloud and the other solutions in EveryZing’s product suite — including ezSEARCH, ezSEO, MetaPlayer and RAMP — discovery and publishing of multimedia content had been restricted to the indexing of just titles and tags. Delivered in a software-as-a-service package, MediaCloud requires no software to purchase, install or maintain. Furthermore, customers only pay for the processing they need, while obtaining access to a service that has virtually unlimited scalability to handle even large content collections in near real-time. The company’s core intellectual property and capabilities include speech-to-text technology and natural language processing.
Harry Collier (Infonortics Ltd) and I spoke with Mr. Wilde on March 12, 2009. The full text of our interview with him appears below.
Will you describe briefly your company and its search / content processing technology?
EveryZing originally spun out of BBN technologies in Cambridge MA. BBN was truly one of the godfathers of the Internet, and developed the email @ protocol among other breakthroughs. Over the last 20 years, the US Government has spent approximately $100MM with BBN on speech-to-text and natural language processing technologies. These technologies were spun out in 2006 and EveryZing was formed. EveryZing has developed a unique Media Merchandising Engine which is able to connect audio and video content across the web with the search economy. By generating high quality metadata from audio and video clips, processing it with our NLP technology to automatically “tag” the content, and pushing it through our turnkey publishing system, we are able to make this content discoverable across the major search engines.
What are the three major challenges you see in search / content processing in 2009?
Indexing and discovery of audio and video content in search; 2) Deriving structured data from unstructured content; 3) Creating better user experiences for search & navigation.
What is your approach to problem solving in search and content processing?
Well, yes, meaning that all three are critical. However, the key is to start with the user expectation. Users expect to be able to find all relevant content for a given key term from a single search box. This is generally known as “universal search”. This requires then that all content formats can be easily indexed by the search engines, be they web search engines like Google or Yahoo, as well as site search engines. Further, users want to be able to alternately search and browse content at will. These user expectations drive how we have developed and deployed our products. First, we have the best audio and video content processing in the world. This enables us to richly markup these files and make them far more searchable. Second, our ability to auto-tag the content makes it eminently more browsable. Third, developing a video search result page that behaves just like a text result page (i.e. keyword in context, sortability, relevance tuning) means users can more easily navigate large video results. Finally, plumbing our meta data through the video player means users can search within videos and jump-to the precise points in these videos that are relevant to their interests. Combining all of the efforts together means we can deliver a great user experience, which in turn means more engagement and consumption for our publishing partners.
Search / content processing systems have been integrated into such diverse functions as business intelligence and customer support. Do you see search / content processing becoming increasingly integrated
into enterprise applications?
Yes, absolutely. Enterprises are facing a growing pile of structured and unstructured content, as well as an explosion in multimedia content with the advent of telepresence, Webex, videoconferencing, distance learning etc. At the same time, they face increasing requirements around discovery and compliance that requires them to be able to index all of this content. Search is rapidly gaining the same stature as databases and document management systems as core platforms.
Microsoft acquired Fast Search & Transfer. SAS acquired Teragram. Autonomy acquired Interwoven and Zantaz. In your opinion, will this consolidation create opportunities or shut doors?
Major companies are increasingly looking to vendors with deep pockets and bench strength around support and R&D. This has driven some rapid market consolidation. However, these firms are unlikely to be the innovators, and will continue to make acquisitions to broaden their offerings. There is also a requirement to more deeply integrate search into the broader enterprise IT footprint, and this is also driving acquisitions.
Multi core processors provide significant performance boosts. But search / content processing often faces bottlenecks and latency in indexing and query processing. What’s your view on the performance of
your system or systems with which you are familiar?
Yes, CPU power has directly benefited search applications. In the case of EveryZing, our cloud architecture takes advantage of quad-core computing so we can deliver triple threaded processing on each box. This enables us to create multiple quality of service tiers so we can optimize our system for latency or throughput, and do it on a customer by customer basis. This wouldn’t be possible without advances in computing power.
Graphical interfaces and portals (now called composite applications) are making a comeback. Semantic technology can make point and click interfaces more useful. What other uses of semantic technology do you see gaining significance in 2009?
Semantic analysis is core to our offering. Every clip we process is run through our NLP platform, which automatically extracts tags and key concepts. One of the great struggles publishers face today is having the resources to adequately tag and title all of their video assets. They are certainly aware of the importance of doing this, but are seeking more scalable approaches. Our system can use both a unsupervised and supervised approach to tagging content for customers.
Where can I find more information about your products, services, and research?
Our Web site is www.everyzing.com.
Dinosaur Conference Starved with Limited Quarry
March 10, 2009
A short item to underscore the sad state of the dinosaur conference. I have been a critic of the traditional trade. These “networking events” — a new phrase much loved by organizers — cost attendees and exhibitors a lot of money. The programs are usually info mercials and not particularly compelling info mercials at that. The brontosaurus of European tech conferences is or maybe was Cebit Macworld reports that this yea’s edition experienced a downturn in attendance. You can read “Cebit Sees Big Drop in Visitor Numbers” here. In a nicely crafted understatement, Macworld said:
The drop comes as little surprise considering the current state of the global economy. Many companies have cut back or eliminated travel budgets and Cebit itself saw around 1,000 mostly Asian exhibitors cancel during the last three months of 2008 after economic problems hit.
That was a news flash. Economic troubles are not exactly invisible. I am not sure what conference organizers are going to invent to address the nuclear winter that may be approaching for the old fashioned trade show. Some pundits skip conferences, leaving them to the sales professionals. Information is often available more quickly and in more easily analyzed form via Web logs and even Twitter or live blog posts from those attending. Maybe boutique or niche conferences are the way forward. I don’t know. I rely on my trusty Internet connection to find wheat and chaff in the grist mill.
Stephen Arnold, March 10, 2009
DEMO Search Round Up
March 8, 2009
David Needle’s “Search Takes Center Stage at DEMO” here highlights information processing innovations at this conference. The definition of “search” is broad but I found the write up interesting. Mr. Needle highlights a bookmarking service (Xmarks) and a news aggregation service (Ensembli). This aggregation service prompts the user to enter a term. I tried “enterprise search”, so that’s “search”. The results appear to be a string match.
Ensembli output from www.ensembli.com
Scanning his write up is quicker and less costly than attending this show. Are these services “search”? In my opinion, neither is. Mr. Needle did not mention Evri, a company somewhat closer to the content processing space. Evri, according to my sources, was also at the Evri conference. The word “search” is like my mother’s handbag–a convenient place to put unrelated objects.
Stephen Arnold, March 8, 2009
Harry Collier, Infonortics, Exclusive Interview
March 2, 2009
Editor’s Note: I spoke with Harry Collier on February 27, 2009, about the Boston Search Engine Meeting. The conference, more than a decade into in-depth explorations of search and content processing, is one of the most substantive search and content processing programs. The speakers have come from a range of information retrieval disciplines. The conference organizing committee has attracted speakers from the commercial and research sectors. Sales pitches and recycled product reviews are discouraged. Substantive presentations remain the backbone of the program. Conferences about search, search engine optimization, and Intranet search have proliferated in the last decade. Some of these shows focus on the “soft” topics in search and wrap the talks with golf outings and buzzwords. The attendee learns about “platinum sponsors” and can choose from sales pitches disguised as substantive presentations. The Infonortics search conference has remained sharply focused and content centric. One attendee told me last year, “I have to think about what I have learned. A number of speakers were quite happy to include equations in their talks.” Yep, equations. Facts. Thought provoking presentations. I still recall the tough questions posed to Larry Page (Google) after his talk in at the 1999 conference. He argued that truncation was not necessary and several in attendance did not agree with him. Google has since implemented truncation. Financial pressures have forced some organizers to cancel some of their 2009 information centric shows; for example, Gartner, Magazine Publishers Association., and Newspaper Publishers Association. to name three. Infonortics continues to thrive with its reputation for delivering content plus an opportunity to meet some of the most influential individuals in the information retrieval business. You can learn more about Infonortics here. The full text of the interview with Mr. Collier, who resides in the Cotswolds with an office in Tetbury, Glou., appears below:
Why did you start the Search Engine Meeting? How does it different from other search and SEO conferences?
The Search Engine Meeting grew out of a successful ASIDIC meeting held in Albuquerque in March 1994. The program was organized by Everett Brenner and, to everyone’s surprise, that meeting attracted record numbers of attendees. Ev was enthusiastic about continuing the meeting idea, and when Ev was enthusiastic he soon had you on board. So Infonortics agreed to take up the Search Engine Meeting concept and we did two meetings in Bath in England in 1997 and 1998, then moved thereafter to Boston (with an excursion to San Francisco in 2002 and to The Netherlands in 2004). Ev set the tone of the meetings: we wanted serious talks on serious search domain challenges. The first meeting in Bath already featured top speakers from organizations such as WebCrawler, Lycos, InfoSeek, IBM, PLS, Autonomy, Semio, Excalibur, NIST/TREC and Claritech. And ever since we have tried to avoid areas such as SEO and product puffs and to keep to the path of meaty, research talks for either search engine developers, or those in an enterprise environment charged with implementing search technology. The meetings tread a line between academic research meetings (lots of equations) and popular search engine optimization meetings (lots of commercial exhibits).
Pictured from the left: Anne Girard, Harry Collier, and Joan Brenner, wife of Ev Brenner. Each year the best presentation at the conference is recognized with the Evvie, an award named in honor of her husband, and chair of the first conference in 1997.
There’s a great deal of confusion about the meaning of the word “search”, what’s the scope of the definition for this year’s program?
Yes, “Search” is a meaty term. When you step back, searching, looking for things, seeking, hoping to find, hunting, etc are basic activities for human beings — be it seeking peace, searching for true love, trying to find an appropriate carburetor for an old vehicle, or whatever. We tend now to have a fairly catholic definition of what we include in a Search Engine Meeting. Search — and the problems of search — remains central, but we are also interested in areas such as data or text mining (extracting sense from masses of data) as well as visualization and analysis (making search results understandable and useful). We feel the center of attention is moving away from “can I retrieve all the data?” to that of “how can I find help in making sense out of all the data I am retrieving?”
Over the years, your conference has featured big companies like Autonomy, start ups like Google in 1999, and experts from very specialized fields such as Dr. David Evans and Dr. Liz Liddy. What pulls speakers to this conference?
We tend to get some of the good speakers, and most past and current luminaries have mounted the speakers’ podium of the Search Engine Meeting at one time or another. These people see us as a serious meeting where they will meet high quality professional search people. It’s a meeting without too much razzmatazz; we only have a small, informal exhibition, no real sponsorship, and we try to downplay the commercialized side of the search world. So we attract a certain class of person, and these people like finding each other at a smaller, more boutique-type meeting. We select good-quality venues (which is one reason we have stayed with the Fairmont Copley Plaza in Boston for many years), we finance and offer good lunches and a mixer cocktail, and we select meeting rooms that are ideal for an event of 150 or so people. It all helps networking and making contacts.
What people should attend this conference? Is it for scientists, entrepreneurs, marketing people?
Our attendees usually break down into around 50% people working in the search engine field, and 50 percent those charged with implementing enterprise search. Because of Infonortics international background, we have a pretty high international attendance compared with most meetings in the United States: many Europeans, Koreans and Asians. I’ve already used the word “serious”, but this is how I would characterize our typical attendee. They take lots of notes; they listen; they ask interesting questions. We don’t get many academics; Ev Brenner was always scandalized that not one person from MIT had ever attended the meeting in Boston. (That has not changed up until now).
You have the reputation for delivering a content rich program. Who assisted you with the program this year? What are the credentials of these advisor colleagues?
I like to work with people I know, with people who have a good track record. So ever since the first Infonortics Search Engine Meeting in 1997 we have relied upon the advice of people such as you, David Evans (who spoke at the very first Bath meeting), Liz Liddy (Syracuse University) and Susan Feldman (IDC). And over the past nine years or so my close associate, Anne Girard, has provided non-stop research and intelligence as to what is topical, who is up-and-coming, who can talk on what.These five people are steeped in the past, present and future of the whole world of search and information retrieval and bring a welcome sense of perspective to what we do. And, until his much lamented death in January 2006, Ev Brenner was a pillar of strength, tough-minded and with a 45 year track record in the information retrieval area.
Where can readers get more information about the conference?
The Infonortics Web site (www.infonortics.eu) provides one-click access to the Search Engine Meeting section, with details of the current program, access to pdf versions of presentations from previous years, conference booking form and details, the hotel booking form, etc.
Stephen Arnold, March 2, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
