The Future of Search. Really?
April 8, 2011
Dead tree version of the 4-8-11 New York Times’s story “New Search Technology Is Enhanced with Video,” Page B 3 of the business section. Interesting write up about Autonomy’s video search, which I would describe as augmented search, but that’s neither here nor there. For me, the weird part in the otherwise good write up was this passage:
There is now a broad consensus that the future of search will link search technologies with geographical location. Although the software can muddy the distinction between what is real and what is virtual, its most practical application would be in commerce and helping people search for bargains in the real world. [Emphasis added]
I thought this function was already here and on my ancient BlackBerry 8320 to boot!
But what’s the “broad consensus”? What’s the source of the consensus? By what method has consensus been determined? Did the writer tap the search engine optimization crowd? A public relations professional with a degree in art history or medieval poetry?
Sorry. No sources, no explanation, and no foundation. Maybe the New York Times in its rush to make print subscribers jump hoops to access the online edition is too busy to provide some facts. A blog post is one thing. But in the hard copy version of the story, a big gun newspaper should provide a tiny bit of back up for this “broad consensus” baloney. No big gun. More like a rubber band gun.
Forget the writer. What happened to the business section editor? Oh, looked fine.
Sorry. I don’t buy “broad consensus”. Lots of searches are for things other than eCommerce and finding a pizza in Gaithersburg, Maryland. How about a job search for some media mavens? What about looking up that antidote to save your kid? What about locating a quotation from a Shakespeare play last read in college via a Cliff’s Notes? Broad consensus my tail feathers. Two cents says that there will be a snooty rationalization about “broad consensus”. Thank goodness I am in Harrod’s Creek and not at One Park Avenue South where I would be tempted grouse at lunch. Just my opinion from rural Kentucky.
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2011
Freebie
The Arianna Model of Husqvarna Buzz Saw
April 5, 2011
I have never met Arianna Huffington. Here in Harrod’s Creek, media luminaries rarely visit. Since the death of Barry Bingham, even the big media moguls who turned up for one of Barry’s lunches at Melcombe don’t light up my radar. That’s okay. I like to watch New York media deal with what I call the Arianna buzz saw. A few weeks ago I pointed out that the Googler running AOL was going to have his hands full. Now I want to suggest that outfits like Forbes, which cut back on its in house library, may want to put on Kevlar jockey shorts. Bzzzzz. That’s the sound of the Arianna buzz saw chopping through some big media foliage.
This, gentle reader, is one of the more accurate depictions of Arianna Huffington. Ready for some chopping down to size?
Here’s a statement in “AOL Defector Blasts ‘Content Farming’ and ‘SEO Spam’” I found interesting and useful in understanding why the buzz saw is likely to chop through the deadwood in revenue, management, and New York tradition:
Huffington, since coming aboard, has made it clear the AOL Way is no longer the blueprint, but then her site has long engaged in its own forms of search-baiting and page view juicing.
I like that “page view juicing.” Maybe I will slip it into my next SEO sucks talk? Bzzzzzz. Ouch! Some one just suffered an amputation. Bzzzzzz. Ouch! Another one. Journalistic sequoias may become recreation room flooring.
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2011
Freebie unlike a year’s subscription to Forbes. Where did the founder’s big honkin’ Harley go?
No Second Chances? Er, Hang On to Your Sweeping Generalizations
April 1, 2011
First, navigate to the article “The Economics of Attention: Why There Are No Second Chances on the Internet.” Read it. Note that it is about a bunch of different things in the Web 2.0, start up, get-rich-quick world of technology. The pivot point is “attention”, a notion popularized in my opinion by a former journalist and advisor to Salesforce.com. Attention to me is focusing, but this type of attention is monetizable when eyeballs are glued to Web pages or a mobile device. In short, attention is a hip hop way to say “audience” I think.
Now think about the assertion in the title: “No Second Chances” or the qualified “No Second Chances on the Internet.” Oh, my. Some business school types believe, maybe wrongly, that failure is a prerequisite for success. The person who flops, picks himself or herself up, and tries again may have a quality of some value. What about Martin (Winning) Sheen. Not only has failure been converted to a road show, a law suit with some chance of winning, and notoriety that makes other “stars” and “tiger blood drinkers” look like burned out bulbs on an artificial Christmas tree but he is – well – winning.
Source: http://www.jordanchez.com/2009/08/people-of-the-second-chance/
Internet second chances exist as well. Who would have thought that Bing would edge from dead last wearing a T shirt with a loser logo to a leader in travel and other vertical niche search for consumers? What about Facebook after its privacy missteps and a motion picture that was originally supposed to nuke the Zuck? Well, Facebook users stuck with the service despite its flaws. The movie? The movie enhanced Facebook.
I could go on.
One must not slap categoricals on individuals’ ability to make lemonade from lemons. The Internet, in my opinion, is about getting more chances. The products and services can be morphed, shaped, and redefined more easily than a cabinet maker in the 17th century could respond to his patron’s demands. Time itself is altered in the Internet space. Costs are also malleable.
I am all for pontification, poobahism, and English majors who become consultants. I can tolerate a wide range of assertions. But the notion that a digital environment does not permit second chances? Just incorrect.
Now keep in mind if you buy into the premise of the article, that’s okay with me. In Harrod’s Creek, we like Hank Williams’ statement: You got to have smelt a lot of mule manure before you can sing like a hillbilly. You even get second chances in non digital Kentucky.
Please, put your comments in the comments section of the blog. I am eager to see the “he did not mean” remarks. Hey, a “second chance” is more than a metaphor ill conceived Internet services I assert.
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2011
Freebie and no joke about mule manure.
Is an AOL Management Shift Coming?
March 26, 2011
Let me go out on a limb. I have observed Googlers in cubes and in management positions. Unlike the Google believers, I think that the equation Google = Good Management is a bit like 1 + 1 = 3. I read “Huffington-Armstrong Smackdown at AOL” and realized that the author is pretty much on the right cow path.
Here’s the passage I liked.
Meanwhile, Armstrong has to keep control of the company. He needs Huffington — now regarded as the company’s savior — more than she needs him because she has such a strong image. I wonder how long Huffington, who has grown accustomed to speaking her mind and having all the power at her company, will remain content to report to Armstrong. AOL has done nothing since the Huffington Post deal to show that it is in control of its destiny, that it has a coherent growth strategy and that it knows how to win. Arianna Huffington, the theory goes, surely knows how to win.
I think this is on the money, but it does not make the point clearly enough. I think what I would have said is that the Googler (Tim Armstrong) is going to find himself reporting to a person who can manage, and dominate. In short, the Googler is going to have his hands full. Several decisions of the Googler will come back to hang like a cloud over the “new” AOL.
First, the play for local content was expensive and is going to be exposed as a move that won’t yield the money the local golden goose is alleged to reside in the AOL offices.
Second, the expensive New York media wizards will find themselves looking into the eyes of a person who knows how to get traffic and eye balls without expensive New York media talent. You can terminate folks in India today but tomorrow, the empty cubicles will be in the good old USA.
Third, in a day to day content of “who can manage better”, the Googler is going to be in one of those corporate Mixed Martial Arts’s battles. I go with the Huffster.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2011
Freebie unlike the local news company AOL bought
Facebook, Semantic Search, and Bad News for the Key Word Crowd
March 16, 2011
You can wade through the baloney from the pundits, satraps, and poobahs. I will cut to the chase. Facebook can deliver a useful search service without too many cartwheels. There are three reasons. (If you want to complain, that’s what the comments section of the blog permits. Spare me personal email and LinkedIn comments.)
First, there are upwards of 500 million users who spend more time in Facebook doing Facebook things than I would have ever believed. I don’t do “social” but 500 million or more people see me as a dinosaur watching the snow flakes. Fine.
Second, the Facebook users stuff links in their posts, pages, wall crannies, and everywhere else in the Facebook universe they can. This bunch of urls is a selection filter that is of enormous value to Facebook users. Facebook gets real people stuffing in links without begging, paying, or advertising. The member-screened and identified links just arrive.
Third, indexing the content on the pages to which the links refer produces an index that is different from and for some types of content more useful to Facebook members than laundry lists, decision engine outputs, or faceted results from any other system. Yep, “any other”. That situation has not existed since the GOOG took the learnings of the key word crowd, bought Oingo, and racked up the world’s biggest online advertising and search engine optimization operation in the history of digital mankind.
Navigate to “New Facebook Patent: the Huge Implications of Curated Search” and learn Bnet’s view of a patent document. I am not as excited about the patent at the Bnet outfit, but it is interesting. If one assumes that the patent contributes to the three points I identified above, Facebook gets a boost.
But my view is that Facebook does not need much in the way of a boost from semantics or any other hot trend technology. Facebook is sitting on a search gold mine. When Facebook does release its index of member-provided sources, four things will take place over a period of “Internet” time.
- The Google faces a competitor able to index at lower cost. Google, remember, is a brute force operation. Facebook is letting the members do the heavy lifting. A lower cost index of Facebook-member-vetted content is going to be a threat. The threat may fizzle, but a threat it will be to the Google.
- Users within Facebook can do “search” where Facebook members prefer to be. This means that Facebook advertising offers some interesting opportunities not lost on the Xooglers who now work at Facebook and want a gigantic payday for themselves. Money can inspire certain types of innovation.
- Facebook is closed. The “member” thing is important to keep in mind. The benefits of stateful actions are many, and you don’t need me to explain why knowing who a customer is, who the customer’s friends are, and what the customer does is important. But make the customer a member and you get some real juice.
- Facebook competitors will have to find a way to deal with the 500 million members and fast. Facebook may not be focused on search, but whatever the company does will leverage the membership, not the whizzy technology.
Bottomline: Facebook has an opportunity in search whether it does laundry lists, facets, semantics, or any combination of methods. My question, “When will Facebook drop its other social shoe?”
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2011
Freebie unlike the ads big companies will want to slap into Facebook outputs for its members
Google Reinvents the Management Wheel
March 14, 2011
I used to work at Booz, Allen & Hamilton and I have done work over the years for other traditional management consulting firms. One thing about MBAs: Most of the folks from the top 20 schools have a shared base of business and management baloney. Mention a buggy whip and MBAs will shout, “Automobile seat covers.” Mention money and some will say, “Investment banking.” At Booz, Allen, at whatever level I was pegged in that pre-break up, blue chip outfit, I have to fly on a different plane. The idea was that if my plane went down, the project team would survive. Just slap in another person with the pedigree and the client would not know the difference. Think of replacing a Lego block when one goes missing.
I read in my hard copy of the New York Times the story “Google’s Quest to Build a Better Boss.” You can for a short time, I think, find a version of the story online at this link. (When I checked the link, I saw an ad for the Economist. Wow.)
What caught my attention was the verbiage about how Google applied its analytic method to figure out what makes a good boss. Now keep in mind that Google has lots of employees and is in the process of getting a new boss, Larry Page. I don’t think Mr. Page has worked at a sweat shop like a former blue chip management consulting firm, but that’s okay. The Googler human resources unit has generated a list of what a manager must do to be successful.
Surprise. A manager does not have to be a programmer. Got it. I have worked for some very astute managers over the years. None was a programmer. There was an aeronautical engineer, a retired three star general, a nuclear engineer, and a liberal arts major whose father founded a must-have magazine in the 1940s. Management is different from technology management in my opinion. Running an R&D operation that implements learnings from AltaVista.com experiences is one thing. Avoiding trouble with the European Commission, the Justice Department, and next door neighbors like Oracle and Apple is a different kettle of python scripts.
Now Google has identified that there are eight attributes that a manager has. Most of these fall into the buggy whip category, but for the New York Times and for Google, the eight are new. Please, read the eight tips and check off which of them you know. I particularly like the one that suggests one fit into a team and listen to colleagues. Helpful that one.
Several questions and comments from the goose pond:
- If Google had implemented these management tips, would the company have avoided the brain drain to Facebook?
- With a different management approach, would Google have been able to devise an approach to certain markets that would keep the company in China?
- Using the eight techniques, would Google be able to provide customer support to licensees of the Google Search Appliance to expand and extend that product’s reach? Someone told me that Google has placed upwards of 30,000 Google Search Appliances since the product’s launch? (I estimated that the actual GSAs in use was under 10,000, but what do I know? Competitors target GSA licensees as high potential prospects.)
My view is that the management method of “controlled chaos” does not work. The eight rules for management strike me as an admission that a different and more traditional approach to management is needed at Google. The big question, “Is it too late?”
If Google’s forthcoming Facebook competitor does not work, my hunch is that Google may need to rethink a number of processes. The methods of the MBAs might come in handy. Google does not have to go beyond this query. Just my opinion from Harrod’s Creek this fine morning.
Stephen E Arnold, March 14, 2011
Freebie
Another Internet Kill Switch Need
March 11, 2011
Could the UK Government Shut Down the Web? signals that another country wants to have a way to control access via the Internet. This article does a good job substantiating why it is a highly improbable and nearly impossible endeavor.
In Britain the person with the power to flick the “kill switch” is Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. The Civil Contingencies Act and the 2003 Communications Act give Hunt the ability to suspend internet services by ordering internet service providers to close their operations or by shutting off internet exchanges. Here’s a point that struck me as important:
“The problem comes down to the very nature of the internet in developed countries. It is a mesh of networks. It transcends borders and has no definable beginning or end. As a result of this structure it is almost impossible to isolate all the connections.”
While Hunt has the power to shut Britain off from the rest of the world via Internet, he cannot use the power except in times of extreme emergency should the country be threatened. Even then, due to the vast network interconnections and backup network systems, a secondary network system would quickly develop should the primary networks be shut down.
We have seen postings that indicate there are work arounds for “kill switches”. These range from dial up access to more elaborate methods. And what about search? No one seems to care. The issue appears to be Facebook-type and Twitter-like services, email, and the real time flow of information through RSS.
What is clear is that governmental authorities are nervous about what can happen when people use Internet technology to organize and disseminate information. But will turning off the Internet solve the problem or just be a temporary measure. The UK does not want to take a chance it seems. A desktop computer does not lend itself to mobility, but phones and other portable devices change some of the information dynamics due to real time messaging and interaction among one or more individuals.
Leslie Radcliff and Stephen E Arnold, March 11, 2011
Freebie
SEO Woe: Cows in the Commons
March 6, 2011
I have another gosling writing about this but I wanted to weigh in on this fine rainy Sunday in Harrod’s Creek. Point your browser at “SEO Is No Longer a Viable Marketing Strategy for Startups.” The basic idea is that certain search engine optimization methods of building traffic have lost their efficacy. The key point in my opinion is:’
I talk to lots of startups and almost none that I know of post-2008 have gained significant traction through SEO (the rare exceptions tend to be focused on content areas that were previously un-monetizable). Google keeps its ranking algorithms secret, but it is widely believed that inbound links are the preeminent ranking factor. This ends up rewarding sites that are 1) older and have built up years of inbound links 2) willing to engage in aggressive link building, or what is known as black-hat SEO. (It is also very likely that Google rewards sites for the simple fact that they are older. For educated guesses on which factors matter most for SEO, see SEOMoz’s excellent search engine ranking factors survey).
I added boldface to the phrase that struck me as particularly interesting; namely, the one with the word “content”.
Now there are some outfits who have figured out that the lousy economy makes it easy to get people to write articles for a modest amount of money. If a company generates quite a few articles and tosses in the basics of page indexing, the various search engines usually index the content. The more links and buzz that an article generates makes the write up show up in a Tweetmeme.com list or high in the Google search results or even a top spot on Bing.com.
Wonderful. We have a popularity context much like the one that puts such effective professionals into the various US, state, county, and municipal elected offices.
What I find interesting about the voting approach is that our friend Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out that the majority approach delivers quite a number of outputs. Excellence may not be assumed. Popularity is one yardstick. The measurement of quality in a written document may not lend itself to popularity. One chestnut is the plight of Al Einstein. Nothing he wrote resonated with more than a baker’s dozen of folks. Even the Nobel committee struggled to recognize him. That’s the problem with excellence. Voting does not work particularly well in many situations.
Too many cows in the commons.
What’s this mean for search engine optimization, content factories, and a results list in a free Web search engine? Three points in my opinion:
- Gaming the system (no matter what system) is great fun and extremely lucrative for those who can exploit what I call the “something for nothing” approach to information. A short cut is worth a lot of money, particularly at conferences that explain how to send lots of cows into the common fields of content.
- Smart search engines are just not that smart and probably will not be. That is the reason that commercial content producers generally offer information that follows a different path. I know that most people are not interested in provenance, fact checking, and accuracy, but most of the commercial database producers do a better job than a Web master looking for a way to boost traffic and either keep a job or get a raise. Content is not job one for these people.
- Search engine optimization is pretty much whatever the experts, pundits, and carpet baggers want it to be. There are tricks to exploit stupid Web indexing methods. I just ignore that sector of what some journalists view as “real search” because search is darned easy for any one with a net connection and a browser.
Bottom line: SEO won’t go away. In my view, one can’t kill it. After a nuclear blast, certain creatures will survive. Publicly accessible, ad supported indexes will not be as objective as I would like. Nor will the indexes do a particularly good job of delivering precision and recall. The advanced features are little more than efforts to get more advertisers.
In short, Web search, SEO, and much of the content on the Web is like a common grazing area with too many cows, too many footballers, and too many gullible walkers. (These are metaphors for marketing for me.)
SEO is not dead. How do you kill looking for a deal, finding a short cut, getting something for nothing? Tough to do. And those cows in the commons. Lots of output. Lots.
Stephen E Arnold, March 6, 2011
Freebie
Automated Understanding: Digital Reasoning Cracks the Information Maze
March 4, 2011
I learned from one reader that the presentation by Tim Estes, the founder of Digital Reasoning, caused some positive buzz at a recent conference on the west coast. According to my source, this was a US government sponsored event focused on where content processing was going. The surprise was that as other presenters talked about the future, a company called Digital Reasoning displayed a next generation system. Keep in mind that i2 Ltd. is a solid analyst’s tool with technology roots that stretch back 15 years. (I did some work for the founder of i2 a few years ago and have a great appreciation for the case value of the system for law enforcement.) Palantir has some useful visualization tools, but the company continues to attract attention from litigation and brushes with outfits with some interesting sales practices. Beyond Search covered this story here and here.
ArnoldIT.com sees Digital Reasoning’s Synthesys as solving difficult information puzzles quickly and efficiently because it eliminates most of the false path or trial-and-error of traditional systems. Solving the information maze of real world flows is now possible in our view.
The shift was from semi-useful predictive numerical recipes and overlays or augmented outputs to something quite new and different. The Digital Reasoning presentation focused on real data and what the company called “automated understanding.”
For a few bucks last year, one of my colleagues and I got a look at the automated understanding approach of the Synthesys 3 platform. Tim Estes explained that real data poses major challenges to systems that lack an ability to process large flows, discern nuances, and apply what Mr. Estes described as “entity oriented analytics.”
Our take at ArnoldIT.com is that Digital Reasoning moves “beyond search” in a meaningful way. The key points we recall from our briefing was the a modular approach eliminates the need for a massive infrastructure build and the analytics reflect what is happening in a real time flow of unstructured information. My personal view is that historical research is best served by key word systems. The more advanced methods deliver actionable information and better decisions by focusing on the vast amounts of “now” data. A single Twitter message can be important. A meaningful analysis of a flow of Twitter messages moves insight to the next level.
Palantir: The Next Big Thing
March 3, 2011
I just read “Facebook Investor Peter Thiel: Palantir Is the Next Facebook or Google.” Quite a write up. The story references the Forbes’ story “Super Crunchers.”
To bring myself up to speed I reviewed my Overflight information about Palantir. It is a busy, busy outfit.
First, the company landed $90 million in venture funding last year. If you figure a 10X return on investment, Palantir was a company with a $1 billion potential.
Will Palantir be “the next big thing”? Image source: http://www.penn-olson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/social-media2.pn
Second, in late 2010, the company was embroiled in a legal matter with the pioneer in data analytics and data fusion for police and intelligence work. The allegations made by i2 Ltd. involved reverse engineering of the i2 proprietary file format ANB (Analyst Notebook). I don’t want to recover information so you can find my write ups about this at this link for Beyond Search and this link for IntelTrax, our data fusion news service.
Third, the Palantir organization was involved in the some muddled HBGary sales initiative. Some current information about this matter is at “HBGary Suspected Trickery.”
The Forbes write up and the recent item from the Forbes’ blog struck me as discordant. Here’s why:
First, Palantir generated traction via splashy graphics and basic data fusion functions. The assertions about Palantir’s technology as a platform upon which to build intelligence applications are not yet founded. Palantir is trying to move from US government centric products and services to the financial services arena. With $90 million, Palantir can move quickly, but I am not sure that the company’s speeding along has reached the definition. I am reminded of my children’s question when we drove from Washington, DC back to Illinois: “Are we there yet, dad?” The answer then and now is, “No, we are about half way.” Marketing makes things appear one way. Reality is a bit different.
A duct tape roof rack. Looks interesting. Source: http://www.myspaceantics.com/image-myspace-graphic/funny-pictures/duct-tape-roof-rack.jpg.html
Second, there are a number of companies with comparable or better technology than Palantir’s. The company that comes immediately to mind is Digital Reasoning. The firm does the Palantir trick of flashy graphics but—and this is a big but—has a platform called Synthesys 3.x. You can ingest disparate data, analyze it using quite useful, quite advanced analytic methods, and you can “see” where the key item of information is. Unlike Palantir, the Digital Reasoning folks are like a group of Eagle scouts. The team, based on my own observation, does not look for short cuts and avoids stomping on other firm’s systems and methods. If you are not familiar with Digital Reasoning, check them out. I am trying to wrangle another job with this outfit, but I have quite a bit of confidence in the technology and the people. No messy allegations, no out of court settlements.
Third, one of the most common errors made in analyzing next generation search is looking at PowerPoint presentations and crafted reports. The action is algorithmic, systems, and methods. When a person with some but not decades of experience in the types of systems used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies stumbles upon a vendor, the reaction is one of surprise. The desire to share the “insight” is high. The problem is that with experience the deeper values of systems emerge from real world experience, not from a crafted demonstration and a couple of interviews.
Check out the write ups about Palantir. There is quite a bit of interesting information about the firm’s business methods. A JP Morgan deal and a reference to some brush with HBGary is not the same as a figuring the plumbing and finding the dripping joints and careless soldering.
But if Forbes says Palantir is the cat’s pajamas, won’t most people agree? My view is that too many people take public relations as the Gospel. I am a bit more reserved in my acceptance of pronouncements from certain business publications. Are the legal hassle and the HBGary events a coincidence or an indication of business tactics?
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2011
Freebie and no public relations inputs whatsoever
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
