Nonprofit Research and the Associated Press
June 15, 2009
I am in the middle of an Illinois cornfield. I have just scanned a short item in Slashdot that points to information that seems to suggest a new twist for the AP. The Associated Press, walking close to a stream of red ink, will distribute information from a handful of non profit outfits. I urge you to read the Slashdot post and the full story, which I will do when I am back to the civilized world of Harrod’s Creek. Illinois makes me nervous. Here’s why I find this interesting:
- Non profit outfits often have an agenda. That agenda influences their reports, news releases, and activities with certain thought leaders. Outsiders may have a tough time figuring out what’s “objective” in my opinion.
- A non profit may be in the lobbying business, and as a result, the agendas are, shall we say, fluid. Distribution of microchanges will be confusing to some folks who expect a more predictable approach to what’s important.
- Non profits are subject to those who provide big infusions of cash. Distributing information from sponsored activities extends the impact of the non profit and its agenda with little opportunity for different voices to be heard when the message goes out.
With this decision, the AP seems, in my opinion, to be undergoing a significant change. It’s too early for me to determine if the change will be substantive, negative, or positive. I think non profits will jump at the chance to use the AP as a branded RSS feed in real time.
Stephen Arnold, June 15, 2009
ITPints: Real Time Search Engine
June 12, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who told me about ITPints.com, “the new real time Web search engine”. You can try out the beta version here. The developer of the system is Javier Arias, and you can find information about the system here. I liked Javier Arias’ style. He said:
itpints you can know what is people publishing on internet about anything of your interest, at the same time you’re searching for it. The relevancy of any result is given by when it was posted on internet. The possibilities are infinite, you can use it to follow what is happening on a concert of your favorite band, or search for news that are not even in the newspapers yet!
He also points to other services offering somewhat similar functions. Again: upfront and clear. The new system will soon feature an API. The ITPints.com site is compatible with the Firefox Ubiquity extension.
I ran several test queries on the system and found some useful links. For example, the query for “Beyond Search” returned Twitter references to my somewhat negative write up about a search engine optimization course that provided paying attendees with a “certification”. Definitely fresh results in my opinion.
My query for “text mining” returned several interesting links related to the use of text mining to “identify quality issues.” I was surprised that there was current activity around what is a niche technology. Text mining without analytics and behavior tracking is not the the main event. I found the flurry of posts about a PubMed text mining project quite useful and to me new information. I followed the ITPints.com hit to 7th Space and bookmarked the site.
The addled goose awards a happy quack.
Stephen Arnold, June 12, 2009
Twitter Link Indexing
June 5, 2009
Today after my talk at the Gilbane content management conference in San Francisco, a person mentioned that Twitter was indexing links in Tweets. I said that I included this information in my Twitter Web log posts. But when I looked at my posts, I found that I had not been explicit. You can get more info at http://www.domaintweeter.com.
Stephen Arnold, June 5, 2009
Time Sees Tweetness in Twitter
June 5, 2009
Fresh from dumping the AOL-batross, Time Magazine’s editors have developed a Tweet tooth. Twitter is useful and it warrants a round up of buzzwords. How does “ambient awareness” grab you? Maybe “Twittersphere”? You can read the beatific write up “How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live” here. Steven Johnson finds utility in the service that is getting close to three year olds and having a revenue model… sort of. Never mind, the point that struck me was:
Injecting Twitter into that conversation fundamentally changed the rules of engagement. It added a second layer of discussion and brought a wider audience into what would have been a private exchange. And it gave the event an afterlife on the Web. Yes, it was built entirely out of 140-character messages, but the sum total of those tweets added up to something truly substantive, like a suspension bridge made of pebbles.
I am all for real time messaging, but I come from the intercept and analysis side of the coin. The flow is interesting, but I want to find the diamond amidst the pebbles. I am not too interested in “a suspension bridge made of pebbles”. My engine rev with the notion that for the first time, non governmental entities can monitor, analyze, and extract information from real time flows.
Twitter is important to me because it provides a “nowness” lacking in Web log indexes and traditional Web indexes. I love Bing, Google and Yahoo, but at this time, the notion of real time gains extra dimensions of usefulness for quite different reasons that juice Time’s editors and Mr. Johnson.
With Twitter now quite obvious, why didn’t the managers of Time Magazine snag Twitter or create a Twitter like service? It is easier to write about three year old services than recognize their potential I opine. So much for Time’s ambient awareness of online.
Stephen Arnold, June 5, 2009
Search Is Sick
June 3, 2009
I am on my way to the airport for another luxury-suffused flight. I scanned Boston.com’s story “Microsoft Ads Say Search Is Sick, Bing Is the Cure” here. For years, I have been pointing out that search is not sick; search is dead. My research indicates that people don’t like to type words into a search box in the hopes that their guess will unlock the information riches hidden in the system. I still think search is dead, and the efforts to improve key word search result in modest improvements in usability.
Jessica Mintz’s article this morning is an AP story, so I can’t quote from it. I can offer a couple of comments:
- Microsoft is spending big money to point out that search is much better with Bing.com. My thought is, “Will users in a hurry to get info perceive a substantive difference?” There has to be more on offer than overviews of video content, right?
- Bing.com is a decision engine. I struggle with that notion. I am not sure that most people know what a “decision engine” is, and the idea scrapes against my view of information systems that generate high value intelligence outputs. Cognos and SAS are two examples of companies with systems that come closer to my idea of a decision engine.
- Incremental change may not narrow the 50 or 60 percent market share gap between Google and Microsoft. When Microsoft announced Bing.com, Google announced Wave. One looked backwards to search. The GOOG looked forward to real time information.
I will look for the Microsoft ads, but I am not sure my info habits will change too much.
Stephen Arnold, June 3, 2009
Mahalo: More Spin on Search and Money
June 3, 2009
Peter Kafka’s “Jason Calacanis Tries Turning Mahalo into a Wikipedia that Pays” here provides some insight into how an entrepreneur thinks about search and content. The Mahalo search engine was a notable social approach to building an information resource. The idea, like Wikipedia before it, was to rely on humans to provide links and content. For whatever reason, that model does not seem to have the traction needed to keep traffic soaring. Mr. Kafka summarizes the two changes Mahalo has made in its approach. One tweak is for young eyes only; that is, more info on each screen. The second is to implement a Mahalo “bucks” plan. I don’t grasp the notion because I am used to paying people for their services and then doing my thing with the content. As Mr. Kafka explains the Mahalo idea, I sighed. Mr. Kafka wrote:
But now he’s hoping to get Mahalo users to do the work, Wikipedia-style, with a twist–he’ll pay them. The pitch: Calacanis will offer users the chance to “own” a results page, and split any advertising revenue the page generates, primarily via Google (GOOG) AdSense. He’ll be paying users with “Mahalo bucks,” which cash out at 75 cents on the dollar, so users are really keeping 37.5 percent of each dollar their page generates. Calacanis says some of his pages are generating up to $10,000 a year, but most will make far less. Will that be enough to encourage people to build and maintain Web pages on a piecework basis?
I will be releasing a free compilation of my series “Mysteries of Online”, information that originally was developed for talks at various venues. I have a couple of sections about monetization of online information in that 34 page PDF, which becomes available on July 1, 2009. The bottom-line is that unless an information service generates what I call a “clean stream” of revenue, the costs of marketing and administering online services can suck the life out of a useful online service. Paying for content works if the information is “must have” stuff. Examples include certain chemical information, actionable intelligence for financial services firms, and “keep us out of jail” info for a legal matter. Once that high value info is captured, then the marketing and administrative costs kick in. The editorial costs never go away. Lower value info fall prey to the cost of keeping info fresh (hence long update times for certain info) and keeping pace with new info (hence the urgent need to monetize real time info).
I am not sure where Mahalo falls on the spectrum of “must have to nice to have to everyone has”. Perhaps the approach with create lots of eyeballs which can be monetized courtesy of ad outfits. In my opinion, the new improved Mahalo has quite a few moving parts. I like the “clean stream” approach. With the Bingster and the GOOG improving their ad supported results, Mahalo may face a long, hot summer without money for lemonade.
Stephen Arnold, June 3, 2009
Free of AOL, Time Identifies the Future of Online
June 2, 2009
When you own an online loser, it’s tough for the organization to make bold statements about the future of online. Cast off the boat anchor and the writers are liberated. Check out this essay / report from Time here. The write up is called “10 Ways Twitter Will Change American Business” by 24/7 Wall Street but it’s Time for this addled goose. The idea was to get a bright journalist to identify the ways in which Twitter.com would affect an American business. The fact that Twitter.com has a fail whale deters not essay Douglas McIntyre. The ten examples are not that surprising, and I will leave it to you to analyze them. What struck me is that if Twitter.com was the future and had such compelling applications, why didn’t America Online jump into this new search sector with both feet. It’s easier to write about the future than deliver it in my opinion. One thing is clear to me. Finding the ten items is an exercise in patience. Start here.
Stephen Arnold, June 1, 2009
Bing Kumo Rides the Wave, Wave Soaks Bing Kumo
May 29, 2009
Think back a couple of weeks. Wolfram Alpha became available and Google rolled out announcements about enhancements to its system. Microsoft raised the curtain on its Bing search system, and the Google rolled a Wave across its developers. No accidents of timing. Google wants to be in charge of the digital information flows, and it is clear to me that Google treats capable mathematicians and $65 billion software giants exactly the same. In the war of visibility and media attention, Google neutralizes other firms’ efforts in all things digital.
The number of articles about Wave and Bing Kumo seemed high. I thought it would be interesting to try and quantify which product name received the most coverage. I took a count before I conked out after a long day in Washington, DC, and then again this morning. To my dismay, the miserable high speed Internet connection timed out in the middle of script I used for the count. I tried a couple of more times and concluded that in terms of Megite.com, Microsoft was the lead story. Google’s Wave was a sublisting under a Microsoft Bing story. Twitter wasn’t much use because I timed out and then got what looked like erroneous results. A quick check of Newsnow.co.uk revealed that Microsoft and Google were not the top stories when I checked at about 7 am Eastern.
I did some poking around and learned two things:
First, Bing is neither a winner nor a loser as a “decision engine”. It is another search engine aimed at consumers. The mash ups, the social functions, and the semantics are present, just not dominant. Product Review Net here described its position in this way:
Microsoft tells us that this new search engine will be far different than we were used to with Live Search, Google and Yahoo Search. Normally when you search for something you then get one answer, Bing is different, as it knows that one answer is not often enough.
The key point in the article was the statement,
Internet users have been asking the same question, “Why Bing” and the answer is simple. Decisionengine.com explains that although current search engines are amazing, but as more than four websites are created every second, this means that half the search results that come up are not the results that people had searched for. Bing is different as it has evolved in to something new and better, but we will only know if this is true once Bing is up and running.
Okay, multiple answers. You may find the Bing video here located by Product Reviews useful.
Second, Warwick Ashford made a good point in his write up “Google Unveils Next Wave of Online Communications” here. Mr. Ashford wrote:
Google has posted examples of how services like Twitter can be automatically included in waves. Rasmussen described it as “concurrent rich-text editing”, where users see nearly instantly what collaborators are typing in your wave as well as being able to use “playback” to rewind the wave to see how it evolved.
Google, if Mr. Ashford is correct has focused on communication in which search is one function.
My thoughts about the Wave and Bing Kumo roll outs are:
- Microsoft is trying hard to out do Google in a market sector that focuses on finding information in some consumer areas such as tickets. Although the service is interesting, it is, by definition, constrained and inherently narrow. The method of interaction is well know, focused on accessing previously indexed information, and delivering utility such as a discount in airfare and similar practical information outcomes.
- Google seems to be cobbling together mash ups of its various components and moving parts. Wave is new and open. The idea is to allow developers first and then users to create information channels and then have those flows available for communication purposes. Wave is not search.
The contrast strikes me as quite significant in the broader information market. I think these three reasons sum up my thoughts in the early days of both services:
First, both services seems to be works in progress. In short, we are watching pundits, mavens, and self appointed wizards exercise themselves with what are not much more than demos. Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with demos. Most of my work is a demo. But demos are not products and it is not clear if either of these offerings will have much of an impact on users. In short, I am less than thrilled with both Wave and Bing.
Second, Microsoft seems intent on beating Google at the search game. Google on the other hand is trying hard to invent a new game in which it has not had much success; that is, real time information retrieval. What’s interesting to me is that both Google and Microsoft may be tilting at windmills. My hunch is that Google will plug along in search, and Microsoft will plug along in its desktop applications and server business. Both companies will be hard pressed to achieve much traction in the short term with their Thursday roll outs. Over time, both will be reasonable successful, but I don’t see a future Le Bron James in either demo.
Third, both companies underscore how monocultures react to the new information world. The similarity of each company’s approach to these roll outs makes me see two peas in a pod, not innovative, distinctive ways to address the changing needs of users.
Just my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
Social Search: Nay Sayers Eat Twitter Pie
May 27, 2009
My comments will be carried along on the flow of Twitter commentary today. This post is to remind me that at the end of May 2009, the Google era (lots of older Web content) has ended and the Twitter or real time search era has arrived. Granted, the monetization, stability, maturity, and consumerization has not yet climbed on the real time search bandwagon. But I think these fellow travelers are stumbling toward the rocket pad.
Two articles mark this search shift. Sure, I know I need more data, but I want to outline some ideas here. I am not (in case you haven’t noticed) a real journalist. Save the carping for the folks who used to have jobs and are now trying to make a living with Web logs.
The first article is Michael Arrington’s “Topy Search Launches: Retweets Are the New Currency of the Web” here. The key point for me was not the particular service. What hooked me were these two comments in the article:
- “Topsy is just a search engine. That has a fundamentally new way of finding good results: Twitter users.” This is a very prescient statement.
- “Influence is gained when others retweet links you’ve sent out. And when you retweet others, you lose a little Influence. So the more people retweet you, the more Influence you gain. So, yes, retweets are the new currency on the Web.”
My thoughts on these two statements are:
- Topsy may not be the winner in this sector. The idea, however, is very good.
- The time interval between major shifts in determining relevance are now likely to decrease. Since Google’s entrance, there hasn’t been much competition for the Mountain View crowd. The GOOG will have to adapt of face the prospect of becoming another Microsoft or Yahoo.
- Now that Topsy is available, others will grab this notion and apply it to various content domains. Think federated retweeting across a range of services. The federated search systems have to raise the level of their game.
The second article was Steve Rubel’s “Visits to Twitter Search Soar, Indicating Social Search Has Arrived” here. I don’t have much to add to Mr. Rubel’s write up. The key point for me was:
I think there’s something fundamentally new that’s going on here: more technically savvy users (and one would assume this includes journalists) are searching Twitter for information. Presumably this is in a tiny way eroding searches from Google. Mark Cuban, for example, is one who is getting more traffic to his blog from Twitter and Facebook than Google.
For the purposes of this addled goose, the era of Googzilla seems to be in danger of drawing to a close. The Googlers will be out in force at their developers’ conference this week. I will be interested to see if the company will have an answer to the social search and real time search activity. With Google’s billions, it might be easier for the company to just buy tomorrow’s winners in real time search. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, May 27, 2009
Copyright and the Real Time Microblog Phenom
May 24, 2009
Liz Gannes’ “Copyright Meets a New Worth Foe: The Real Time Web” is an interesting article. You can find it on NewTeeVee.com here. Her point is that copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and other bits and pieces of legal whoopdedoo struggle with real time content from Twitter-like services. She wrote:
If you’re a copyright holder and you want to keep up with your pirated content flitting about the web — well, good luck. The way the DMCA is set up means you’re always chasing, and the real-time web is racing faster than ever before. Analytics services are only just emerging that will tell you where your views are coming from on a semi-real-time basis. That’s especially true for live video streaming sites such as Ustream and Justin.tv. Justin.tv, in particular, has come under fire by sports leagues for hosting camcorded streams of live game broadcasts. The company says it takes down streams whenever it is asked to. But the reality is, often the moment has passed.
In short, information flows move more quickly than existing business methods. An interesting illustration of this flow for video is Twiddeo here. Government officials have their work cut out for them with regard to ownership, copyright, and related issues.
But…
As I read this article, I thought about the problem Google has at this time with real time content. Google’s indexing methods are simply not set up to handle near instantaneous indexing of content regardless of type. In fact, fresh search results on Google News are stale when one has been tracking “events” via a Twitter like service.
As important is the “stepping back” function. On Google’s search results displays, how do I know what is moving in near real time; that is, what’s a breaking idea, trend, or Tweet? The answer is, “I don’t.” I can hack a solution with Google tools, but even then the speed of the flow is gated by Google’s existing indexing throughput. To illustrate the gap, run a query for American Idol on Google News and then run the query on Tweetmeme.com.
Two different slants biased by time. In short, copyright problem and Google problem.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
