Keeping Track of Rockets

May 23, 2015

I have an Overflight for AeroText, which is located at 77 Fourth Avenue, in Waltham, Massachusetts. The company offers a search system. I noted that Rocket Software is located at 77 4th Avenue in Waltham, Massachusetts. Ergo: AeroText is now Rocket Software.

What makes this interesting to me is that Overflight snagged a number of references to a software component causing some consternation. I ran a query for “rocket search” on the GOOG and noted these results:

image

What jumps out is that there are no links to the Waltham-based outfit and there are quite a few links to information about removing what one outfit (ScarebearSoftware) called a virus. The software in question is “Rocket Search.”

My point is that vendors of search and content processing software have to name their products so that individuals interested in legitimate content processing systems can actually find the company.

In the past, I have commented about Brainware being usurped by an outfit keen to pump YouTube videos out with corresponding erosion of the Brainware “brand.” Brainware is not part of Lexmark, and I don’t think too many folks remember Brainware, trigrams, and the convoluted history of the company. Thunderstone in Cleveland has suffered a similar fate. Thunderstone is for all intents and purposes now associated with games, not search. And there are other examples.

The most recent instance of a vendor losing control of a brand was, until now, Smartlogic. An outfit in Baltimore has encroached on the conceptual real estate and Smartlogic’s Semaphore product name is now lovingly gazed upon by a German outfit with a variant of Smartlogic’s product moniker Semafora at http://www.semafora-systems.com/en/.

Now Rocket Software, a company eager to become a mover and shaker in search, faces the malware and virus association.

How does one remediate this problem. First, vendors have to pay attention to the name itself. Second, search vendors have to protect their “semantic real estate.” Third, search vendors have to communicate meaningful, high value information.

Ignoring these suggestions leads to brand erosion. Who can license a product if it cannot be found in Bing, Google, or Yandex? Augmentext can help remediate this type of problem, but it is easier and cheaper to head off invisibility and confusion before they gallop through the indexes churning up semantic mud.

I assume it is difficult to see a path forward when there is spatter on one’s eye glasses.

Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2015

Bing Does App Indexing

May 22, 2015

I am one of the few people who use my smartphone to make calls and respond to the text instructions from my wife. I am not into apps. I have a nice, multi screened desktop computer which allows me to do what I need and want to do. I am in the minority, and I quite like it that way.

I read “Make Apps Stand Out in Search with App Linking.” I suppose if I needed an app, I would want to be able to locate the candidate software for my consideration. Once I locate a suitable app, I want to read reviews and maybe—not very often—but maybe load a trial version to see if the app actually “apps.” I just submitted one of my for fee columns and titled it “In App or Inept.” The reason? Apps are not exactly the type of software I want to use.

Remember. I work at a desk, three monitors, 13 computers/servers, two high speed data connections, VPNs, and software my team and I built. Apps are not what meet my needs. But there are many attention challenged, entitlement fueled younger folks who are into the “app” thing. I think that most apps are inappropriate for the type of work I do and perhaps other folks should actually do.

I don’t telework or telecommute. I actually work, answer the phone, and produce outputs. Some of the outputs are software like Overflight and Augmentext. Others are outputs like this article pointing out that apps are programs which perform a limited set of functions. For the mobile, telecommuter, concentration deprived, and ever to busy knowledge worker, apps are the cat’s pajamas.

Bing is not going to permit app discovery. I would be happier if Bing did these things:

  1. Indexed more substantive content
  2. Eliminated the need for me to search Microsoft research and Bing for information
  3. Provided an interface which allowed me to concentrate on relevant results
  4. Improved relevance
  5. Provided meaningful ways to present data; for example, time sort, date content added to the index, and other pre-pre diluvium operations.

I chuckled at this diagram:

image

I have zero idea what the diagram is supposed to mean. I know that when I tested a Lumia Windows phone, I could not locate apps. The sparseness of information was a turn off. Hey, how tough is it to provide a link to the developer’s Web site? Obviously pretty tough.

The Bing enhancements are part of the “deep linking” craze. The idea is that an app does something and data are usually needed for that something. To allow the app to spit out a result, which may or may not be what the user wants, the app “goes to another Web site” or “to a database”. What’s going on is a dumbing down and conveniencing up of information access. Perfect for a user with an attention span less than a goldfish’s and the reading skill of a bright sixth grader.

How does this work? Well, you use code like this:

image

Don’t worry. Your eyes are not failing. The code snippet was illegible on the Bing blog Web page. New president, same old Microsoft. Enchanting.

Here’s the passage I highlighted in Microsoft blue:

We’re also already in the process of bringing this apps and actions intelligence to Bing and Bing-powered search results including Cortana and Windows 10 and we will have more to share later. In fact, look for an upcoming post on how we will start applying this to our results soon.

Okay, can’t wait. Watch for my in app or in ept article in Information Today. Nah, never mind. You already know that I prefer substantive information access. App finding is a tiny part of the content universe. I want more progress on the more substantive information which is increasingly difficult to find. Use Bing to locate Babak Parviz’s work at Microsoft on the bionic contact lens. Now use Bing to track Dr. Parviz from Google to Amazon. Let me know how that works out for you. Is there an app for that with deep linking no less?

Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2015

Search 2020: Peering into the Future of Information Access

May 22, 2015

The shift in search, user behaviors, and marketing are transforming bread-and-butter keyword search. Quite to my surprise, one of my two or three readers wrote to one of the goslings with a request. In a nutshell, the reader wanted my view of a write up which appeared in the TDWI online publication. TDWI, according to the Web site, is “your source for in depth education and research on all things data.” Okay, I can related to a categorical affirmative, education, research, and data.

The article has a title which tickles my poobah bone: “The Future of Search.” The poobah bone is the part of the anatomy which emits signals about the future. I look at a new search system based on Lucene and other open source technology. My poobah bone tingles. Lots of folks have poobah bones, but these constructs of nerves and tissues are most highly developed in entrepreneurs who invent new ways to locate information, venture capitalists who seek the next Google, and managers who are hired to convert information access into billions and billions of dollars in organic revenue.

The write up identifies three predictions about drivers on the information retrieval utility access road:

  1. Big Data
  2. Cloud infrastructure
  3. Analytics.

Nothing unfamiliar in these three items. Each shares a common characteristic: None has a definition which can be explained in a clear concise way. These are the coat hooks in the search marketers’ cloakroom. Arguments and sales pitches are placed on these hooks because each connotes a “new” way to perform certain enterprise computer processes.

But what about these drivers: Mobile access, just-in-time temporary/contract workers, short attention spans of many “workers”, video, images, and real time information requirements? Perhaps these are subsets of the Big Data, cloud, and analytics generalities, but maybe, just maybe, could these realities be depleted uranium warheads when it comes to information access?

These are the present. What is the future? Here’s a passage I highlighted:

Enterprise search in 2020 will work much differently than it does today. Apple’s Siri, IBM’s Watson, and Microsoft’s Cortana have shown the world how enterprise search and text analytics can combine to serve as a personal assistant. Enterprise search will continue to evolve from being your personal assistant to being your personal advisor.

How are these systems actually working in noisy automobiles or in the kitchen?

I know that the vendors I profiled in CyberOSINT: Next Generation Information Access are installing systems which perform this type of content processing. The problem is that search, as I point out in CyberOSINT, is that the function is, at best, a utility. The heavy lifting comes from collection, automated content processing, and various output options. One of the most promising is to deliver specific types of outputs to both humans and to other systems.

The future does tailor information to a person or to a unit. Organizations are composed of teams of teams, a concept now getting a bit more attention. The idea is not a new one. What is important is that next generation information access systems operate in a more nuanced manner than a list of results from a Lucene based search query.

The article veers into a interesting high school teacher type application of Microsoft’s spelling and grammar checker. The article suggests that the future of search will be to alert the system user his or her “tone” is inappropriate. Well, maybe. I turn off these inputs from software.

The future of search involves privacy issues which have to be “worked out.” No, privacy issues have been worked out via comprehensive, automated collection. The issue is how quickly organizations will make use of the features automated collection and real time processing deliver. Want to eliminate the risk of insider trading? Want to identify bad actors in an organization? One can, but this is not a search function. This is an NGIA function.

The write up touches on a few of the dozens of issues implicit in the emergence of next generation information access systems. But NGIA is not search. NGIA systems are a logical consequence of the failures of enterprise search. These failures are not addressed with generalizations. NGIA systems, while not perfect, move beyond the failures, disappointments, and constant legal hassles search vendors have created in the last 40 years.

My question, “What is taking so long?”

Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2015

Peruse Until You Are Really Happy

May 22, 2015

Have you ever needed to quickly locate a file that you just know you made, but were unable to find it on your computer, cloud storage, tablet, smartphone, or company pool drive?  What is even worse is if your search query does not pick up on any of your keywords!  What are you supposed to do then?  VentureBeat might have the answer to your problems as explained in the article, “Peruse Is A New Natural Language Search Tool For Your Dropbox And Box Files.”  Peruse is a search tool that allows users to use their natural flow of talking to find their files and information.

Natural language querying is already a big market for business intelligence software, but it is not as common in file sharing services.  Peruse is a startup with the ability to search Dropbox and Box accounts using a regular question.  If you ask, “Where is the marketing data from last week?” The software will be able to pull the file for you without even opening the file. Right now, Peruse can only find information in spreadsheets, but the company is working on expanding the supported file types.

“The way we index these files is we actually look at them visually — it understands them in a way a person would understand them,” said [co-founder and CEO Luke Gotszling], who is showing off Peruse…”

Peruse’s goal is to change the way people use document search.  Document search has remained pretty consistent since 1995, twenty years later Gotszling is believes it is time for big change.  Gotzling is right, document search remains the same, while Web search changes everyday.

Whitney Grace, May 22, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Is Collaboration the Key to Big Data Progress?

May 22, 2015

The article titled Big Data Must Haves: Capacity, Compute, Collaboration on GCN offers insights into the best areas of focus for big data researchers. The Internet2 Global Summit is in D.C. this year with many exciting panelists who support the emphasis on collaboration in particular. The article mentions the work being presented by several people including Clemson professor Alex Feltus,

“…his research team is leveraging the Internet2 infrastructure, including its Advanced Layer 2 Service high-speed connections and perfSONAR network monitoring, to substantially accelerate genomic big data transfers and transform researcher collaboration…Arizona State University, which recently got 100 gigabit/sec connections to Internet2, has developed the Next Generation Cyber Capability, or NGCC, to respond to big data challenges.  The NGCC integrates big data platforms and traditional supercomputing technologies with software-defined networking, high-speed interconnects and visualization for medical research.”

Arizona’s NGCC provides the essence of the article’s claims, stressing capacity with Internet2, several types of computing, and of course collaboration between everyone at work on the system. Feltus commented on the importance of cooperation in Arizona State’s work, suggesting that personal relationships outweigh individual successes. He claims his own teamwork with network and storage researchers helped him find new potential avenues of innovation that might not have occurred to him without thoughtful collaboration.

Chelsea Kerwin, May 22, 2014

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Make Mine Mobile Search

May 21, 2015

It was only a matter of time, but Google searches on mobile phones and tablets have finally pulled ahead of desktop searches says The Register in “Peak PC: ‘Most’ Google Web Searches ‘Come From Mobiles’ In US.”   Google AdWords product management representative Jerry Dischler said that more Google searches took place on mobile devices in ten countries, including the US and Japan.  Google owns 92.22 percent of the mobile search market and 65.73 percent of desktop searches.  What do you think Google wants to do next?  They want to sell more mobile apps!

The article says that Google has not shared any of the data about the ten countries except for the US and Japan and the search differential between platforms.  Google, however, is trying to get more people to by more ads and the search engine giant is making the technology and tools available:

“Google has also introduced new tools for marketers to track their advertising performance to see where advertising clicks are coming from, and to try out new ways to draw people in. The end result, Google hopes, is to bring up the value of its mobile advertising business that’s now in the majority, allegedly.”

Mobile ads are apparently cheaper than desktop ads, so Google will get lower revenues.  What will probably happen is that as more users transition to making purchases via phones and tablets, ad revenue will increase vi mobile platforms.

Whitney Grace, May 21, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Eric Schmidt On Search Ambition and Attitude at the GOOG

May 20, 2015

The article on Business Insider titled Google’s Former CEO Reveals The Complicated Search Question He Wants Google To Be Able To Answer reports on Eric Schmidt’s speech in Berlin where he mentioned the hurdles Google is yet to overcome. Obviously, Google is an incredibly ambitious company, and should never be satisfied. He spelled out one particular question he would like the search engine to be able to answer,

“Try a query like ‘show me flights under €300 for places where it’s hot in December and I can snorkel,'” Schmidt says. “That’s kind of complicated: Google needs to know about flights under €300; hot destinations in winter; and what places are near the water, with cool fish to see. That’s basically three separate searches that have to be cross-referenced to get to the right answer. Sadly, we can’t solve that for you today. But we’re working on it.”

Schmidt also argued on behalf of Google in regards to the EU investigation into Google possibly favoring its own results rather than a fair spread of companies. Schmidt claimed that Google is most interested in simplifying search for users, rather than obliging users to click around. Since Google search is admittedly ad-oriented, Schmidt’s position seems to be at least semi-accurate.

Chelsea Kerwin, May 20 , 2014

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

 

Sinequa and Systran Partner on Cyber Defense

May 20, 2015

Enterprise search firm Sinequa and translation tech outfit Systran are teaming up on security software. “Systran and Sinequa Combine in the Field of Cyber Defense,” announces ITRmanager.com. (The article is in French, but Google Translate is our friend.) The write-up explains:

“Sinequa and Systran have indeed decided to cooperate to develop a solution for detecting and processing of critical information in multiple languages ??and able to provide investigators with a panoramic view of a given subject. On one side Systran provides safe instant translation in over 45 languages, and the other Sinequa provides big data processing platform to analyze, categorize and retrieve relevant information in real time. The integration of the two solutions should thus facilitate the timely processing of structured and unstructured data from heterogeneous sources, internal and external (websites, audio transcripts, social media, etc.) and provide a clear and comprehensive view of a subject for investigators.”

Launched in 2002, Sinequa is a leader in the Enterprise Search field; the company boasts strong business analytics, but also emphasizes user-friendliness. Based in Paris, the firm maintains offices in Frankfurt, London, and New York City. Systran has a long history of providing innovative translation services to defense and security organizations around the world. The company’s headquarters are in Seoul, with other offices located in Daejeon, South Korea; Paris; and San Diego.

Cynthia Murrell, May 20, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

Navy Cloud Encounters a Storm Front

May 19, 2015

I read “Slow Progress Forces navy to Change Strategies for Cloud, Data Centers.” I have high regard for US Navy technical professionals. ONION router technology and miniature swarm drones have been based on some Navy research.

The write up troubled me. Here’s the first passage I noted this statement:

Culturally, we have to make this shift from a mistaken belief that all our data has to be near us and somewhere where I can do and hug the server, instead of someplace where I don’t know in the cloud. This is a big shift for many within the department. It’s not going to be an easy transition.”

Like most nations’ military forces resources are available in the form of personnel, machines, and money. Staffing also refreshes on a cadence different from some other government entities and many commercial organizations. There are not too many 70 year old nuclear submarine commanders.

The issue about the shift to cloud computing suggests that more than technical hurdles prevent enterprise and mission critical applications from moving to the cloud. I noted this paragraph as well:

While the Navy is open to using commercial or public clouds, the Marine Corps is going its own way. Several Marine Corps IT executives seemed signal that the organization will follow closely to what the Navy is doing, but put their own twist on the initiative. One often talked about example of this is the Marines decision to not move to the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) that is part of the Joint Information Environment (JIE) until at least version 2 comes online in 2017. Marine Corps CIO Gen. Kevin Nally said the decision not use the initial versions of JRSS is because Marine Corps’ current security set up is better and cheaper than version 1 or 1.5.

In interpreted the milspeak to mean, “We are doing the cloud but we are focusing on a private cloud, not the public Amazon thing.”

Will enterprise search vendors who emphasize their cloud solution advise their customers about cloud options? Search marketers often tell the prospect many things, and I assume explaining the different approaches to clouds and aggregation will be part of the sales presentation.

Stephen E Arnold, May 19, 2015

Searching Bureaucracy

May 19, 2015

The rise of automatic document conversion could render vast amounts of data collected by government agencies useful. In their article, “Solving the Search Problem for Large-Scale Repositories,” GCN explains why this technology is a game-changer, and offers tips for a smooth conversion. Writer Mike Gross tells us:

“Traditional conversion methods require significant manual effort and are economically unfeasible, especially when agencies are often precluded from using offshore labor. Additionally, government conversion efforts can be restricted by  document security and the number of people that require access.     However, there have been recent advances in the technology that allow for fully automated, secure and scalable document conversion processes that make economically feasible what was considered impractical just a few years ago. In one particular case the cost of the automated process was less than one-tenth of the traditional process. Making content searchable, allowing for content to be reformatted and reorganized as needed, gives agencies tremendous opportunities to automate and improve processes, while at the same time improving workflow and providing previously unavailable metrics.”

The write-up describes several factors that could foil an attempt to implement such a system, and I suggest interested parties check out the whole article. Some examples include security and scalability, of course, as well as specialized format and delivery requirements, and non-textual elements. Gross also lists criteria to look for in a vendor; for instance, assess how well their products play with related software, like scanning and optical character recognition tools, and whether they will be able to keep up with the volumes of data at hand. If government agencies approach these automation advances with care and wisdom, instead of reflexively choosing the lowest bidder, our bureaucracies’ data systems may actually become efficient. (Hey, one can dream.)

Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2015

Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta