Coveo Client Advises on Search Deployments
May 21, 2014
Market Wired hosts a press release titled, “Join Coveo and Majedie Asset Management at Enterprise Search Europe 2014.” The title is a bit confusing, since it was published (at least at Market Wired) on the last day of that conference. It describes a presentation to be given that day by Coveo client Majedie Asset Management on best practices for search deployments in the financial services field. The write-up reports:
“During a presentation taking place on Wednesday, April 30 at 12:20 p.m., titled, ‘Search and Relevance in the Financial Services Industry,’ Simon Hazlitt, information director and co-founder of Majedie Asset Management, will share details of Majedie’s search-driven knowledge solution. After sharing the firm’s objectives and planning process for the initiative, Hazlitt will detail how Majedie provided its analysts with powerful, secure, single-point access to contextually relevant enterprise knowledge from across multiple on-premise and cloud-based systems.
“‘We worked closely with Majedie Asset Management to architect a truly next-generation knowledge solution for the firm,’ commented Coveo’s de Jong. ‘We are honored that Majedie’s innovation and successes will be highlighted at the conference, and suspect that conference attendees will gain many valuable and actionable insights from Simon’s presentation.'”
Kind of short notice, I think. Nevertheless, we’re intrigued by the term “search-driven architecture.” What does that mean, exactly? The press release offers this link to more information on Majedie’s implementation, but I could not find the answer there, either. Hmm.
Founded in 2005 by some members of the team which developed Copernic Desktop Search, Coveo serves organizations large, medium, and small with solutions that aim to be agile and easy to use yet scalable, fast, and efficient. The company maintains offices in the U.S., Netherlands, and Quebec.
Cynthia Murrell, May 21, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Recipe Search Tutorial
May 16, 2014
Over at SitePoint, writer Adam Bard gets into the nitty gritty of creating a site search system in, “Building a Recipe Search Site with Angular and Elasticsearch.” The article begins:
“Have you ever wanted to build a search feature into an application? In the old days, you might have found yourself wrangling with Solr, or building your own search service on top of Lucene — if you were lucky. But, since 2010, there’s been an easier way: Elasticsearch.
“Elasticsearch is an open-source storage engine built on Lucene. It’s more than a search engine; it’s a true document store, albeit one emphasizing search performance over consistency or durability. This means that, for many applications, you can use Elasticsearch as your entire backend.”
The article goes on to supply step-by-step instructions, complete with code snippets, for building a recipe search engine based on the open-source version found at OpenRecipeSearch.com. Bard has pupils begin with a download of Elasticsearch and the OpenRecipe database, proceeds to crafting an appropriate UI (that’s where the open-source Angular comes in), and concludes with a few deployment notes. Bard also points readers to his demo file repository at GitHub. Anyone with a site-search deployment in their future might want to at least bookmark this resource.
Cynthia Murrell, May 16, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Search: Dreams and a Million Miles
May 15, 2014
I read “Google ‘A Million Miles Away from Creating the Search Engine of my Dreams’, Says Larry Page.” Sigh.
The write up points to Mr. Page’s “founder’s letter.” I thought there were two founders. Guess not. Anyway, the point of the write up is that Google search is not particularly good.
More interesting is the assertion that Google wants to answer a user’s questions. No problem. Well, a tiny glitch. Users often do not know what question to ask. If one thinks about answering questions, the first step is to figure out what the user needs to know at a point in time in a particular fungible and non fungible context.
This, in my opinion, is a tough problem. Much tougher than figuring out what ad to show to a user. We know how well that works using technology like Applied Semantics’ methods and the cruft of a decade added on to what was Oingo.
Here’s the portion I noted:
But despite these advances Page admitted that “in many ways, we’re a million miles away from creating the search engine of my dreams, one that gets you just the right information at the exact moment you need it with almost no effort.”
Then:
Page explained: “Improved context will also help make search more natural, and not a series of keywords you artificially type into a computer. We’re getting closer: ask how tall the Eiffel Tower is, and then when ‘it’ was built. By understanding what ‘it’ means in different contexts, we can make search conversational.”
A couple of thoughts.
Google is one of the few companies positioned to deliver relevant results. The reality is that revenue takes precedence over relevance in my view. I give lectures for a an organization that focuses on law enforcement and intelligence professionals. My most popular lecture provides examples of ways to get through Google’s bullet proof vest of baloney and ersatz information. Why? Useful information IS in the Google index. Finding the information has become a major problem. And getting relevant results is becoming more difficult because as boat anchor access gives way to mobile access, users have neither the screen real estate, time, or expertise to fire queries into a foot of Kevlar.
Because Google is the go to system for metasearch systems, the results in metasearch systems display similar problems with relevance. The Google approach rewards non information, making the metasearch systems output results that are not much more useful than those produced by straight on Google queries.
Google’s belief or fantasy that it is a search and retrieval system reaches back to the dorm and Backrub. The reality is that search is the digital equivalent of a mule. A “query” is generated by some human, system, or algorithmic action. The retrieval system then matches the “query” to one of the indexes Google houses. The results are what you get when you see most Google pages.
Example:
The searcher is an award winning technology journalist who now labors in the ArnoldIT vineyards. The situation is looking for a restaurant in Washington, DC, a short walk from Google’s office. The journalist keys in Cuba Libre to get the address. Note that the journalist, one of my law librarians, and I are standing in front of Cuba Libre. The Google system shows a map and the map does not locate Cuba Libre. The journalist looked at me and asked, “What’s up?” My response: The new Google is what’s up.
I am delighted that ZDNet summarized a founder’s letter. I am thrilled that the myth of search is being propagated. I am happy knowing that as long as Google sees search as a million miles away, my three hour seminar will attract a large audience.
Now navigate to Google and try to find out where I am giving my next talk. Let me know how that works out for you using Google search.
And enterprise search? Don’t get me started.
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2014
Bill Suggests Replacing NTIS with Google Search
May 15, 2014
The article titled There’s a ‘Let Me Google That For You’ Bill on Talking Points Memo relates the substance of a bipartisan bill (sponsored by Tom Coburn and Clair McCaskill). The bills purpose is to save the taxpayer money by resorting to Google and eliminating the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The article states,
“The bill is meant to cut down on “the collection and distribution of government information” by prioritizing using Google over spending money to obtain information from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). NTIS, run by the Department of Commerce, is a repository of 3 million scientific, technical, engineering, and business texts. The bill would abolish the NTIS and move essential functions of the agency to other agencies like the National Archives.”
If the bill’s name sounds familiar, you have probably heard of the website it is named after, in which the website redirects you to Google. The bill is put forward to prevent waste by federal agencies in obtaining government documents for money when they are available online free of charge. Sounds like a no-brainer, especially since NTIS was founded in 1950, decades before the Internet was even a possibility. You can read the full bill here.
Chelsea Kerwin, May 15, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Airbnb Offers Prospective Hosts Guidelines for Higher Search Results Placement
May 14, 2014
Now here is an intriguing definition of search. Airbnb’s blog examines “How Search Works on Airbnb.” You may have heard of the site, which connects travelers to folks who have space to rent out. The post is directed at hosts looking to receive prominent positioning in Airbnb search results, and explains that rankings are based on considerations that affect a traveler’s experience. The write-up states:
“The factors that affect search can be broken down into a few high-level categories:
1. Quality of the listing. How appealing is the listing to guests and how good is the trip experience the host provides?
2. Ease of booking. How reliably and easily can a guest book the space?
3. Guest preferences. How well does the listing match the specific preferences and criteria of the person searching?
“It’s important to note that we are constantly working on improving search to better match guests and hosts, so the factors we use and how we use them may change over time. Because we take so many factors into account, comparing listings based on just a few characteristics doesn’t tell the whole story. Most importantly for hosts, you have control over many of the factors that we discuss below, so you can have an impact on where you appear compared to other listings.”
The post goes on to elaborate on each factor. For example, under “quality of the listing,” the article advises hosts on how to create an appealing listing with reviews and photos. See the article for more if you are curious. We think it’s interesting to see how some companies are tailoring their vertical searches to their unique audiences.
Cynthia Murrell, May 14, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Ravn Amps Up Its Search Prowess
May 9, 2014
I read “RAVN Systems Revolutionises COWI’s SharePoint 2013 Search.” I learned several things. First, COWI means “a leading international consulting group with 50 remote locations.”
Next, RAVN delivers some performance assertions; for example:
In representative tests across their estate COWI have achieved a 57% reduction in indexing time of remote content, over 90% reduction in bandwidth usage during indexing and 70% reduction in time to preview compared with opening content. They have also estimated a saving of 12 physical servers.
Unfortunately there were no data about life before RAVN, the system’s throughput, etc. But the assertion is interesting.
Finally, the article states:
“RAVN Connect revolutionises SharePoint Search in distributed environments”.
I have heard this before from Fulcrum Technologies decades ago. I assume this time the nail in SharePoint’s findability coffin is hammered tight. No word from the legions of other SharePoint indexing systems, however.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2014
Trifles in Enterprise Search History
May 6, 2014
Search conferences are, in my experience, context free. The history of enterprise search is interesting and contains useful examples pertaining to findability. Stephen E Arnold’s new video is “Trifles from Enterprise Search History.” The eight minute video reviews developments from the late 1970s and early 1980s. These mini snapshots provide information about where some of the hottest concepts today originated. Do you think MarkLogic invented an XML data management system that could do search and analytics? The correct answer may be Titan Search. What about “inventing” an open source search business model. Do you think Lucid Imagination, now Lucid Works, cooked up the concept of challenging proprietary systems with community created software? The correct answer may be Fulcrum Technologies’ early concoction of home brew code with the WAIS server. What about the invention of jargon that permeates discussions of content processing. A good example is a “parametric cube”. Is this the conjuring of Spotfire and Palantir? Verity is, in Mr. Arnold’s view, the undisputed leader in this type of lingo in its attempts to sell search without using the word “search.” Grab some SkinnyPop and check out Trifles.
Kenneth Toth, May 6, 2014
Actonomy Joins Belgian HR Group
May 1, 2014
Actonomy’s slogan is: “We simply search smarter!” Actonomy’s claim comes from its semantic technology to optimize human resources recruitment processes and findability. It is a big claim to make and if challenged would Actonomy be able to back it up? The company’s most recent press release, “Actonomy Now Part Of A Larger HR Group” proves that its semantic search technology was one of the leading HR products in the European market.
As a result, Actonomy has joined a Belgian HR Group owned by the Peumans family. The group includes other HR software and service companies, including Cognsis, Prato, and SAP. Actonomy has been a star product for over seven years and it is one of the groundbreaking developers in matching technology and ontology based search. Joining the Belgian HR Group gives them the ability to increase their client list and extend their service offerings:
“Thanks to Actonomy’s technology, Prato can extend its service offering of HRM related processes and include in its service offering Actonomy’s semantic searching and matching technology. Actonomy on the other hand will be able to bring its software to perfection thanks to Prato’s broad know how allowing us to launch a suite of new services packaged on top of our core semantic technology. A win win situation for both companies!”
While these companies will remain separate, they will exchange their technologies to benefit each other. It kind of sounds like open source, except they are remaining proprietary companies.
Whitney Grace, May 01, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
India: The Future of Search
April 28, 2014
I read “New RTI Search Engine Makes the Task Tougher.” A number of government sites have made changes that seem to make finding information more difficult. In some cases, locating information may be almost impossible. When I lived in Washington, DC, as a grade school student, I remember my father stopping at a government agency and walking in to obtain some information. I am not sure how my father’s approach would be received today.
In the Pune Mirror article, I noted this passage about India’s Right to Information finding system:
a new search engine has been put in place that makes it mandatory for visitors to know the specific date, topic, category and sub-category in order to track a particular circular. Also, information like mode of payment for RTI fees, circulars, advertisements and office memorandums, that were up front as per their date of issuance from the year 2005, have gone missing.
In my experience, most users are not able to provide sufficiently narrow terms or provide key details about a needed item of information. As a result, it is now trivially easy for a governmental entity to drop a old-school photographer’s cloak over some information. I noted this comment in the article:
“With the new system in place, you need to know the exact date, topic, category and sub category in order to find the circular. Considering the level of literacy in this country, who will know all details?” he demanded. “We are all stake-holders and they should have asked before making these changes. All political parties have opposed the RTI Act.
The article points to an opinion that the new Indian search system is designed to “harass” users. I don’t agree. More commercial and governmental entities are fearful of user access to some information.
Is the use of the word “transparency” a signal that finding information is not in the cards. For me, I am not too concerned. I have developed a turtle like approach to these “retrieval enhancements.” I no longer look for information online as often as I did when I was but a callow lad.
I am pulling my head in my shell now. There. That’s better. Predictive search delivers pizza and sports scores. What more does a modern person require?
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2014
Search Without Words at Yelp
April 28, 2014
This is an interesting option that perhaps only the Millennials and younger are equipped to take full advantage of. Fast Company reports, “Now You Can Use Emoji to Search Yelp.” For those unfamiliar with the term, emoji are like the more familiar emoticons, but provide a much larger vocabulary. The icons originate in Japan, and are built right into many Japanese devices. Reporter Chris Gayomali writes:
“Emoji are great stand-ins when words aren’t cutting it. Which is perfect for a service like Yelp, since sifting through meal options can often lead to paralyzing indecision, leaving you dinner-less and hangry.
“Now, in an update to its mobile app, Yelp allows users to search local businesses using those puzzling, beaming little character faces. That means pizza, beers, ramen, and yes, apparently even the happy-faced turd are fair game for search results.”
The write-up shares a couple of screenshots from emoji-powered searches. One using a cute, smiling pig’s head emoji produces a list of nearby restaurants that feature pork, while one using a bowl of ramen pulls up a list of Japanese dining venues. I suppose this is a sign of the times, though just what it portends is beyond this Gen X goose.
Cynthia Murrell, April 28, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
