More about Exalead and Its Miiget Technology
May 30, 2009
I mentioned Exalead’s Miiget not long ago. I received a couple of questions about the technology. To provide more color to that reference you may want to look at Same Story here. That company has licensed the Exalead technology. The announcement of the deal is here. The system provides content from the Same Story repository and from other sources. The system incorporates profiles so that information is tailored to the user. You can get more information about the Miiget technologies here.
Stephen Arnold, May 30, 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
HTML 5 Plus Chrome Plus Other Google Stuff
May 29, 2009
Short honk: HTML 5 is a potential problem for traditional desktop operating systems. There are quite a few posts about HTML 5. You may want to read the brief but direct write up “Java HTML5 Will Kill the OS!” in Dvorak Uncensored here. For me the key comment was:
While Java has accomplished a great deal, it’s potential as an OS-killer has not been realized. HTML5 has a better shot.
Very big deal.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
Track the Search Vendors
May 29, 2009
I will be adding to the Overflight service automatic pages that bring together a range of information about search vendors. We’ve been testing the system and for the most part, we have trimmed the number of false drops. The way the service will work is that you will navigate to a list of search vendors arranged in alphabetical order. Click on the name of a company in which you have an interest. The Overflight system will produce a run down of what’s new about the company from a range of sources. Some will be familiar like Web logs. Others will annoy like the Twitter hits. A few may be unfamiliar to you like videos about a search vendor. The idea is that you can click on a company and see what’s new. No key word searching. I find it easier to click a link and scan to see if there’s something that strikes me as important. For a preview of the service for Autonomy IDOL, click here. We will be fiddling with the final appearance so it matches my Google Overflights. More information about the vendors for which the automated service will be available will be coming soon. We have a short list of enhancements for these basic automated reports. We hope to have the full service available for free, of course, by September 2009.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
AOL for Sale: No Surprise There
May 28, 2009
After Time Magazine pronounced Google the winner in search here, the addled goose was not surprised when he read in TechRadar that “AOL Set to Be Split from Time Warner”. You can find the story here. TechRadar reported:
AOL will soon be split from its owners Time Warner, with the latter’s board of directors reportedly set to ratify the plan later on Thursday (May 28, 2009).
With a former Googler at the helm of Time Warner, Time Warner thinks the time is right to step away from an interesting acquisition. Will Yahoo jump from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe Microsoft can build its search base with a speedy deal? Other possible buyers? Ideas?
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Bing the Name Called Bob by TechRadar
May 28, 2009
One more dark morning and a delightful flight to Washington, DC. I was quiet until I read TechRadar’s “Tech Product Names Suck. Bing Blows” here. (The ComputerWorld reporter who asked yesterday me about Microsoft’s newest search engine called it Kumo. I call the Google challenger Bing Kumo, which is the best of both worlds.) When I read TechRadar’s article, I laughed. TechRadar said:
You’ve also got to wonder what they were thinking of when they chose Bing, because the four things that immediately spring to mind are Yahoo, the late Bing Crosby, Chandler from Friends and the bar in the Sopranos. Does Microsoft really want us to think of an ailing search provider, a long-dead crooner, an actor with addiction problems and a mafia strip club whenever we think of its search engine?
Keep in mind that I am pointing to a TechRadar story about the name “Bing.” Nothing more. When I hear the word Bing, I think of cherries, the phrase “bah dah bing” and the YouTube video, Bing the Guinea Pig.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Yahoo 1.1 Revealed
May 28, 2009
At the categorical affirmative “All Things Digital” Conference, Yahoo 1.1 was revealed. In an interview with Carol Bartz (Yahoo’s new CEO) conducted by Kara Swisher, information about Yahoo Version 1.1 was reveled. A blizzard of posts appeared on Megite.com but I gravitated to John Paczkowski’s “Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: We’re a Different Company than Google” here. For me, the killer comment in Mr. Paczkowski’s story was this explanation of Yahoo:
We use great technology to deliver search, content, advertising.
Mr. Paczkowski included a remarkable bit of local color, noting that Kara pointed out that former Yahooligan Terry Semel and Yahooliganette Sue Decker were in the audience.
Other points I thought interesting included:
- Ms. Bartz wants improve and integrate Yahoo’s services
- Yahoo email has to be made more simple
- Social network services are of interest
- Buying online ads must be made less complex
- Google “does not have the positioning and reach” of Yahoo.
In my opinion, Yahoo has a technology challenge. No large company will have homogeneous systems. The key is to have more homogeneity than stray cats and dogs. My analysis of Yahoo considers ads, traffic, and brand, but the iceberg that sank the Titantic looked small until it sank the ship. Yahoo’s iceberg is the cost of its technology; that is, there are costs that are tough to control due to the tech cats and dogs. As a result, Yahoo has fewer degrees of tech freedom and runs the risk of a cost spike that can puncture the hull of Yahoo 1.1.
Time may be running out, and it is not clear if a sugar daddy can rescue Yahoo. Yahoo is hanging tough. Yahoo may be following the same path that AOL took in its quest to become the Internet portal of choice. Didn’t work at AOL. Will it work at Yahoo? Ms. Bartz has confidence and a great track record. That technology iceberg is a threat that may be tough for a management strategist to deal with. I am not so sure about the “great technology” assertion. It’s Yahoo 1.1., not Yahoo 2.0 in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 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
Direct Mail Nuked by Search, Social Networks
May 27, 2009
Digital information, search, and social networks are disruptive. Publishers understand the disruption, and most publishers are working hard to find a way to manage the opportunities disruption creates. Gavin O’Malley’s “Direct Mail Doomed, Long Live Email” here gave me a fresh perspective on disruption in a sector tangential to publishing. Mr. O’Malley wrote:
After making quick work of print newspapers, and the Yellow Pages industry, “The kudzu-like creep of the Internet is about to claim its third analog victim,” warns a new report from research firm Borrell Associates. The victim? “The largest and least-read of all print media: Direct mail.”
Referencing a research report, Mr. O’Malley provides a number of useful data points; for example:
- “A 39% decline for direct mail over the next five years, from $49.7 billion in annual ad spending in 2008 to $29.8 billion by the end of 2013.”
- “In fact, last year, email advertising quietly moved to the No. 1 online ad category spot, surpassing all other forms of interactive advertising.”
- “We’re expecting local e-mail advertising to grow from $848 million in 2008, to $2 billion in 2013, as more small businesses abandon direct mail couponing and promotional orders and turn to a more measurable and less costly medium, e-mail.”
Useful write up.
Stephen Arnold, May 27, 2009
Social Search and Security
May 27, 2009
Might these terms comprise an oxymoron? Some organizations are plunging forward with social networking, social search, and open collaboration. You may find Vanessa Ho’s “Risks Associated with Web 2.0” here a useful article. She summarizes the results of a study by an outfit called Dynamic Markets conducted for WebSense. With a sample of 1,300 business professionals, the report contained some interesting information. This statement from the article struck a chord in me:
“The thing about the web is once it is out there, it is out there [forever],” Meizlik [a WebSense executive’] noted. Other findings of the survey include 80 per cent of respondents reported feeling confident in their organizations web security, despite the fact that the numbers show that they are ill-equipped to protect against Web 2.0 security threats. For example, 68 per cent do not have real-time analysis of web content; 59 per cent cannot prevent URL re-directs; 53 per cent do not have security solutions that stop spyware from sending information to bots; 52 per cent do not have solutions to detect embedded malicious code on trusted websites; and 45 per cent do not have data loss prevention technology to stop company-confidential information from being uploaded to sites like blogs and wikis, hosted on unauthorized cloud computing sites or leaked as a result of spyware and phishing attacks.
I learned from a chirpy 30 year old conference manager last week that security is not an issue of interest to that conference attendee audience. Yep, those 30 somethings set me straight again.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
