Wall Street Journal Documents Citizen Spies
May 25, 2009
If you already use online services to locate information via humans, you may find the information is “Gulags, Nukes and a Water Slide: Citizen Spies Lift North Korea’s Veil”. The story appeared with a May 22, 2009 dateline. The author is Evan Ramstad, and you may be able to view the article here. No guarantees when it comes to the “new” Wall Street Journal. For me,the most interesting passage in the write up was:
“We’re relying on the North Koreans to keep publicizing” Mr. Kim’s movements, Mr. Melvin says. “This leads to great discoveries.”
I find it interesting that traditional information methods are still a source of wonder and surprise.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Hiding Information and Blinding Spiders
May 24, 2009
Two stories reminded me that search won’t work if content is not exposed. The first story is the decision of a college newspaper to prevent its archives from being indexed by Google. The idea is to avoid embarrassing graduates. My thought is that the information should be indexed if it is available. To blind a search engine hides potentially significant and useful information. You can read that story here. Censorship is censorship.
But the second story was even more annoying. Bloomberg News, according to Gawker here, now suggests that its reporters neither link nor mention competitors’.
My view is that the value of linking is similar to a fax machine. A single fax machine is useless. Its value increased when there were lots of fax machines. Fax is dead but the same analogy applies to content.
Censorship and intentional limiting of links are two examples of a fundamental change in publicly accessible online information. Not good in my opinion. Tough to search when the spiders have their eyes poked out.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 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
Twitter Search a Quitter
May 23, 2009
Louis Gray’s “Twitter’s Search Engine Is Very, Very, Broken” here underscored the plight of those engaged in information retrieval. Mr. Gray wrote:
The promise of Twitter’s advanced search capability is tremendous – letting you dice your queries by the sender and recipient, and even limiting the date range for said tweets, the location, hashtags or even emoticons. And at one time, it was a valuable resource. Now, depending on which account you’re viewing, the data set could be as small as a week, or oddly, in some cases, not available at all.
If I waddled my addled goose body from pond to keyboard, I could make the same assertion about any search and retrieval system with which I am familiar. In fact, I have been clear about the challenges of search and retrieval. I track about 350 vendors with my monitoring tools, and I could point to examples of problems with any of these companies’ systems.
So, flawed search is nothing new.
Some quick illustrations. You may be able to replicate these queries yourself, but some examples perform differently at different times.
First, Microsoft’s Live Search. Run this query: “educational materials”. Scan the results. My set is biased toward state sources and health. What’s up? I want links to outfits like NEA.org. Problem: context. Most search systems lack the technology to deliver context aware searches. Is Microsoft search “broken”? Not really.
Second. Yahoo’s shopping search. Run this query “dell mini9 ssd from the search box here and be sure to click on “shopping”. What do you get? Zero hits. Isolated instance? Nope, for certain queries Yahoo works pretty well, but for others it’s as off base as Microsoft’s Live Search.
Third. Google. Navigate to Google.com and enter this query: “eccs”. The acronym stands for “emergency core cooling system” and Google returns only false drops. Google fails this query test.
What’s happening?
The reality is that no search system works particularly well. Search is good enough, and in my opinion, that’s the state of the art. Twitter is no better and no worse than most free search systems. Will search improve? Slowly, goose lovers, slowly.
Stephen Arnold, May 23, 2009
Beyond Search to Cybersocialization
May 23, 2009
Ad Age is not my first choice in morning reading. I scanned the article “The Coming End of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook Socialism” by Simon Dumenco here because these services are going like great guns in World War One. In fact, one of my history profs asserted that World War One was a precursor to World War Two, and that, ladies and gentlemen, ushered in much of our current brave new world.
Mr. Dumenco asserted:
It’s sweet, really, that venture capitalists have ponied up millions so that we can all keep tweeting. It’s also more than a bit scary. Because more and more of us are increasingly addicted not only to Twitter, but to other services that lack workable business models. What happens if the “dealers” who feed our habits disappear? (It’s been known to happen. Last week, for instance, Yahoo announced it was shutting down last century’s hot social-networking-esque service, GeoCities, for which it paid $3.5 billion in 1999.)
After reminding me that money may not be “smart” when it comes to Ad Age’s view of business, Mr. Dumenco concluded:
Seriously. I love YouTube, I’ve made some interesting connections through Facebook, and I enjoy Twittering. (Last week, for instance, I tweeted about an astonishing bit of information I came across in Britain’s Daily Telegraph: YouTube “reportedly uses as much bandwidth as the entire internet took up in 2000.”)
Two thoughts this gloomy day in Cleveland, once home to the burning river:
One. The notion of socialism is interesting, but I don’t think the argument was developed, nor presented in a way that squeezed the milk from this metaphor. The referenced services are superficially similar if one views them from the with it, Mad Ave vantage point. But I don’t see the three as having much similarity with socialism let alone to coinage “cybersocialization”. Balkanization and middle school friendship groups seem to be more on point to me along with the prospect of skills no longer in demand in today’s job market. The lack of cohesion within the services and their interesting swarming behavior seems to be a new type of social integration. The old and familiar “isms” don’t provide much in the way of handholds in my opinion.
Two. The ad perspective is commissionable monetization. None of these three services has figured out a business model for themselves that generates sufficient cash to keep the Odwalla flowing for the employees and contractors. More problematic is the reality that Mad Ave types have to sit on the sidelines, Twittering and updating Facebook pages, without an opportunity for billing. The market available to Facebook owners, for example, seems to be a challenge to squeeze into the old, familiar business models. As a result, Facebook is experimenting and while Facebook tries to figure out its financial future, the Mad Ave types are being driven wacky because they can’t figure out how to cash in on the service. The squirming reminds me of a class of third graders denied recess.
Bottomline for me: traditional and familiar advertising models have to be custom fit to these new markets. Venture firms have nothing to do with this problem, nor can money solve the problem. When I watched a jeweler in Istanbul fit a stone into a cheap sterling silver setting, I was surprised at how long it took. The value of the finished piece was insufficient to compensate the worker for the labor. But the jeweler managed. Ad execs may not have the degrees of freedom the jeweler enjoyed. With each passing day, the old Mad Ave skills may be eroding.
Like the publishing and financial sectors, the issue is not socialization. It is life on the dole or a McJob. I don’t think the end of YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter is impossible. I think that more disruption will take place before these outfits bite the dust. Traditional advertising is likely to face a greater challenge in the short term. Tweet that.
Stephen Arnold, May 23, 2009
Google, YouTube, and Digital Volume
May 22, 2009
Short honk: A year or so ago, I learned that Google received about one million new video objects per month. TechCrunch reported here that Google’s YouTube.com ingests about 20 hours of video every minute. I don’t know if this estimate is spot on, but it is clear that YouTube is amassing one of the world’s largest collections of rich text content in digital form. For me, the most interesting information in the write up was:
Back in 2007, shortly after Google bought the service, it was 6 hours of footage being uploaded every minute. As recently as January of this year, that number had grown to 15 hours, according to the YouTube blog. Now it’s 20 — soon it will be 24.
Lots of data means opportunity for the GOOG. I am looking forward to having the audio information searchable.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
Drat. Wolfram Alpha May Not Be Revolutionary
May 22, 2009
The Guardian really wants to hobble the Google. When I lived in Brazil as a child, I recall my picking up a certain small lizard. The tail would break off and the lizard would scamper to safety. A friend of the family who was a surgeon told me that some lizards could regrow their tails. The Guardian grabs the GOOG’s tail, and it breaks off, leaving Googzilla free to do whatever Googzillas enjoy doing.
You can see this approach in the Guardian’s story “Where Does Wolfram Alpha Get Its Information?” by Bobbie Johnson here. The angle is to write about Wolfram Alpha, the current Google challenger. Bobbie Johnson said:
Some of the references come, Google-style, from ordinary websites but most of the information is drawn from the texts and databases that are pulled into Mathematica, which performs most of the numerical calculations. This means Alpha is strong on science and maths but struggles with some other fact-based disciplines (such as history) and seems nonplussed by social sciences and popular culture. There are plenty of queries that result in the weary (and wearying) refrain of “Wolfram Alpha isn’t sure what to do with your input”. However, the search engine is not just pulling information from academic data: it has its fair share of oddball references too – injected by the site’s staff in an attempt to draw a smile from users and build up early-adopter credibility.
In this passage, I can hear the sigh of disappointment that Wolfram Alpha wasn’t – well – a Google killer. Bobbie Johnson concluded:
In the end, that’s not necessarily much different or better than the information returned from a search on Google or Wikipedia. Perhaps Wolfram Alpha isn’t quite so revolutionary after all.
The Guardian will be on the look out for the next potential Google killer. Maybe Microsoft’s Bing Kumo will be the next knight in the lists. I am betting on the Google. The Guardian has another tail in its hands I believe.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
Beta Eta a Spoiled Fish
May 21, 2009
Michael Arrington’s “Google’s Beta Love May Die in Fight for Enterprise Customers” ripped the covers off a big Google shin scrape. He pointed out here that perpetual product betas, particularly Google’s, may not help close enterprise software deals. He wrote:
About half of Google’s products were still in Beta
at the end of 2008. Retaining the Beta notation in the logo gives the company a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card when problems occur. Hey, it’s still in Beta, so don’t be surprised when something goes wrong. There’s a problem though. Sure, users think Beta is geeky and fun and cutting edge. But it turns out that enterprise customers are a little more serious about stuff working.
He provided a link to a Google video of Marissa Mayer explaining Google betas. You will have to read his essay and watch the video and make up your own mind.
My view on Google betas has been spelled out in some detail in my three Google monographs, and I can highlight a handful of my observations in this forum:
- Google, like many organizations, is not sure what will work. The result is a culture of start-stop-assess. The notion of a beta is an ideal method for making indecision work as a tactic. It’s not IBM’s fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It’s “sort of” and “maybe”.
- Google needs data. A beta is a click thermometer. A product shoved into the wild can attract a loyal following like Gmail and earn “perpetual beta” status which is what Mr. Arrington described clearly. It also makes it easy to determine which products are dogs and can be starved or killed. Think Web Accelerator.
- Betas are disruptive. I think that the discovery by Google management of its disruptive power was a happy lab accident. Now, the notion of developing a service quickly and probing a potential market makes it hard for competitors to figure out exactly what Google is going to do in their sector. Consider the Recommendations feature rolled out almost the same day as eBay’s announcement of its acquisition of StumbleUpon. Nothing much came of Recommendations, which I still use, but it is a subtle disruptive perturbation. Shoot enough waves into a sector and something interesting may happen. Betas generate these forces.
Now Google betas, if I understand Mr. Arrington’s point, are causing a bit of indigestion. Google’s betas may have eaten a spoiled fish and seems to require remediating action. I liked Google’s eternal beta program because it has helped destabilize a number of sectors, thus creating opportunities. Google’s shaking up online, for instance, helped create an environment in which Facebook and Twitter could emerge and evolve.
Stephen Arnold, May 21, 2009
Google Books: Peace, Capitulation, or Tactic
May 20, 2009
My newsreader spat Miguel Helft’s “Google Book-Scanning Pact to Give Libraries a Say in Prices”. You can read the story here. Mr.. Helft reported:
In a move that could blunt some of the criticism of Google for its settlement of a lawsuit over its book-scanning project, the company signed an agreement with the University of Michigan that would give some libraries a degree of oversight over the prices Google could charge for its vast digital library.
Mr. Helft does not tackle the strategic implications of this deal. I am not going to tackle them either. I want to ponder whether this means peace, capitulation, or another tactic.
Stephen Arnold, May 20, 2009
Yahoo: Chasing Google with Semantic Intent
May 20, 2009
Information Week’s story “Yahoo Aims to Redefine What It Means to Search” which you must read here brought a tear to the eye of the addled goose. Yahoo aimed its former IBM and Verity “big gun” at Googzilla and fired a shot into the buttocks of their Mountain View neighbors. Mr. Cliburn, the author of the Information Week story, offered:
As described by Raghavan, Yahoo is directing its search efforts toward assessing user intent. When a user types “Star Trek,” Raghavan said, he doesn’t want 10 million documents, he wants actors and show times.
Information Week approaches the yawning gap between Google and Yahoo in a kinder, gentler way. Thomas Claburn wrote:
it’s perhaps understandable why Yahoo might want to re-frame the debate. Given its lack of success challenging Google directly — Google’s April search share in the U.S. reached 64.2%, a 0.5 point gain, while Yahoo’s search share fell to 20.4%, a 0.1 point decline, according to ComScore — Yahoo wants to change the game.
How will Yahoo deliver its better mousetrap?
Yahoo is relying on its partners to feed it with structured data.
Google’s approach includes algorithmic methods, the programmable search engine methods (Ramanathan Guha), and user intent (Alon Halevy). Yahoo, on the other hand, wants Web site operators and other humans to do the heavy lifting.
Yahoo’s focus on user intent could lead to happier users, if Yahoo Search can guess user intent accurately. It could also help Yahoo make more money from advertising. “If we can divine the user’s intent, that’s obviously of great interest to advertisers,” said Raghavan.
Advertisers want eyeballs of buyers. Google delivers eyeballs in droves. One percent of two billion is a useful segment. Yahoo has struggled to: [a] deliver segments that make advertisers abandon Google’s big data method for the flawed Panama system, [b] monetize its hot, high traffic services like Flickr in an effective manner, and [c] put real flamethrowers on the GOOG’s hindquarters, which is what Yahoo has seen since mid 2003.
Yahoo will need divine intervention to close the gap with Google. More importantly, neither Google nor Yahoo have an answer to the surging popularity of Twitter, Facebook, and other real time search systems. I am watching the sky for an omen that Woden is arriving to help the Yahooligans. So far, no portents, just PR.
Stephen Arnold, May 20, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
