Encarta: Content Is King and Wikipedia Is Arthurian
March 31, 2009
Content is king. More accurately, in the encyclopedia sector, Wikipedia is more kingly. Microsoft has figured out that it could not do what Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and other descendents of Denis Diederot failed to achieve. Encarta seems to be a stark reminder that money, confidence, and a desktop operating system monopoly don’t have the clout to displace a user-generated online reference service. If you are lucky, this link to the AFP story on Yahoo News will be available when you click here. For me the most interesting comment in the article was:
Encarta’s popularity faded after the nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation launched Wikipedia online in 2001.
I am surprised it took eight years for the Redmond company to see the writing on the Wikipedia Web site. Encarta’s search struck me as a bit wheezy. I use the GOOG to search Wikipedia, and I review the articles before I link to them. I think Wikipedia is quite good, certainly good enough to kill the multimedia, noisy, sluggish Encarta.
Stephen Arnold, March 31, 2009
Google Security Method Echoes Microsoft’s No Problem Policy
March 31, 2009
Short take. Google Docs has some security issues. Google’s view of these issues, according to PCWorld here, is to reassure. PCWorld wrote:
In an official blog posting, Jonathan Rochelle, Google Docs’ product manager, details why the company has determined that the issues included in the analyst’s report are far from critical.
Banks don’t talk too much about security. Microsoft doesn’t talk too much about security. Google doesn’t talk to much about security. Factor these sentences and you get, “Don’t worry.” You will have to make your own decision about which services are ready for prime time in the real world.
Stephen Arnold, March 29, 2009
Missing the Kosmix Story
March 31, 2009
I read as many stories about the search engines that will be the “next Google.” The editors at Forbes.com like these write ups as well. The most recent one begins with the old saw “life after Google”. You can read “Life after Google: What’s the Next Hot Search Engine?” here. Mr. Buley tips his hat toward Cuil.com, Dr. Anna Patterson’s whack at Google’s carotid. There’s a brief glimpse of Aardvark, a social service that expects Web surfers to formulate and type questions into a search box. With the average query in the 2.3 word range, I think we know how successful that approach will be in crippling the GOOG. Finally, Mr. Buley swallows a bite of Kosmix PR goodness. Kosmix is a mash up service, more like a smart portal with Google results and probably a half dozen or more other sources of information. The key point of the write up is that the world does not need another Google. What the world needs is a mash up, point and click, we think for you service probably a lot like Kosmix. The most interesting comment in the write up, a sentence lost on the Forbes’s editor who crafted the headline, was:
And even if the new search engines persuade users to try more than just Google, they still face the prospect of Google moving into their turf. Blog search used to be a separate market segment in search, with several companies battling to dominate. After Google added blog search to its main search menu, there was the predictable shake-out. Of course, this also means that should any of these companies become a success inside their niche, they would become a Google acquisition target — which may be all the motivation any of them need. “I think it’s fair to say that the conventional search game is over,” says Kosmix’s Rajaraman. “But that doesn’t mean the Internet game is over.”
I wonder if Mr. Buley tugged the threads that connect Cuil.com and Kosmix.com to Google? Cuil.com indexed some quite interesting Google content in its prelaunch run up. Kosmix’s Anand Rajaraman has demonstrated in his Web log pretty useful Google access in my opinion. Not just anyone gets a chance to hob nob with Peter Norvig. That might be a more interesting angle to pursue. Ah, if I were not an addled goose and so old and tired.
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Microsoft and MySpace: Two Headlines that Reveal Much
March 30, 2009
A short honk: two headlines. The first is “MySpace Shrinks as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo Grab Its Users” from the Guardian (a UK dead tree outfit). You can read the story here which makes the point that MySpace is in decline. The second is “MySpace and Microsoft Team Up: What Does it Mean for Facebook and Google?” from Mashable here. For the addled goose, the two headlines provide a clear look at Microsoft’s social software timing. I get the same feeling when I miss my bus. I don’t think the GOOG will lose much sleep.
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Interview with a Chrome Plated Googler
March 30, 2009
The dead tree Financial Times published “The Genius behind Google’s web Browser” here. If you are Google watcher you will want to read the interview. For me the most interesting comment in the interview was:
Many computer programs are built using previous versions, or related code, but V8 was started from scratch – a blank slate.
Bold statement. I think it may need some qualification, but that would interrupt the flow of a story that creates a story about two guys working in isolation to craft Chrome. My sources tell me that the Danes hooked into MOMA, collaborated with various Google wizards, and used that which was already hardened and available to Google wizards. I like the FT’s spin, but I think my understanding reflects a more likely work approach. If you know something different, honk at me via the comments. I can’t contain my enthusiasm. That’s contain as in “containers”, a Google innovation that seems quite useful to me when I run ig in Chrome. Well, maybe not because the FT says Chrome began with a “blank slate.”
Stephen Arnold, March 31, 2009
Microsoft’s Live Search Becomes an Application
March 30, 2009
Is this the way to close the gap in Web search? I don’t know. I read the article “Your Next Live Search Destination: Flight Status” by Stuart Johnson here and came away with a hunch that Microsoft is changing direction. I am an addled goose and usually heading south when other geese go north. Judge for yourself. Here’s my suggestion for the key sentence in the article:
“Live Search is becoming more than just a place to get information — it is also a place you can do things,” Lee wrote. “We are simplifying key tasks with Active Answers, a new method of retrieving up-to-the-minute data from the Web.”
I interpreted this to mean that Live Search is no longer about search. The key phrase is “you can do things.” Now Microsoft can claim a number one position in a portal that allows users to do things. Oh, I forgot. AOL and Yahoo do that already. Hmmm.
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Google Go Back and Managerial Guidance
March 30, 2009
If I were a Google top dog, I think I would want my suggestions followed. Well, I was in for a surprise when I read “Hacking Google: Retro Links Revives Old Google Feature” here. The addled goose knows that he is creeping close to April Fool’s Day. You read this post and decide for yourself. The main point is that allegedly a Googler can allegedly work around a Google function that has allegedly been terminated. “Allegedly” is important when writing about Googlers who hack. For me, the most interesting comment in the post was:
Why not recreate this search feature on Google with modern search engines and Web sites? Because of the pain of maintaining an “official” list, we probably couldn’t turn this on for every user (plus not every user wants a lot of extra links added to their search results). But why not provide a completely unofficial option that people could install? Thus was born Retro Links, which is a Greasemonkey script to add new search options to Google’s search results page.
Let’s think about this, hypothetically, of course. Please, note the “hypothetical” nature of this thought experiment.
If Googlers can create unofficial work arounds, what does this imply for assurances that certain data are scrubbed on a cycle, available only to certain Googlers, and other points where privacy intersect with human Googlers?
If a feature is disabled, presumably by an alleged manager, and we have this alleged informal and fun hack, what happens when a manager says, “This information is confidential” or “This personnel information about an employee must not be discussed”?
Make up your own mind. I don’t work for a real company any more. I recall a couple of outfits such as Halliburton’s Nuclear Utilities Services unit where hacking around a company action could produce some interesting visits from non Googley people.
Times are indeed different. I’m glad I am here in the mine drainage pond with my un Googley goslings. These folks follow guidelines, suggestions, and policies in my experience.
Check out this “hack” or April Fool’s Day levity. Oh, something struck me. What if this alleged hack is not a joke at all. Yikes!
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Google and the Gray Lady
March 30, 2009
Short take only: Read Valleywag’s “Times Nukes Itself on Google” here. The influential Web log reminded me that the New York Times has angled for getting its stories boosted in a Google results list. The Valleywag correctly observes that the New York Times has made it difficult to take advantage of its visibility and its existing Web sites. Valleywag’s Ryan Tate wrote:
The Times‘ longtime online chief, Martin Niesenholtz, recently whined that a Google search on the word “Gaza” didn’t include any of his content on the first results page. And yet he just nuked 121,000 of his own articles [via a redirect] containing that keyword.
I don’t have much to add when outfits needing traffic to generate revenue make a decision to reduce traffic. Amazing and not surprising. I bet the Times’s professionals have a well written, detailed analysis of why their decision should work. Obviously to the Times’s analysts Google is the problem. I don’t think so. Google’s not perfect, but not even Googzilla can save some publishers from themselves.
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Cuil.com Gets Better
March 30, 2009
I did a fly over of the Cuil.com Web site. What triggered an overflight was a Google patent; specifically, US20090070312, “Integrating External Related Phrase Information into a Phrase-Based Indexing Information Retrieval System”. Filed in September 2007, the USPTO spit it out on March 12, 2009. I discussed a chain of Dr. Patterson’s inventions in my 2007 study Google Version 2.0 here. Dr. Patterson is no longer a full-time Googler, the tendrils of her research from Xift to Cuil pass through the GOOG. When I looked at Cuil.com today (March 29, 2007), I ran my suite of test queries. Most of them returned more useful and accurate results than my first look at the system in July 2008 here.
Several points I noticed:
- The mismatching of images to hits has mostly been connected. The use of my logo for another company, which was in the search engine optimization business was annoying. No more. That part of the algorithm soup has been filtered.
- The gratuitous pornography did not pester me again. I ran my favorites such as pr0n and similar code words. There were some slips which some of my more young at heart readers will eagerly attempt to locate.
- The suggested queries feature has become more useful.
- My old chestnut “enterprise search” flopped. The hits were to sources that are not particularly useful in my experience. The Fast Forward conference is no more, but there’s a link to the now absorbed user group. The link to the enterprise search summit surprised me. The conference has been promoting like crazy despite the somewhat shocking turn out last year in San Jose, so it’s obvious that flooding information into sites fools the Cuil.com relevancy engine.
- The Explore by Category is now quite useful. One can argue if it is better than the “improved” Endeca. I think Cuil.com’s automated and high-speed method may be more economical to operate. Dr. Patterson and her team deserve a happy quack.
I am delighted to see that the improvements in Cuil.com are coming along nicely. Is the system better than Google’s or Microsoft’s Web search system? Without more testing, I don’t think I can make a definitive statement. I am certain that there will be PhD candidates or ASIS members who will rise to fill this gap in my understanding.
I have, however, added the Cuil.com system to my list of services to ping when I am looking for information.
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Journalists Struggle with Web Logs
March 30, 2009
Gina M. Chen asked, “What do you think?” at the foot of her essay “Is Blogging Journalism”. You can read her write up here. My answer is, “Nope. Web logs are a variant of plain old communications.” Before I defend my assertion, let’s look at the guts of her essay is that “fear of change” creates the challenge. She asserted that blogging is a medium.
Web logs are not causing traditional media companies to collapse. Other, more substantive factors are eroding their foundations. Forget fear. Think data termites.
Okay, I can’t push back too much on these points, which strike me as tame and somewhat obvious. I also understand the fear part mostly because my brushes with traditional publishers continue to leave them puzzled and me clueless.
The issue to me is mostly fueled by money. Here’s why:
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
