Google and Media Searching
October 15, 2008
Google seems to be serious about media searching. How do I know? Larry Page, one of Google’s founders, received US7,437,351 “Method for Searching Media” on October 14, 2008. What makes this invention interesting is that Mr. Page did not have any co inventors. The Google founders may be thinking about green energy and their real estate development at Moffett Field, but Mr. Page takes time to do real Googley work. Here’s the abstract from the patent document which was filed in 2003:
The present invention is directed to a computer-implemented method and apparatus for searching in response to Internet-based search queries using a search engine and an electronic database. According to one example embodiment of the present invention, data sets representing published items are input, for example, scanned-in or sent electronically, and stored in a searchable database. Each data set includes text from at least one published item. Responsive to the search query, a search engine searches for and identifies relevant Web pages and data sets representing published items and, in a more specific embodiment, ranked characterizations are returned for the relevant web pages and published items. An electronic path can be provided with the published item for accessing further information about the published item. In one embodiment, the electronic path is a hyperlink from a characterization of a relevant published item to a more complete electronic representation of the relevant published item. Publishers provide authorization to display copyrighted materials through a permission protocol.
You can obtain the complete document from the USPTO.gov Web site. My take on this invention is that it is plumbing to allow Google to operate on and manipulate binary objects so more sophisticated and newer methods can be used to unlock media files; for example, the voice to text system to permit searching within the sound in a video file. Sergey Brin invented that technology for Google, by the way. One final comment to Cyrus, the Googler who is somewhat unfamiliar with the conventions of Google patent documents. “This patent document has the same lousy diagrams that Google includes in most of its filings. Check it out if you have time between emails, SMS messages, and other Google sales activities. Try Google’s own patent service, but it is not as useful as some for-fee services, however.”
Stephen Arnold, October 15, 2008
Yotify: A Social Search Engine
October 15, 2008
Technology Review, a publication with the imprimatur of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, analyzes Yotify.com with some able help of the Kelsey Group. Andrew Freiburghouse’s “Making Search Social” reveals quite a bit about Yotify.com and about what the MIT-endorsed publication finds newsworthy. First, click here to read the full text of the October 10, 2008. You will have to dismiss the MIT-endorsed pop up advertisement and then you can read the full-text of the Yotify.com review. Man, I hate those pop ups, but if MIT likes them, what’s the opinion of an addled goose matter? No a whit I assure you.
Mr. Freiburghouse explains that a Yotify query is an alert with smarts. Yotify.com uses the word “scout”. Users provide information about their interests, and Yotify combines ads, collaboration, and search. To be fair, Mr. Freiburghouse notes that Yotify.com is skewed to shopping. And, towards the foot of the article, Mr. Freiburghouse quotes the Kelsey Group regarding Google’s market share. A consumer oriented search system, even with the lift of social search and software agent technology has its work cut out to gain market share.
I gave Yotify.com a quick look to refresh my memory. I ran a query for “quad core processor” and the system at 8 10 pm Eastern displayed:
A user can share results, get alerts hourly or daily, and use the related searches feature to refine the query.
This type of system will appeal to an individual who wants to obtain shopping, travel, and articles listed in classified ad systems. I fiddled with the Web log function, but it was less useful than the shopping content. Over time, the Yotify.com index will add poundage.
Why did Technology Review rev its engine when it learned about Yotify.com? My speculation is that Yotify.com is different from Google. Yotify offers social and collaborative functions. Yotify has lots of buttons, controls, and options to make the user feel as if he or she has control over the results. I think an hourly update on a “quad core CPU” might be just what the doctor ordered for a Technology Review editor needing a break from the intellectual cage match at the publication.
I am waiting for Yotify.com to create an enterprise version. Granted the Craigslist.org content may have to be swapped out for something more substantive. Procurement teams and information technology professionals looking to deploy a search system that works may find the Yotify.com technology applied to a regulated industry like pharmaceuticals just the cure for ails information access. Until there is an enterprise version, I like Yotify.com as a system that offers some interesting features for consumers. If you are intrigued by consumer search systems, give Yotify.com some attention.
Stephen Arnold, October 14, 2008
Smart Money versus Start Ups
October 12, 2008
Matt Marshall’s “Expect to See Start Ups and VCs Hit Standoff over Valuations” is a very important article. The piece appeared in Venture Beat on October 10, 2008. The hook for the story is that a lousy market puts VCs at odds with the companies these firms funded. Mr. Marshall provides useful color about the different approaches some VC firms use when looking for the next Google. The examples are ones you will want to tuck in your notebook. Insider info like Mr. Marshall’s is hard to find.
For me, the most interest comment in the article was this passage:
It may be next year before we can give a serious assessment of the true fallout for start-ups. Expect to see more companies go out of business too, as VCs in some cases decide not to invest at all.
The impact on start ups will be immediate and continue for at least a year. I agree.
So, what’s the impact on search and content processing? I will be giving this subject considerable thought in the weeks and months ahead, but I have some preliminary thoughts. I want to capture these before they dissolve from this addled goose’s mind. Also, keep in mind that I may change my views as I obtain more data and do more critical thinking. Here goes:
- Backlash. I think there will be a backlash against consultants who promise quick, easy, and cheap fixes to problems with search, content processing, and content management systems. The notion that a dab of Neosporin and a bit of tape will make the pain of flawed information systems go away will be dismissed out of hand. Martin White and I have written 250 pages that explain the methodical approach needed to back out of a search system disaster. A big problem cannot be resolved overnight, so management expertise in budgeting and controlling work becomes more important than “recipes” or “silver bullets”. Tough times demand management resolve, not placebos and truisms.
- Push back. Companies offering platform solutions that are not will have a difficult time closing new deals. In fact, I think the economic climate will encourage organizations to seek point solutions that can, if warranted, be scaled to handle larger jobs.
- Protectionism. Vendors will escalate their efforts to create lock ins for their existing customers and whenever possible set up deals that lock out competitors. I learned about one large company that is solidly Microsoft and the procurement team is looking only to Microsoft for a solution. The goal is “one throat to choke” for the customer. For Microsoft, it is control of the account. The problem is that Microsoft does not have a solution that will work, so the loser in this deal with the naive licensee who will spend millions and end up with the same information problem. The goals of each party deliver a problem wrapped in what looks like an ideal solution. The fur will fly in 18 months. Today, customer and vendor are drinking to one another’s health.
- Attrition. I encounter too many entrepreneurs who believe their approach to search is the “next big thing.” In most cases, these companies will find that revenues will be tough to generate. I talked with one company three weeks ago and encountered paranoia about my call. The irony of this call is that it was prompted to put the company in a major consulting firm’s “watch” database. The call was, therefore, a “good news” call, but the business owner heard only the veiled threats his own mind whispered in his ear. The issue was resolved, but this “fear” will close off opportunities for some companies leading to less likelihood for revenue magnetism. Fear and paranoia are not as appealing in tough economic times; pragmatism and common sense are pretty charming in my opinion.
- Skepticism. Prospects won’t believe much of what some vendors say unless the vendor is already in the fox hole with the customer.
- Baloney. Lots of Buffy and Trent marketing and PR information will be generated. I wish I was 23, filled with energy, and able to invent new buzzwords to describe functions and operations that are 50 years old.
If you want to add or modify the items on this preliminary list, please, use the comments section for this Web log. Don’t write me directly. I am on the road, returning to the US in about nine or 10 days. My email systems perform miserably when out of the country, but the Web log system is pretty reliable.
Stephen Arnold, October 12, 2008
Ask: In Trouble
October 11, 2008
CNet ran a Web 2.0 deathwatch article on October 10, 2008. The company that caught my attention was Ask.com, Barry Diller’s killer search system. Well, Mr. Diller terminated with extreme prejudice Jeeves, the cartoon logo that I liked. Bang, Jeeves. Now, according to Rafe Needleman, Ask.com may be troubled. You can read his story “11 Troubled Web Companies: The Next Kozmos?” here. The write up about Ask.com is short, so I won’t quote any of Mr. Needleman’s material. My question is, “Is this a surprise?” Maybe I should start my own search deathwatch? I have some patients in mind. Just a thought. Just a thought.
Stephen Arnold, October 11, 2008
Ad Injection: Now a Reality
October 10, 2008
Google selling Ads for Games see the story here from the New York Times by Saul Hansell. Google is pronouncing that the 15 to 30 second television ads will be appealing for the casual games before, between levels and after the game has ended.
A concise explanation of why Google is moving forward when the ad business seems to be dipping is provided by product manager Christian Ostlien: ““Brand advertisers come to us looking for a cross-platform solution that lets them hit audiences that are on the scale of millions but allows them to do very precise targeting.”
As with most things Google this is not a new concept. The work was hinted at during a conference during July 2007. Of note to the video ads is that marketers can have their product ads integrated into the games themselves with Google serving as dealmaker between the developers and the ad makers.
Google’s own view of AdSense for Games can be read here. With 25% of Internet users playing games each week the audience is there. One note for advertisers: you better have big game according to a quote taken from The Channel Wire blog posting on the subject: “At this time, eligible publishers must have a minimum of 500,000 game plays and have 80 percent of their traffic from the U.S. or the U.K.,” Ryan Hayward, from Ads Product Marketing wrote in a Google blog.
The launch is solid with both marketers and game developers already on board. How long will TV ads rule? Mobile content and expanded Internet usage seems to harken to the reality of a need for expanded ads on the web. I personally don’t mind sitting through the ads as I catch up on missed episodes of The Unit. The question is, “What else can Google do with this technology?”
Constance Ard for Beyond Search, October 10, 2008
Google: We’re Not a Publisher but …
October 10, 2008
Chris Snyder’s “AOL Sends Journals Users to Google’s Blogger” for Wired here reports that AOL will transfer its bloggers’ content to Google. Maybe Google is an aggregator, not a publisher. Whatever the term, original content is original content. Making that content available is a publishing function. Google insists that it is not a publisher. Maybe a better logician than I can explain this apparent contradiction. Mr. Snyder does not seize upon this angle. He must know more about Google’s definition of publishing than I do. He works for a real publication, and I work with geese and dogs.
Stephen Arnold, October 10, 2008
More on the Microsoft Commitment to Cloud Computing
October 8, 2008
The Cloud Computing News Desk at this hard-to-remember url ran Maureen O’Gara’s ” Ok, Boys, Cloud Computing Is in the Plan – Steve Ballmer” on October 4, 2008. (Note; when you click the link dismiss the pop up ad and turn off the video for the Windows Server 2008 ad. Pretty annoying, but it pays the bill I assume.) This is a good round up of the recent flurry of news about Microsoft’s commitment to Google-style computing. I tucked this article in my Microsoft architecture file. Three points struck me as particularly important:
- Vista continues to require PR support. The idea is to remove “lingering doubts” about that operating system. I find this interesting because Microsoft just gave Windows XP six more months to live and Apple Mac’s continue to creep up in market share, approaching 10 percent if I recall the last data I saw.
- Microsoft will out innovate Google. I will post on October 8, 2008, a May 2007, interview with a Googler who explains Google’s approach to innovation. The contrast between Microsoft’s mandate to innovate and the semi-chaotic approach at Google is stark. Check this Web for the posting called “Google Character and Its Innovation Method”.
- The inclusion of the full text of a July 23, 2008, memorandum penned by Mr. Ballmer that addresses the strategic initiatives underway at Microsoft. Very useful document with many nuggets; for example, “we’ll make progress against Google in search first by upping the ante in R&D through organic innovation and strategic acquisitions. Second, we will out-innovate Google in key areas…”
A happy quack to Ms. O’Gara for her article and to the Sys-Con team for publishing it. Now about those annoying pop ups.
Stephen Arnold, October 7, 2008
TechRadar: Knife Stabs Deep into Microsoft
October 7, 2008
If you want a world without Microsoft, you will revel in TechRadar’s “analysis” of Microsoft here. The in-depth review “Has Microsoft Lost It?” covers Vista, the Yahoo play, cloud challenges to Office, Live.com, Zune, and more. After reading the well-written, detailed write up, I was not sure what to think. Microsoft has $65 billion in revenue, cash, and 100 million SharePoint licenses, and some other assets such as 93 percent of the desktops running Windows. I get frustrated with Microsoft because the “we’re really smart” attitude of some of the Microsoft employees throws grit into decision making. The result is weird stuff like Microsoft software that doesn’t work on SharePoint or SQL Server back ups that don’t restore. Please read the article and make up your own mind. For me, I just want to know what’s the fit between MOSS and Fast Search ESP. I am a simple goose.
Stephen Arnold, October 7, 2008
Ask.com: Housecleaning, New Paint, Same Damp Basement
October 6, 2008
My newsreader is stuffed like a six-year old’s teddy bear with views, opinions, and analyses of the “new” Ask.com. I remember when humans worked like beavers to hand craft “answers” for the AskJeeves.com “natural language search engine.” That is in the mid 1990s. About a year ago, a semi-wizard from a third-tier consulting firm regaled me at dinner with insights into the innovations that AskJeeves.com (updated as Ask.com) was unleashing to hoards of Web searchers. Then I learned that some of the Rutgers’ wizards had returned to academe. I suffered through a technical paper that explained how Ask.com could scale. As skeptical as I am of Amazon’s approach, the Ask.com presentation was even less convincing.
Today’s stories are capped with the snow on the journalistic Mount Everest. Miguel Helft’s “Ask.com Revamps Search Engine” is the summit from which this Ask.com bobsled launches. You can find his write up here. Please, read this story. See if you agree that one of the most interesting comments in the piece is this statement:
The new Ask.com also includes an index of various question-and-answer sites from around the Web, including Yahoo Answers and WikiAnswers, that proves effective at returning results for some queries posed as questions.
I interpret this as a metasearch play. Now metasearch technology has made great strides since the early days of Dogpile.com. Among the services I use are Ixquick.com, the remarkably helpful Devilfinder.com, and the relative newcomer, Clusty.com. I also keep a copy of Copernic on one of my machines because it’s built in collection narrowing function is helpful for some of my queries.
I tested Ask.com with this query, “What’s the capital of Tasmania?” The system’s first result was “Hobart.” The second result was correct as well and pointed me to Wikipedia, the go-to site for general information. Powerset leveraged a demo featuring Wikipedia content into $100 Microsoft dollars not long ago. My second query was a different kettle of fish or “answers”. The query was, “What is the architecture of the Google File System?” The first result pointed to a useful article from the HighScalability.com site here. My other test queries returned useful results, and I concluded that the “new” version of Ask.com was pretty good.
The Search Engine Land write up focused on the notion of “structured search”. With the shift to XML and the crossover from flat ASCII to XML having taken place sometime last year (according to a Google document I located using the Google.com search engine), this is a good point to make. In fact, the Search Engine Land story here made this point:
…we expected this to come. After seeing it, I personally still do not consider Ask.com to be a core search engine and thus do not consider them to be in the race with Google, Yahoo or Microsoft. In fact, I find it interesting that Ask.com is bring back the Jeeves approach, which failed back then – but they hope will work now.
I did not see this coming because I don’t pay much attention to the machinations of Barry Diller’s Web and online empire. I don’t think of Ask.com as a resource suitable for my research needs. I probably won’t change my information retrieval habits to much either. Now look at the usage data for the top search engines. I have used the comScore data from this source.
Here’s a Google Trends’ report on the incidence of queries for the top four search engines: Ask.com, Google.com, Live.com, and Yahoo.com. You can update this query here.
Yahoo.com is leading the pack in queries on Google. My hunch is that Yahoo’s financial and business challenges make it popular. What do these data tell us? A Web site can get traffic by becoming a major business story. A Web site with a five percent share of Web query traffic with an improved search engine has a lot of work to do to get traffic.
Ask.com, therefore, has to have a better search engine, and it has to set the media on fire with its search engine. I will check out my newsreader 24 hours from now to see if the Ask.com “news” has staying power. My hunch is that this upgrade won’t have enough horsepower to pull up the Ask.com market share. More is needed. I want to be candid. I am not sure what Ask.com can do to build buzz. Crazy advertisements, staff churn, and a different interface catch my attention, but these are not sufficient to change my research behavior. Google will probably get a bump because people will navigate to Google and type the query “ask” in order to get a direct link to the Ask.com service. Agree? Disagree? I really want to hear from the Traces and Whitneys working at consulting firms to set me straight on my perception that Ask.com is stuck in the damp basement of consumer online Web traffic.
Stephen Arnold, October 6, 2008
Powerset’s Approach to Search
October 6, 2008
Powerset was acquired by Microsoft for about $100 million in June 2008. I haven’t paid too much attention to what Microsoft has done or is doing with the Powerset semantic, natural language, latent semantic indexing, et al system it acquired. A reader sent me a link to Jon Udell’s well Web log interview that focuses on Powerset. If you want to know more about how Microsoft will leverage the aging Xerox Parc technology, you will want to click here to get an introduction to the Perspectives interview conducted on September 30, 2008, with Scott Prevost. You will need to install Silverlight, or you can read the interview transcript here.
I can’t summarize the lengthy interview. For several three points were of particular interest:
- The $100 million bought Powerset, but Microsoft had to then license the Xerox Parc technology. You can get some “inxight” into the functions of the technology by exploring the SAP/ Business Objects’ information here.
- The Powerset technology can be used with both structured and unstructured information.
- Microsoft will be doing more work to deliver “instant answers”.
A happy quack to the reader who sent me this link, and two quacks for Mr. Udell for getting some useful information from Scott Prevost. I am curious about the roles of Barney Pell (Powerset founder) and Ron Kaplan (Powerset CTO and former Xerox Parc wizard) in the new organization. If anyone can shed light on this, you too will warrant a happy quack.
Stephen Arnold, October
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
