A Glimpse of the Google Collaborative Plumbing
June 19, 2009
On June 18, 2009, the ever efficient US Patent & Trademark Office published US2009/0157608, “Online Content Collaboration Model”, a patent document filed by the Google in December 2007. With Wave in demo mode, I found this document quite interesting. Your mileage may vary because you may see patent documents as flukes, hot air, or legal eagle acrobatics. I am not in concert with that type of thinking, but if you are, navigate to one of the Twitter search engines. That content will be more comfortable.
The inventors were two Googlers, William Strathearn and Michael McNally, neither identified as part of the Australian team responsible for Wave. I like to build little family trees of Googlers who work on certain projects. Mr. Strathearn seems to have worked on the Knol team, which works on collaboration and knowledge sharing. Mr. McNally, another member of the Knol team, and he has written a Knol about himself which is at this time (June 19, 2009) online as a unit of knowledge.
The two Googlers wrote:
A collaborative editing model for online content is described. A set of suggested edits to a version of the online content is received from multiple users. Each suggested edit in the set relates to the same version. The set of suggested edits is provided to an authorized editor, who is visually notified of differences between the version of the content and the suggested edits and conflicts existing between two or more suggested edits. Input is received from the editor resolving conflicts and accepting or rejecting suggested edits in the set. The first version of the content is modified accordingly to generate a second version of the content. Suggested edits from the set that were not accepted nor rejected and are not in conflict with the second version are carried over and can remain pending with respect to the second version.
What’s happening is that the basic editorial system for Knol and other Google products gets visual cues, enhanced work flow, and some versioning moxie.
Figure 2 from US2009/0157608
Is this a big deal? Well, I think that some of the big content management players will be interested in Google’s methodical enhancement of its primitive CMS tools. I also think that those thinking of Wave as a method for organizing communications related to a project might find these systems and methods suggestive as well.
Google and the Librarians
June 17, 2009
Time Magazine, now freed of AOL, continues to probe the online world with a friskiness that I find illuminating. The most recent effort is by Janet Morrissey. Her article “Librarians Fighting Google’s Book Deal” makes it clear to me that Time Magazine is not leaning toward Google in the Great Google Book matter. “Matter” is a legal eagle word because that’s how the Google Book deal is going to be worked out. Journalists, mavens, and pundits won’t have much impact if the hassle between Google and parties to its deal with publishers continues to escalate.
Ms. Morrissey said:
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books’ text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what’s ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won’t face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
The wrap up to the story does little to reassure the goslings about Time’s view of this issue:
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. “The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real,” he says.
I would have liked to see some views from front line librarians, in-the-fray information professionals included in the write up. The Special Library Association is meeting in Washington, DC, this week. I wonder what the view from that group is? I will have to make some phone calls, but a sentence or two in Time would have been helpful to me.
Stephen Arnold, June 17, 2009
Twitter and Iran Coverage
June 16, 2009
Despite the yip yap about the future of Twitter and its general uselessness, the little service that could provided some information about the hoe down in Iran. Seems to me that traditional media faced some challenges, so those with knowledge of Twitter were able to send out news bullets in 140 character packets. Useful that. You can read the CBC’s take on the Tweets in its June 15 story “Twitter Emerges as News source during Iran Media Crackdown”. For me the most interesting comment in the report was:
Citizenlab, which runs out of the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies, is one of many groups making software available that allows citizens in Iran to sign on to a server that gives them secure access to web pages anywhere, bypassing government restrictions. The software, PsiPhon, has been made available for Twitter users, as the social messaging tool has taken centre stage as a source of news from Iran since Saturday.
Is the information as “good” as that available from Fox News or the estimable CNN? I don’t know. But I much prefer seeing a stream and making my own decisions about what seems to cooking. I sure couldn’t locate timely info on the mainstream media sites. Twitter may not be the top rated news site in the pantheon of info giants, but I think it was useful and showed its potential.
Stephen Arnold, June 16, 2009
Nonprofit Research and the Associated Press
June 15, 2009
I am in the middle of an Illinois cornfield. I have just scanned a short item in Slashdot that points to information that seems to suggest a new twist for the AP. The Associated Press, walking close to a stream of red ink, will distribute information from a handful of non profit outfits. I urge you to read the Slashdot post and the full story, which I will do when I am back to the civilized world of Harrod’s Creek. Illinois makes me nervous. Here’s why I find this interesting:
- Non profit outfits often have an agenda. That agenda influences their reports, news releases, and activities with certain thought leaders. Outsiders may have a tough time figuring out what’s “objective” in my opinion.
- A non profit may be in the lobbying business, and as a result, the agendas are, shall we say, fluid. Distribution of microchanges will be confusing to some folks who expect a more predictable approach to what’s important.
- Non profits are subject to those who provide big infusions of cash. Distributing information from sponsored activities extends the impact of the non profit and its agenda with little opportunity for different voices to be heard when the message goes out.
With this decision, the AP seems, in my opinion, to be undergoing a significant change. It’s too early for me to determine if the change will be substantive, negative, or positive. I think non profits will jump at the chance to use the AP as a branded RSS feed in real time.
Stephen Arnold, June 15, 2009
The Difference between a Blog for Marketing and a Journal for Science
June 13, 2009
I write a blog containing opinion, ads, and old info. I get some help from Jessica, Stu, and others.I don’t pretend to be a journalist (heaven help me), a scientist (my goodness), or a very bright human (addled goose, please). When I read “CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal” on the New Scientist Web site, I did a double take. A software program generated a fake paper. The authors submitted the hoax to a publisher who charges authors to publish the article in a “respected journal”. The journal is a variant of vanity publishing. An author pays a publisher to create a book. The author has lots of books but a great birthday gift, just no sales.
The New Scientist writer offered this comment:
What’s more, it seems that even some journals that charge readers for their content may be prone to accepting utter nonsense. The SCIgen website reports another incident from 2007, in which graduate students at Sharif University in Iran got a SCIgen-concocted paper accepted by Applied Mathematics and Computation, a journal published by Elsevier (part of Reed-Elsevier, the publishing giant that owns New Scientist). After the spoof was revealed, the pre-publication version of the paper was removed from Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website. Still, the succinct proof-correcting queries sent to the hoaxers by Elsevier, made available here by the SCIgen team (pdf), make for interesting reading.
I love the notion of publishers playing a custodial role. Custodian also means clean up. That’s what the $800 payments made by the hoaxers to the publisher. I label my Web log. No pretense here: 100 percent marketing.
Stephen Arnold, June 13, 2009
More Advice for the Buggy Whip Crowd
June 12, 2009
Google executives have been known to suggest that newspaper publishers rely on technology to cure their woes. I think that Googlers and other advice givers may want to curl up with the thrilled non fiction book by Jacques Ellul in either English or French and read what the sociologist has to say about la technologie. You can find a copy of the here. My copy carries the title Bluff technologique, but translation is a wondrous profession. Summing up 400 pages of turgid analysis, let me say that when technology bites someone on the backside, today we use technology to solve the problems created by technology. The alternative is a more human method of sucking the poison from the wound. Not too popular, eh?
I just read another of these “technology will save your tail” programs. I scanned “Scoble’s Building 43 Launching Tonight with Practical Tips for businesses Stuck in the 90s” here. I liked the write up. I didn’t like the concept of providing advice to people who are faced with technology snakes biting their ankles and fleshy parts.
I read Building43’s “the New Economics of Entrepreneurship” and realized that talking about this stuff is indeed exciting. When a Silicon Valley luminary such as Guy Kawasaki dispenses the advice, those in the know should listen. Check out his essay here. I agree with most of what he says.
My concern is that none of the Silicon Valley wizards has thought about the implications of using technology to solve today’s problems.
I don’t think technology can solve the problems of newspapers or any other business that is being bitten by competitors and customers who have embraced different business methods or alternative methods of meeting needs.
I don’t like the buggy whip analogy either. Every MBA student and future Bernie Madoff reads this essay and realizes the reason the buggy whip guy failed was that he did not know how to think about the horseless carriage. In fact, no amount of first hand experience, thinking, or talking could close the switch between the guy’s synapses and grasp that the oddity was going to have some profound impacts. These range from roller skating car hops at Sonic Drive In to teen pregnancy and that environmentally friendly sport of NASCAR racing. Go figure.
I want to assert that arrogance is part of the problem. There may be presumptive behavior operating, but I think the difficulty goes back to the failure of some folks to see connections. A buggy whip maker can stare at an automobile all day and not think about fuzzy dice for the rear view mirror, leather seat covers from a West Coast Custom rebuild, or a steering wheel wrap with perforations to allow the driver’s hands to perspire without losing a grip on wheel in rush hour traffic in downtown Boston.
Telling someone with buggy whip synapses to use technology means zero. In fact, when pundits tell publishers to embrace technology, most of the publishers believe that they have been married to technology for years. The problem is that “technology” to a publisher may mean color capable Web presses or a content management system to push story drafts around the newsroom. Technology may mean digital cameras or remote control robots to adjust lightning instead of paying a kid to climb the rafters in a motion picture studio.
You get the idea.
The problem is language and understanding what a Silicon Valley maven means when he or she says, “Technology.” My thought is that the Mr. Scobles and the Mr. Kawasakis and the Mr. Schimdts mean to use the mental equipment possessed by those who can do math in their head, analyze a circuit, see how software works by scanning code, or performing other mental tricks that have to do with scientific and technical capabilities.
Publishers and the guy who runs the tire company may have some of these skills, but the life experiences, interests, and business demands require different mental equipment. Therefore, when you say “technology” to my Big O tire dealer, he points to a digital tire gauge, not to his iPhone.
Bottomline: those who don’t understand the meaning of the word “technology” when offered an a cure all, often don’t have a clue about:
- What particular technology or technologies are appropriate
- How to apply to technologies to an existing business process
- What to do to minimize the negative effects of a technology when it spring a surprise
- Where to find people who can “translate” the rocket science into something that can be used by a regular person.
Do most people in Silicon Valley or New York or London define their terms before talking about technology? Not many in my experience.
Grab a copy of Jacque Ellul’s book. Let me know if you agree with his analysis formulated in the dusty days before the “Internet”. Just the opinion of an addled goose.
Stephen Arnold, June 12, 2009
Google and a Brace of Compliance-Related Methods
June 12, 2009
If you navigate to my Google patent collection in the Perfect Search demonstration, you can poke around for various digital fingerprinting methods, filtering, and content identification systems. The GOOG has been working hard to find bulletproof, speedy, and efficient ways to identify content that may get Googzilla in hot water with copyright owners.
I paid attention when I saw two patent documents come across the lily pad I use for a desk here in the goose pond. What’s notable about each is that the inventors overlap. Names that jumped out at me included Franck Chastagnol, Vijay Karunamurthy, and Chris Maxcy, among others. The other notable feature was that both documents were about doing “stuff” to understand and perform actions on video files.
The two patent documents of interest are:
- 20090144325, “Blocking of Unlicensed Audio Content in Video Files on a Video Hosting Website”
- 20090144326, “Site Directed Management of Audio Components of Uploaded Video Files”
You can get copies of these documents from the user-friendly, highly-intuitive USPTO Web site here. Please, read the syntax examples; otherwise, no go, folks.
These documents strike me as important for several reasons:
- Both were filed on the same day, a sign of importance to this addled goose
- Both pertain to copyright related functions performed by software, not humans
- Both move the GOOG’s capabilities forward with more clever and what appear to me efficient methods.
The Google is trying to be a good Googzilla in my opinion. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney, so check with your friendly patent attorney about the validity of the systems and methods disclosed in these two documents.
Stephen Arnold, June 12, 2009
Wave: Functionality Questioned
June 6, 2009
The Chicago Sun Times’s Andy Ihnatko asked a killer question: “Google’s Wave of the Future Is Genius, but Will It Work?”. You can read the article here. You will experience the Sun Times’s latency, but don’t despair. The page should render eventually.
Mr. Ihnatko wrote:
Google seems to be doing everything right. They’re defining Wave, but then they’re more or less letting go of it. The sole benefit that they seem to be retaining is their 18-month head start on the rest of the developer community.
Quite an endorsement for a demo. I was hoping that some doubt might surface. No pun intended. At least Bing.com is a service anyone can use. I remember the old jokes about demos. Might apply here.
Stephen Arnold, June 6, 2009
Ivory Tower Thinking about Bing
June 5, 2009
I met a fellow who gave me a copy of Technology Review, the slick magazine linked mysteriously to the the bloodstream of big thinkers and the wizards at MIT. (Tip: Don’t walk barefoot in the dorms. Trash on ground. I once cut my foot.) I told the generous person, “I don’t read print magazines regularly now.” I did read the online story today “What’s Microsoft’s Bing Strategy?” here by David Talbot. The article was okay, and I found this comment interesting:
when a user searches for certain broad and popular subjects (the band U2 or a health condition like diabetes, for example), Bing will show, in addition to the usual blue links, a navigation bar on the left-hand side that breaks down the results by category. Bing decides on these subsections based on previous combinations of queries; each one links to a secondary search. In the case of U2, these categories include “images,” “songs,” “tickets,” “merchandise,” “downloads,” “interviews,” and “video.” In the case of diabetes, Bing shows results in the following categories: “articles,” “symptoms,” “diet,” “complications,” “prevention,” and “test.”
I rarely run test queries for topics that are broad or popular. I wonder if the Technology Review team runs queries for ternary nonequilibrium phase diagram. Not when reviewing Bing I learned.
Stephen Arnold, June 4, 2009
MarkLogic: The Shift Beyond Search
June 5, 2009
Editor’s note: I gave a talk at a recent user group meeting. My actual remarks were extemporaneous, but I did prepare a narrative from which I derived my speech. I am reproducing my notes so I don’t lose track of the examples. I did not mention specific company names. The Successful Enterprise Search Management (SESM) reference is to the new study Martin White and I wrote for Galatea, a publishing company in the UK. MarkLogic paid me to show up and deliver a talk, and the addled goose wishes other companies would turn to Harrod’s Creek for similar enlightenment. MarkLogic is an interesting company because it goes “beyond search”. The firm addresses the thorny problem of information architecture. Once that issue is confronted, search, reports, repurposing, and other information transformations becomes much more useful to users. If you have comments or corrections to my opinions, use the comments feature for this Web log. The talk was given in early May 2009, and the Tyra Banks’s example is now a bit stale. Keep in mind this is my working draft, not my final talk.
Introduction
Thank you for inviting me to be at this conference. My topic is “Multi-Dimensional Content: Enabling Opportunities and Revenue.” A shorter title would be repurposing content to save and make money from information. That’s an important topic today. I want to make a reference to real time information, present two brief cases I researched, offer some observations, and then take questions.
Let me begin with a summary of an event that took place in Manhattan less than a month ago.
Real Time Information
America’s Top Model wanted to add some zest to their popular television reality program. The idea was to hold an audition for short models, not the lanky male and female prototypes with whom we are familiar.
The short models gathered in front of a hotel on Central Park South. In a matter of minutes, the crowd began to grow. A police cruiser stopped and the two officers were watching a full fledged mêlée in progress. Complete with swinging shoulder bags, spike heels, and hair spray. Every combatant was 5 feet six inches taller or below.
The officers called for the SWAT team but the police were caught by surprise.
I learned in the course of the nine months research for the new study written by Martin White (a UK based information governance expert) and myself that a number of police and intelligence groups have embraced one of MarkLogic’s systems to prevent this type of surprise.
Real-time information flows from Twitter, Facebook, and other services are, at their core, publishing methods. The messages may be brief, less than 140 characters or about 12 to 14 words, but they pack a wallop.
MarkLogic’s slicing and dicing capabilities open new revenue opportunities.
Here’s a screenshot of the product about which we heard quite positive comments. This is MarkMail, and it makes it possible to take content from real-time systems such as mail and messaging, process them, and use that information to create opportunities.
Intelligence professionals use the slicing and dicing capabilities to generate intelligence that can save lives and reduce to some extent the type of reactive situation in which the NYPD found itself with the short models disturbance.
Financial services and consulting firms can use MarkMail to produce high value knowledge products for their clients. Publishing companies may have similar opportunities to produce high grade materials from high volume, low quality source material.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
