The Guardian on Email Surveillance
November 15, 2009
I think this article “Email Surveillance: Ditch It for Good” is an opinion piece. The Guardian is not exactly number one with a bullet in the online world, but it does have a penchant for writing articles that catch my attention. The idea is that the UK government should not “snoop on all our communication and Internet activity.” I disagree. My view is that governments have little choice but to move toward surveillance and increasingly proactive actions with regard to information. There are lots of bad folks out there, and the legal and political consequences of not taking appropriate actions are significant. Islands are pretty good for surveillance too. The UK and Australian enforcement entities are case examples of how electronic nets can be used to catch some interesting fish. The Guardian does not agree with me. So here’s a hypothetical: the UK government does not perform surveillance and a bad event occurs. Many are killed and injured in London. Subsequent investigation reveals that the event was described in emails and other common information channels. What are the legal and political consequences of this turn of events. Surveillance cannot be “ditched for good.” Surveillance is a fact of today’s information world in my opinion. Autonomy and i2.co.uk are two outfits with useful monitoring technology. These companies’ tools were developed to meet a need, even though the Guardian finds the need difficult to accept. An information reality is just like the financial reality many firms face in today’s business climate–Unpleasant to some but a fact nevertheless.
Stephen Arnold, November 16, 2009
I want to report to the Institute of Peace that I was not paid to point out that the Guardian is complaining about an information shift that says, “You can’t go home again.” There’s not enough cash in the goose’s coffers for that journey.
SEO the AP Way
November 14, 2009
I thought another addled goose wrote “AP to Ask Google for a Better Search Ranking.” I blinked and reread the article. Sure looked legitimate to me, but in this era of instant disinformation, one cannot be too sure. Read the story yourself and make up your own mind. Two or three years ago, I rolled out my mantra for some AP folks. I gave a talk and concluded, “Surf on Google.” The idea I have been suggesting since mid 2006 is that Google had the same potential energy as a big boulder perched on the edge of a cliff overlooking a narrow defile. The guy with the lever at the top of the cliff need exert a tiny force to launch the rock on the folks in the defile. Worked when Alexander was getting cute thousands of years ago, and the tactic will work today.
Google dominates Web search. The company has several options in my opinion.
First, Google can do nothing different. In effect, Google will not answer the AP’s phone calls. Time is on Google’s side. Litigation is time consuming, which favors the Google.
Second, Google can cut a deal with the AP. In the spirit of compromise, Google takes a baby step. The AP seems okay with the Great Compromiser’s approach. The AP continues to move forward in a very different world from the one that gave birth to the AP many years ago.
Third, Google just buys up the AP content. With one bold dump truck of cash, Google neuters Bing.com in terms of AP content and makes the constant grouching irrelevant.
Are there other options? Sure, but this is a free marketing oriented Web log. The interesting point in this news story is that AP is dealing with the problem of traffic. Most outfits hire search engine optimization wizards like Tess (pictured on the splash page of this blog) and hope for the best. The AP wants to get traffic, jump into social content (maybe non journalists who post stuff on the Web), and monetize its information services. Great idea, but I don’t think it will work.
The AP has monetized its content by selling it back to those who formed the outfit in the first place. Other markets have been interested but not willing to deliver piles of cash to the AP. Even the US government is watching its information pennies these days. At some point in time, the triple dipping of licensing the same content to multiple government agencies will run into trouble. Google has been monetizing its big Googzilla heart since it was inspired by the Overture model. The AP did not act then, and now it may be too late.
Will Google be indifferent? Will Google cut a deal? Will Google just write a check? I bet the AP would like to get a big fat check from Google and be number one with a bullet in the Google results lists. I am good for a nickel. Any takers?
Interesting days ahead in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 14, 2009
I am in an independent living facility. I had to pay to use the computer to write this essay. I had to pay for an orange juice. I don’t think I need to alert the Illinois State Police that this is a freebie. Maybe to be on the safe side of the Illinois law? Nah. Not necessary. Illinois has its legal and financial hands full. I might have to pay to report.
Clop Cloppity Clop Clop: The Sound of Google in Education
November 14, 2009
I don’t want to belabor the obvious, but educational publishers may want to keep a close eye on the Google. The firm has been gaining traction in education at an increasingly rapid pace since 2006, the pivotal year in case you have been following my analyses of Google. If you are unaware of the Google as a one stop shop for education, you may want to read “Gone Google at Educause 2009”. A key passage in this write up was in my opinion:
Lots has happened over the past year especially: more than 100 new features have rolled out in Google Apps, we’ve engaged well over six million students and faculty (a 400% increase since this time last year), launched free Google Message Security for K-12 schools and have integrated with other learning services such as Blackboard and Moodle. These developments are just the beginning. According to the newly-released 2009 Campus Computing survey statistics, 44% of colleges and universities have converted to a hosted student email solution, while another 37% are currently evaluating the move. Of those that have migrated, over half — 56% precisely — are going Google.
Course materials? Coming in saddle bags strapped to Googzilla. Clop Cloppity Clop Clop—One of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse heading your way?
Stephen Arnold, November 14, 2009
I wish to report to the Defense Commissary Agency that I was fed one donut at my father’s assisted living facility. However, writing this article and the payment of a small donut are in no way related. The donut was better than the one at got at McDill too.
Guardian Searches Beyond Google
November 13, 2009
I love that “beyond” phrasing. The Guardian, an outfit facing some rough financial seas when it comes to online revenue, published “Why I’m Searching Beyond Google” on November 11, 2009. I think the Guardian is showing that some of its editors are somewhat obsessive about electronic information. Victor Keegan wrote:
Google’s power is no longer as a good search engine but as a brand and an increasingly pervasive one. Google hasn’t been my default search for ages but I am irresistibly drawn to it because it is embedded on virtually every page I go to and, as a big user of other Google services (documents, videos, Reader, maps), I don’t navigate to Google search, it navigates to me.
I am confused. Mr. Keegan no longer makes Google his first choice in search yet he is drawn to it. I wonder if there is a bit of conflict involved when one resists, yet is “irresistibly drawn” to something. In Harrods Creek, I know some folks who have this type of personality. Let me tell you that I find that push-pull quite interesting.
He provided useful links to lists of the top Web sites. He said,
If you want to test other websites try http://bit.ly/vicsearch3 for the top 25 niche engines or http://bit.ly/vicsearch4 for the top 100. Even though Google’s brand dominance doesn’t yet look under threat, competition not only provides choice for ourselves but will keep Google and the others on their toes.
My opinion is that Google has an 80 to 85 percent share of the Web search market. Microsoft and Yahoo make up most of the remaining share. These other systems have a challenging trail to hike. I don’t know if users or the stakeholders in most of the Web search engines have what it takes to continue the journey over a long period of time. Google’s “market share” has been 11 years in the making. Train has left the station in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 13, 2009
A public service posting for the publishing industry. I will report the no-fee nature of this article to Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation in honor of the “buck stops here” president.
Google and Structured Content
November 12, 2009
Oh, my. Some of the folks who are cheering the tie up of Microsoft Bing.com and WolframAlpha.com have something to consider. Google is not partnering for technology; the Google is going direct to data providers and merging the information in search results. You can read “World Bank Data Now in Google Search Results” and get a sense of the direction in which Google is taking baby steps. The World Bank’s Web site is a pretty exciting service, so bring a beverage and maybe something to read. For me, the most important point in the write up was:
a special Google public data search feature will show numeric results for 17 World Development Indicators (WDI) reliably sourced to the World Bank, with a link to Google’s public data graphing tool. Google’s feature lets users see and compare country-by-country statistics and offers customized graphs with a ‘link’ or web address that can be easily embedded and shared in other websites. From the Google Public Data graphing tool, users can learn more about the data on the new World Bank Data Finder, which allows them to access indicator definitions, quick facts, interactive maps, and additional World Bank related resources. All of these features can be easily exported and installed on other websites. Data Finder also provides customizable maps and concise analysis to inspire user data comparisons and ‘mash-ups’ or combinations with other Bank reports. Under the population growth indicator, for example, the site generates the following statistic, “8 of the world’s 9 billion people will be in the developing world by 2050.” Data Finder is filled with other compelling quick facts from the Bank’s extensive global databases of global knowledge on development.
You can read more about Google’s content capabilities in my Google: The Digital Gutenberg. I wonder, “Isn’t the World Bank an author?” What happens if Google goes directly to people who write books and monographs? Think about the implications? I did when I realized that the Google was morphing into something new, what I describe as a “digital Gutenberg”. In depth briefings are available if you want to know more. With these data and individualized Google, what does Google deliver? Maybe personalized magazines? Interesting.
Stephen Arnold, November 11, 2009
I want to alert the local Animal Control Officer that I was not paid to write an article that suggests Google is more of a threat in certain business sectors that some pundits assume.
Writing about Online Revenue Is Easier than Generating Revenue from Online
November 12, 2009
The Guardian’s new media group took a kick in the kidney. Navigate to “Guardian News & Media to Cut More Than 100 Jobs”. Note these phrases, please:
- revenues have fallen by a worse-than-anticipated £33m
- the Guardian’s Thursday Technology print section will cease publication we cannot offer clarity about who is leaving and who is redeploying
- If we do the right things now, which I believe we are doing
- the organization should “not be paralyzed by change, but galvanized by change”
- December 9
Yep, easier to write about online than make it generate revenue. Happy run up to Christmas?
Stephen Arnold, November 12, 2009
I got my change back fro Stuart Schram who took $5, paid for lunch, and gave me a bottle of Rooibee Red Tea. I must write the Prospect Police and inform them of this financial transaction as I wrote this blog post.
Pay Dike Being Rebuilt
November 10, 2009
I am not sure if this blog post by Jennifer Lush is 100 percent accurate. I found it suggestive. Judge for yourself. Navigate to EditorsWebLog.org and read “Murdoch Postpones Date for Introducing Paywalls.” In my experience, it is possible to generate revenue from content. Mr. Murdoch wants to charge for content and he has pointed out that some companies are ripping him off because he is not being paid for links, headlines, snippets, whatever. The delay, if real, may point to one or more reasons. What’s clear is that sweeping generalizations are easy to make; delivering is a bit more difficult in my opinion. Technology and cost issues are two challenges which come to my mind.
Stephen Arnold, November 10, 2009
To the Government Printing Office. I wish to report that this write up is free. I even recall the halcyon days when most of the US government’s information was available without a charge. Hmmm. Should this be disclosed?
Murdoch to Test the Magnetism of News Corp. Content
November 9, 2009
Yep, I see a big lab test coming. As a conservative goose, I will not predict the results of the test. I will let data speak for themselves. You can get the scoop and a sense of how big media views Mr. Murdoch’s most recent anti-free campaign in “Murdoch Could Block Google Searches Entirely”. In my opinion, it is pretty darned easy to block Google’s indexing software, but the headline illustrates the level of understanding about indexing, online, and Google that permeates big media. I am looking forward to four outcomes:
- News Corp.’s discovery that traffic on its sites declines, and that Google will offer AdWords as a way for News Corp. to regain some of its referral traffic. This is the situation in which AT&T finds itself. The company fights Google and then buys AdWords. The Google just chugs along. Only game in town in the phrase that comes to my mind.
- News Corp. will have to find a way to generate sufficient cash to deal with two challenges. The first is to make up lost print revenue. The second is to fund the marketing needed to find a solution to the traffic drop. The result will be a big cost hit because News Corp. is going to be a vacuum cleaner for outside experts. News Corp. will hire people to help fix the problem the “no Google” decision creates. Good for consultants. Not good for shareholders.
- News Corp. will have to figure out what to do when bloggers recycle News Corp. stories which Google then indexes and displays in pointers to these third party sources. I can see the lawyers drooling about this situation.
- News Corp. will have to figure out how to taser competitors who are in the traditional media game and sufficiently inventive to flow into the space News Corp. creates. Once some clever competitors figure out how to surf on Google, News Corp. has to fight a two front war. The evil bloggers AND the traditional publishers who see an opportunity in the News Corp.’s “no Google” method.
Exciting. In short, I don’t see much good news for News Corp. with this lab test.
Stephen Arnold, November 9, 2009
A publisher bought me lunch, but this publisher did not pay me to write this commentary. Quick report this fact to the US Postal Service.
Google News Ranking Algorithm
November 8, 2009
Short honk: The Google continues to edge forward with replacing functions once done by humans with semi-autonomous agents. Who cares? I suppose publishers may want to think about this approach. The USPTO document that caught my interest was US20090276429, Systems and Methods for Improving the Ranking of News Articles.” Like most Google patent documents, the claims are interesting. Dig in. The company did include a brief abstract with the filing:
A system ranks results. The system may receive a list of links. The system may identify a source with which each of the links is associated and rank the list of links based at least in part on a quality of the identified sources.
The key word in the summary for me was “quality”. Google’s method is to assign a source with a score, roughly analogous to an editor’s judgment. In the Google system, the idiosyncratic, often cranky news editor becomes:
Organized and generally without a large expense account and a penchant for making life tough on 23 year old journalists.
Stephen Arnold, November 8, 2009
You think anyone paid me to compare a human editor to a method? If so, report me to the Jefferson County Animal Control officer.
Texas Tribune Taps Donations for New Online Content
November 7, 2009
When I worked at the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co. in the 1980s, out databases generated revenue and turned a profit. I read with interest “Texas Tribune’s Launch ‘Just the Beginning’ of Databases, What’s to Come”. The main idea is that a newspaper is creating online “databases”. For me, the key passage in the write up was:
The site, which is being underwritten with tax-deductible donations and has received foundation grants from Houston Endowment and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, is partnering with six television stations in large and small markets throughout the state to share content. Texas Tribune political reporter Elise Hu plans to go on television in Dallas and Waco in the next week to help further promote the site.
I suppose it is easier to seek grants and donations than create a product for which people will pay. I guess I am old fashioned. I liked the online approach of the Courier Journal, an approach that did not require third party subsidies.
Stephen Arnold, November 7, 2009
A gift to the newspaper mavens who read this blog. Hear that, Food & Drug Administration?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
