Data From eBay Illustrates Pricing Quirk
June 8, 2015
The next time you go to sell or buy an item, pay attention to the message the price is sending. Discover reports that “The Last Two Digits of a Price Signal Your Desperation to Sell.” Researchers at UC Berkeley’s business school recently analyzed data from eBay, tracking original prices and speed of negotiations. Writer Joshua Gans shares a chart from the report, and explains:
“The chart shows that when the posted initial price is of a round number (the red dots), like $1,000, the average counteroffer is much lower than if it is a non-round number (the blue circles), like $1,079. For example, the graph suggests that you can actually end up with a higher counteroffer if you list $998 rather than $1,000. In other words, you are better off initially asking for a lower price if price was all you cared about. [Researchers] Backus et al postulate that what is going on here is ‘cheap talk’ – that is, an easy-to-make statement that may be true or untrue with no consequences for dishonesty – and not an otherwise reliable signal. There are some sellers who don’t just care about price and, absent any other way of signaling that to buyers, they set their price at a round number. Alternatively, you can think that the more patient sellers are using non-round numbers to signal their toughness. Either way, the last two digits of the price is cheap talk.”
Gans notes that prices ending in “99” are apparently so common that eBay buyers treat them the same as those ending in round numbers. The team performed a similar analysis on real estate sales data and found the same pattern: properties priced at round numbers sell faster. According to the write-up, real estate agents are familiar with the tendency and advise clients accordingly. Now you, too, can send and receive signals through prices’ last two digits.
Cynthia Murrell, June 8, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Your Mobile Is the Search Interface: In App or In Ept Revisited
June 7, 2015
I wrote an article for Information Today about the shift from having control of a search to being controlled by a search. The idea is that with an in app search function, the convenience makes the user in ept. With limited choices and the elimination of user defined filtering, the in app search converts searchers into puppets. The string puller is the ubiquitous and convenient search system.
I read “How Google Is Taking Search Outside the Box.” Nifty title but the opposite, in my opinion, is what’s “appening.” Search is now within the mobile device.
The write up asserts:
But search is still the heart of Google, even though the division that once went by that name is now called “Knowledge.” This reflects an evolution of Google search from something that pointed users to relevant websites to an all-knowing digital oracle that often provides answers to questions instantly (or sooner!) from a vast corpus of information called the Knowledge Graph. The whole ball of wax is threatened by the fact that the I/O of billions of users is now centered on mobile devices.
Google is indeed threatened with a search revenue problem. One way to address providing information to a user is to move the interaction inside the Google “walled garden.” In Google Version 2.0, now out of print, I explained that the walled garden allows Google to control the messages, information, and search results. The user consumes what Google delivers. Convenience for many is more important than taking control of the information provided.
For me, it is very, very difficult to run queries on a mobile device. The size and the keyboards present a problem. The results are difficult to manipulate. When I run queries from my desktop, I am able to move content, save it, output it, and process it using tools which are not available on a mobile device.
I do not accept mobile outputs as accurate. Last week I was in Prague. My mobile device connected in Frankfurt, Germany, and the system required two days to figure out that I was working in Prague. The few stabs I took at getting maps for Prague required lots of thumb typing.
The combination of half cooked software, high latency mobile systems for content delivery, and the paramount need to display unwanted information were evident.
The fix, for me, was to take my laptop computer, locate a “neutral” Wi-Fi connection, and take control of the queries.
Those who mindlessly consume what an in app experience delivers are racing toward ineptness. Sorry. Consuming information without considering what’s presented, ensuring that the output is one that meets the needs of the user, and performing the filtering function oneself are pretty dangerous behaviors.
Google is about revenue. The logic of the math club is not an approach designed to help out users. The problem is that consumers of information are not able to think about the objectivity, accuracy, or the relevance of the information.
Not good.
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2015
The Public Living Room
June 6, 2015
While much of the information that libraries offer is available via the Internet, many of their services are not. A 2013 Gallup survey showed that over 90 percent of Americans feel that libraries are important to their communities. The recent recession, however, forced local governments to cut library funding by 38 percent and the federal government by 19 percent. Some library users see the “public living room” (a place to read, access computers, research, play games, etc.) as a last bastion for old technology and printed material.
Alternet’s article. “Why Libraries Matter More Than Ever In The Age Of Google” highlights a new book by John Palfrey called BiblioTech that discusses how libraries can maintain their relevancy and importance in communities. Palfrey’s biggest argument is that humans are creating huge amounts of data, which is controlled by big and small tech companies. These companies are controlling what information is available for consumption, while libraries offer people the ability to access any type of information and free of charge.
Palfrey offers other reasons to continue using libraries: print and ink archives are more reliable than digital, how physical, communal space is important for communities and education, and how librarians are vital components.
“These arguments, however, rely too heavily on the humans-are-better-than-technology rationale where “better” is measured by technological rather than humanistic standards. If librarians have a higher success rate than Amazon’s algorithm at recommending books, this might not be true forever. Does that mean we won’t need librarians at some point? No, the dilemma of disappearing libraries is not just about efficiency, it’s also about values. Librarians recommend books because they are part of a community and want to start a discussion among the people they see around them—to solve the world’s problems, but also just to have a conversation, because people want to be near each other. The faster technology improves and surpasses human capability, the more obvious it becomes that being human is not merely about being capable, it’s about relating to other humans.”
Palfrey’s views are described as ideological and in many ways they are. Politicians cut funding, because they view libraries as archaic institutions and are blinded when it comes to the inequity when it comes to information access. Libraries indeed need a serious overhaul, but unlike the article explains, it is not simply updating the buildings and collections. It runs more along the lines of teaching people the importance of information and free information access.
Whitney Grace, June 7, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Facebook Program May Disintermediate Google
June 5, 2015
Soon, Facebook users may not have to navigate to Google for relevant links then copy-and-paste them into posts and comments. TechCrunch reports, “Skip Googling with Facebook’s New ‘Add a Link’ Mobile Status Search Engine.” If this program currently being tested on a sample group makes it to all users, you can impress your “friends” a few seconds faster, and with fewer clicks. Actually reading what you find before you share the link is up to you. The article describes:
“Alongside buttons to add photos or locations, some iOS users are seeing a new ‘Add A Link’ option. Just punch in a query, and Facebook will show a list of matching links you might want to share, allow you to preview what’s on those sites, and let you tap one to add it to your status with a caption or share statement. Results seem to be sorted by what users are most likely to share, highlighting recently published sites that have been posted by lots of people. …
“If rolled out to all users, it would let them avoid Googling or digging through Facebook’s News Feed to find a link to share. The ‘Add A Link’ button could get users sharing more news and other publisher-made content. Not only does that fill the News Feed with posts that Facebook can put ads next to. It also gives it structured data about what kind of news and publishers you care about, as well as the interests of your friends depending on if they click or Like your story.”
Writers Josh Constine and Kyle Russell observe that, as of last year, Facebook drives nearly 25 percent of “social” clicks, and publishers are becoming dependent on those clicks. Facebook stands to benefit if their Add A Link button enhances that dependency. Then there is the boost to ad revenue the site is likely to realize by keeping users inside their Facebook sessions, instead of wandering into the rest of the Web. A move that will both please users and the bottom line– well played, Facebook.
Cynthia Murrell, June 5, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Apple Acquires Search Startup Ottocat
June 4, 2015
Apple needed a better search system for its app store, so it bought a startup; according to TechCrunch, “Apple Acquired Search Startup Ottocat to Power the ‘Explore’ Tab in the App Store.” Writer Ingrid Lunden observes that the deal was kept pretty quiet, but suspects it was agreed to in 2013; that is when Ottocat’s website disappeared. Months later, Apple implemented the “explore” feature for its App Store. So why did Apple pick Ottocat? The article explains:
“In a nutshell, its technology essentially addressed pain points on both sides of the App Store: for users unable to find specific enough results for subject-based app searches when they don’t have a specific app in mind; and for developers unhappy with how well their apps could be discovered among a sea of 1 million+ other apps. The premise was to do away with keywords by categorizing apps into increasingly more specific subcategories that worked on a ‘drill-down’ principle — eliminating the guesswork and potential inaccuracy of keywords altogether. …
“For example, rather than searching on ‘guitar’ or scrolling through the full selection of music apps that the term might call up, or the chart for the most popular music apps — which can contain streaming apps, apps that are designed to work with specific hardware, apps that let people use their phones to play music, apps that teach them how to play a specific instrument, and so on — you can start to look at specific subcategories to find a selection of apps you may want to download.”
Launched in 2012 by Michelle Cooper and Edwin Cooper, Ottocat is headquartered in Oakland, California. Lunden wonders whether the Cooper pair is now working at Apple, and what they might be working on. Search for Safari, perchance? Maybe neither Yahoo nor Microsoft will provide Safari’s default search once Apple’s deal with Google expires, after all.
Cynthia Murrell, June 4, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
SoundHound Voice Search
June 3, 2015
Annoyed with Cortana and Siri? SoundHound has an alternative for some folks. SoundHound’s recognition technology can pinpoint the name of a song . According to “SoundHound’s New Voice Search App Makes Siri and Cortana Look Slow.”
I highlighted this passage:
Mohajer’s [SoundHound wizard] original vision is here in the form of Hound, a voice search app that can handle incredibly complex questions and spit out answers with uncanny speed. Right now, you have to ask those questions inside the Hound app, but the company hopes to get the technology everywhere — even your toaster…
The article continues:
Hound the app functions and feels almost exactly like Google’s Voice Search, but seems much faster at identifying words and delivering answers.
Will Google and Siri improve their systems? Worth watching and checking out the SoundHound system in real world conditions with loud background conversation and a person with less than BBC grade enunciation.
Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2015
SharePoint Grasps for Relevancy in the Realm of Social
June 2, 2015
Ever since the rise of social platforms, SharePoint has attempted to keep up. While many users would say that these attempts were struggled behind the majority of social technology, Microsoft was making an effort to keep their enterprise heading in the social direction. The battle has been long and hard and Redmond Magazine gives the latest update in its article, “Microsoft Looks To Bring Social Back to SharePoint with Office Graph.”
The article describes how Microsoft is more or less stuck between a rock and a hard place in their game of social “keep-up”:
“Not that an enterprise-class team and document collaboration vendor should try to match the capabilities of what are, more often than not, a collection of unsecure, noncompliant, sometimes untested tools . . . But here’s the rub: if you don’t offer end users the tools they want, and make key features available on the mobile devices (and operating systems) they want to use, all of those security, auditing, compliance, and reporting standards will become irrelevant because people won’t use your platform.”
So Microsoft continues to battle for relevancy. Its latest move is Office Graph, and analysts are optimistic that this social layer may finally be a way for Microsoft to deliver on its promise of personalized and intelligent social solutions. To stay up-to-date with the latest developments in the social world of SharePoint, keep an eye on ArnoldIT.com, in particular his SharePoint feed. Stephen E. Arnold is a longtime leader in search and follower of SharePoint. His reporting offers a succinct insight into the developments that affect productivity and user experience.
Emily Rae Aldridge, June 2, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Semantic Search Failure Rate: 50% and There Is Another Watson Search System
June 1, 2015
The challenge of creating a semantic search system is a mini Mt. Everest during an avalanche. One of the highest profile semantic search systems was Siderean Software. The company quietly went quiet several years ago. I thought about Siderean when I followed up on a suggestion made by one of the stalwarts who read Beyond Search.
That reader sent me a link to a list of search systems. The list appeared on AI3. I could not determine when the list was compiled. To check the sticking power of the companies/organizations on the list, we looked up each vendor.
The results were interesting. Half of the listed companies were no longer in the search business.
Here’s the full list and the Beyond Search researcher’s annotations:
| Search System | Type |
| Antidot Finder Suite | Commercial vendor |
| BAAGZ | Not available |
| Beagle++ | Not available |
| BuddyFinder (CORDER) | Search buddyspace and Jabber |
| CognitionSearch | Emphasis on monitoring |
| ConWeaver | Customer support |
| DOAPspace | Search not a focus of the site |
| EntityCube | Displays a page with a handful of ideographs |
| Falcons | Search system from Nanjing University |
| Ferret | Open source search library |
| Flamenco | A Marti Hearst search interface framework |
| HyperTwitter | Does not search current Twitter stream |
| LARQ | Redirects to Apache Jena, an open source Java framework for building Semantic Web and Linked Data applications |
| Lucene | Apache Lucene Core |
| Lucene-skos | Deprecated; points visitor to Lucene |
| LuMriX | Medical search |
| Lupedia | 404 error |
| OntoFrame | Redirect due to 404 error |
| Ontogator | Link to generic view based RDF search engine |
| OntoSearch | 404 error |
| Opossum | Page content not related to search |
| Picky | Search engine in Ruby script |
| Searchy | A metasearch engine performing a semantic translation into RDF; page updated in 2006 |
| Semantic Search | 404 |
| Semplore | 404 |
| SemSearch | Keyword based semantic search. Link points to defunct Google Code service |
| Sindice | 404 |
| SIREn | 404 |
| SnakeT | Page renders; service 404s |
| Swangler | Displays SemWebCentral.org; last update 2005 |
| Swoogle | Search over 10,000 ontologies |
| SWSE | 404 |
| TrueKnowledge | 404 |
| Watson | Not IBM; searches semantic documents |
| Zebra | General purpose open source structured text indexing and retrieval engine |
| ZoomInfo | Commercial people search system |
The most interesting entry in the list is the Watson system which seems to be operating as part of an educational institution.
Here’s what the Open.ac.uk Watson looks like:
IBM’s attorneys may want to see who owns what rights to the name “Watson.” But for IBM’s working on a Watson cookbook, this errant Watson may have been investigated, eh, Sherlock.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2015
Google’s Corporate Sovereignty Is Not Confined to US
June 1, 2015
The article on The Daily Dot titled The United States of Google reacts to the information that Google now spends more on lobbying than any other company. This may not come as a huge surprise, but it does carry heavy implications about the power and affluence of the country- er, company. This explains a great deal of the tension that Google faces in Europe, where competition is more favorable than monopoly. The article refers to the event in 2010 of Google leaving its partnership with China after controversy over censorship. The article explains,
In one sense, this was a righteous step for Google, demonstrating that they knew how to put its foot down in the face of toxic regimes. But in another sense, it was a scary moment, too. After all, do we really want Google to be more effective than the U.S. itself when it comes to dealing with tyrants?… “Does Google have more direct impact on human rights and freedoms in China than the Obama Administration?”
The article goes on to discuss what “Googlestan” might look like in a very lighthearted yet ominous tone. The ubiquity of Google is at the center of the concern- who can get through a day without relying on some aspect of Google’s services, from Gmail to Chrome to search? By becoming so dependent on a company as individuals, a nation and perhaps even a world, have we created a monster?
Chelsea Kerwin, June 1, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
SharePoint: Enterprise Search Which Will Never Ever Let You Lose Anything Again
May 30, 2015
Bold assertion. I read “Why Using Microsoft SharePoint Will Improve Your Business Performance with a Simple Search Feature.” Memorable for several reasons:
- SharePoint has “amazing search capabilities.” (I mistakenly understood that the “new” SharePoint search was not yet available. Oh, well, I am in Harrod’s Creek, not a “nice venue in London.” Search is better when viewed from a “nice venue” I assume.
- I will never lose anything again. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the “anything” refers to a document I created and either parked intentionally or had parked for me by Microsoft’s “amazing” SharePoint. I note that the statement is a categorical, and then often present logical challenges to someone who asks, “Really? What’s the evidence you have to back up this wild and frisky claim?”
- I note that I can type a word or phrase to “surface every relevant document across all of the sites I have access to.” The author adds, “It’s brilliant.” Okay, got it, but I don’t believe it based on observation, our own hands on experiences, and the weed pile of third party vendors who insist their software actually makes SharePoint usable. I would list them, but you probably have these outfits’ burned into your memory.
What is interesting is that the focus of the write up seems to be Microsoft Dynamics GP. It is mentioned a couple of time. There are also references to Delve, another Microsoft search system.
Frankly I am not sure if the cheerleading for “brilliant” search is credible. We have worked on projects in organizations where SharePoint is the “pluming.” In a conference call last week, the client, a relatively large outfit in the Fortune 100, reported these “issues” with SharePoint:
- Users cannot locate documents created within 24 hours and written to the designated SharePoint device
- Documents in a results list do not include the version of the document for which the user searches
- Images of purchase orders for a company issued with a unique code cannot be retrieved
- Queries take more time than a Google query to complete
- The information about employees with specific expertise is not complete; that is, there will be no data about education or certain projects
- Collaboration is flakey
- The system crashes.
I could work through the list, but the point is that SharePoint is big business for those who get a job to maintain it and, in theory, make it work. SharePoint is the fertile field in which third party vendors plant applications to improve on what Microsoft offers. There are integrators who have specialized skills and want SharePoint to remain the money tree plantation the consultants have come to call home.
In short, what can one believe about Microsoft search? Delve into that.
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
