Categories
Uncategorized

Those Luddite Publishers Have a Point

When I woke up this morning to a post on Advertising Age entitled “Media Giants Want to Top Google Results“, I braced for a whining sense of entitlement from an oligopoly that, by all accounts, isn’t aging well. But this part of the article caught my attention:

[Publishers] don’t just want “We’ll fix it.” They want more insight into Google’s black box of data and decision making.

Me too. As a consumer, I might have a slightly different goal than the publishers–I want to control how my results are presented, rather than to simply peer insider the black box in order to optimize content for it. Nonetheless, I’m glad to see more calls for transparency all around.

I’m also intrigued by the Automated Content Access Protocol, mentioned in the post. A big reason that publishers are in such a bind now is that they sold their birthright to Google for a mess of pottage, inviting traffic from Google at the expense of commoditization. It’s probably a bit late to lock the barn door, but at least publishers seem to be reflecting on their strategic mistakes.

Categories
Uncategorized

Blogophobia at the New York Times?

Just read this post at Portfolio.com suggesting that there’s been a sudden bout of “blogophobia” at the paper of record, from their own bloggers “to capture the debate rather than taking sides in it”, to trying to shut down the Apartment Therapy blog using a DMCA notice. I thought the New York Times was going open; I hope this recent behavior isn’t indicative of their changing their minds.

Categories
Uncategorized

More Aardvark Invites

Not sure these are scarce anymore, but you can join as part of my Aardvark network by clicking here. Offer good while invites last!

Categories
General

The Internet Is About Freedom

I was in a bit of shock when I saw that the top story on Techmeme was a post on TechCrunch entitled. “Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet“. After all, TechCrunch is an ad-supported site–something I admittedly had to confirm using a browser without an ad blocker.

But my confusion subsided when I realize that the TechCrunch post was actually a guest post by Eric Clemons, Professor of Operations and Information Management at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Here’s the outline:

1. There Must Be Something Other Than Advertising

2. Advertising will fail

3. Advertising will fail for three reasons:

  • Consumers do not trust advertising.
  • Consumers do not want to view advertising.
  • Consumers do not need advertising.

4. Alternative models for monetization are available:

  • Selling content and information.
  • Selling experience and participation in a virtual community.
  • Selling accessories for virtual communities.

In my case he’s preaching to the converted, and I don’t see why his arguments should be so controversial. But clearly they are in a world where the ad-supported model dominates to such an extent that most people don’t imagine any other business model is viable. I hope his post helps persuade a few skeptics.

Finally, I love his conclusion:

The internet is about freedom, and I suspect that a truly free population will not be held captive and forced to watch ads.  We always knew that freedom comes at a price; perhaps the price of internet freedom and the failure of ads will be paying a fair price for the content and the experience and the recommendations that we value.

Categories
General

Memo to Steve Ballmer: Just Ask Them!

Dina Bass from Bloomberg reports today that Steve Ballmer is talking smack about Google:

“Google does have to be all things to all people,” Ballmer said yesterday in an interview in New York. “Our search does not need to be all things to all people.”

That is an interesting take on the search market–an attempt to turn a bug (Microsoft’s 8% market share vs. Google’s 63%–at least in the United States) into a feature. Ballmer essentially claims that Google’s near-monopoly stifles its innovation.

I agree that Google hasn’t been particularly innovative when it comes to search interfaces, but I’m not persuaded by Ballmer’s hand-waving “innovator’s dilemma” reasoning. Besides, as Chris Lake at Econsultancy notes, “it’s hard to know exactly what Microsoft is trying to be, in terms of search.”

Lake goes on to make an excellent point:

Search has always been about intent. That’s essentially what a search query is: an indicator of intent. You want something, you need something, you mean to purchase something, you’re going to do something.

But most queries do not reveal the exact nature of intent.

And here is the money shot:

The search engines might be able to determine intent automatically… But for me nothing works as well as asking the question, and seeking out some explicit data. Ask the question!

Yes, it’s like Feynman said: you just ask them! So much effort in the search industy aims at coming up with more clever ways to divine the user’s intent automatically, and so little focuses on building better tools to work *with* the user. Yes, I’m just beating the HCIR drum again–it’s what I do here. 🙂

But I can’t let a moment like this pass without pointing it out. If Microsoft wants a serious shot at Google, it should invest less in bribing users and more in HCIR.

Sadly, as Silicon Alley Insider’s Eric Krangel learned from a discussion with Microsoft Search director Stefan Weitz, “Microsoft doesn’t want to scare off users by introducing any dramatic changes to what people expect from the search engine experience.” Or, as Krangel summarized it pithily, what we can expect are “tweaks.”

I understand that Microsoft can’t ignore the fact that users have been trained on Google. But Microsoft is in a market where it has little to lose and everything to gain. This is the time to be bold, not conservative. Moreover, some the best HCIR researchers are working for their own research division! Want to build a better search engine? Just ask them!

Categories
Uncategorized

Twitter Has A Business Model. Not.

Read about Twitter’s new premium accounts. Then read this.

Categories
General

Wolfram Alpha: Second-Hand Impressions

Regular readers may not be surprised that my commentary on the Wolfram Alpha pre-launch publicity didn’t earn me a hands-on preview–though it did earn me a surprisingly positive email from their PR department. But fortunately I have my sources, and one of them was kind enough to share reactions to demo of the system.

His impressions in brief:

  • He’s impressed with the technology, though dubious that they have a business model.
  • Their knowledge base incorporates 10 trillion “facts” (RDF triples) derived from curated sources.
  • They focus on factual and numerically oriented queries, as opposed to fuzzier semantic ones.
  • Their engine is based on the approach described in NKS.
  • Their presentation interface reminds him of Wikipedia’s infoboxes.

My reaction: still intrigued, still skeptical. It sounds like a great toy, but a toy nonetheless. But I’ll try to keep an open mind until I get to play with it myself.

Categories
Uncategorized

Socializing Social Search

I owe you all a post about my impressions of Aardvark, but in the mean time wanted to highlight a post today by Gene Golovchinsky about social search. He in turn points to work  by Colum Foley and Ed Chi. Check it out!

Meanwhile, I’ve beseeched readers (you know who you are) to write a guest post about social search. Worst case, I’ll write something myself, and you’ll have to do even more work to set me straight in the comments!

Categories
General

Financial Times + Endeca = Newssift

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I’m proud to tell readers here about an effort I’ve been involved with over the past few months. As reported in TechCrunch and Search Engine Land,  the Financial Times just launched Newssift, a semantic search engine, powered by Endeca, that sifts through business news. Regular readers may recognize the application from an example I used in my presentation on exploring semantic means.

I’m very excited about the Financial Times embracing exploratory search, and I think Erik Schonfeld from TechCrunch gets it right when he notes that the site “employs several subtle navigational techniques that make it more of a discovery engine than a search engine.”

Sorry to keep you guys in the dark about this for so long, but I hope it was worth the wait.

Here is some of the news coverage of the launch (yes, I’m shamelessly plugging this):

Categories
Uncategorized

Was this review helpful to you?

Usability guru Jared Spool has a great piece explaining a single feature he calls “The Magic Behind Amazon’s 2.7 Billion Dollar Question“: the fact that they ask user “”Was this review helpful to you?”. It’s a great story about the power of good design.