August 2008 Archives

Fred is our newest contributor, and has already posted his first blog entry. Fred pokes at the challenging tension in search between intent and context, especially over time as context (or intent) changes. Lynda has also posted about intent, and the subject also came up in discussions of search quality around Udi Manber's talk at our conference in this past June.

Fred brings the welcome perspective of a serious software developer, and will be blogging on a few different topics, so he may be posting here on on one of our other blogs. Welcome Fred!

We've all wondered about how many Kindle units have sold. One Wall Street analyst is willing to make an estimate:

And Kindle could sell 380,000 units in 2008, more than double what a Citigroup Global Markets research analyst had expected, he wrote yesterday in a research report.

"In its first year, that's exactly how many iPods were sold," analyst Mark Mahaney wrote. "Turns out the Kindle is becoming the iPod of the book world."

Intent, hidden within a search click, lies at the intersection of Search and Business, as in "let's do some business". That search click has extra-ordinary value because of the intent to buy -- that's why we're searching, right?

Perhaps, or maybe we're just browsing, or surfing, and we're not in the mood for advertisements. It could be more militant than that; perhaps we're still trying to research our choices and would see a sales pitch as tainting the honesty of the information. At least that's what the founders of Google originally believed.

Although the model of the web was a set of stateless pages, and a Google search box certainly fits that appearance, people's intent is not stateless. It ebbs and flows, from entertaining looking around, to researching choices and comparing possibilities, through sourcing a chosen product (now we're talking about a qualified buyer), to selecting fulfillment options, and possibly all the way to figuring out how to return a product that we're dissatisfied with. That last one is probably not the best time to present an ad claiming how wonderful that product is.

This is a "long running transaction," a series of steps that fit together and flow towards (and past) a purchasing decision, but with back-currents and eddies. And it really is a transaction in the database sense where a failure during one step can cause the entire sequence to be discarded as if it never happened. Though if you believe Sergey and Larry, it will be worse than never happening, you may lose trust in your guide through that transaction.

Has the intent changed? Depends on what that means. On one hand, what has changed across those steps is the mode of the intent. If the intent was to purchase a product, then the research, comparison, purchase, and fulfillment were clearly pieces of that intent, though they call for different approaches: organic search for the research, product focused responses for the purchase, perhaps service-oriented for the fulfillment, and some combination for the comparison.

But what about that "I need to return this product because I hate it" step? The intent has clearly changed, but it is more necessary than ever to connect this new intent to the previous steps. If not, perhaps the search engine will continue to suggest that product to a disgruntled customer with very counter-productive results.

So, what is the unifying concept? Is it intent, organized by modes? Not if what is being unified is a complete user's story about their purchasing experience.

Charlie Sorrel has some thoughts over at Wired's blogs.

Here's a project I would love to do if I had the time--a face-off between Kindle, the iPhone, the Sony Reader, an eBook Technologies ETI-1, and a few other devices. Take a few book types--novel, textbook, graphical book, business document to begin with--and create a feature matrix and evaluation criteria. Also evaluate the e-commerce experience, the experience with public domain and other free content, and the experience of adding your own content. Write it all up, and keep it up to date.

As social netwoking sites proliferate, extending the metaphor of organic connections between individuals and communities, one aspect that has so far been under appreciated is the spread of malicious viruses via connections between network members. Just as biological viruses tend to spread faster as individuals are brought closer together by a shrinking world, so too computer viruses are finding a vehicle to spread via Web2.0 social networks.

Most Web2.0 sites, and these include Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, and even Google pages, offer users a potpourri of applets that add cool little functionalities to member's profile pages. Google for instance offers Google "gadgets" like calendars, news feeds, photo display applications, accounting applications, weather, and a whole host of other apps.

Increasingly these are targets for malicious hackers who exploit people's lack of awareness (as well as lack of protection), and their natural tendency to being open to adding new friends and applications without worry, to spread virus attacks. The problem is not necessarily Google's programming, but the open source and shareware nature of applications being developed by programmers around the world, and offered on sites like Google and Facebook.

This was one of the issues discussed at the recent Black Hat USA 2008 conference in Las Vegas where two security experts, Robert Hansen, chief executive of SecTheory, and Tom Stacener, of Cenzic, the security software testing maker, demonstrated how a malicious gadget could break into a user's web browser and read searches in real time and conduct other attacks, including stealing information from other gadgets that store personal information (like accounting applications).

This is particularly a problem with younger users who are seemingly less concerned with privacy and security issues, and see social networks as a vast playground of social interactions and free form play -- putting up personal information, installing unchecked applications, and generally mingling their digital juices with abandon. Interestingly, older users who should know better, also fall prey to these lapses in judgment.

A word to the wise for people, especially companies, who are exploring how to deploy Web2.0 and Enterprise2.0 applications in their corporate networks. A word of caution too the next time you decide to poke someone after seeing their cute (and perhaps fallacious) profile picture.

Until protection tools get better, remember to Inspect 'Yer Gadgets!

Virus update: Social networking sites targeted by worms

We're growing. Like many of our colleagues in the industry we have found that problems in the housing and financial markets have had no noticeable effect on demand for our services. Of course things could change, but enterprise content technologies are so core to businesses of all kinds that, while watchful, we are not concerned.

Our main concern, as always, is to keep the conversation and flow of trusted content moving between all the stakeholders (investors, vendors, practitioners, IT, consultants, etc.) in the content technology market. If you are involved in content technology or applications in any of these capacities and have expertise or experience you would like to share with our large, growing community, let us know. We have potential opportunities for bloggers, consultants, analysts, educators, or someone who has a particular expertise and simply wants to express an occasional opinion. If you are interest or have questions let Sarah know at sarah@gilbane.com.

Why didn't I think of this? Of course, among other things, I don't have the stomach to deal with the legal challenges.

We came across a study entitled "The 2008 Tribalization of Business" while preparing to publish a new Gilbane white paper on web experience management. The "Tribalization" research looks at communities and online marketing: how they deliver value, obstacles to making them work, what contributes to success, and how marketers measure effectiveness. Highlights of the research (co-sponsored by Beeline Labs, Deloitte, and the Society for New Communications Research) are reported on marketingcharts.com.

This datapoint caught our eye:

"The greatest obstacles to making a community work are not related to technology or funding, the study found; rather, getting people [to engage] in the community (51%)."

Community is one of four components of engagement strategy discussed in the new Gilbane white paper (the others are personalization, user-generated content, and collaboration). In the paper, we provide some guidance about making communities work not just at start-up but throughout their lifecycle.

Engage Me! Web Experience Management as the New Business Imperative is the companion white paper to a webinar in which we participated with Linksys and the Colorado Department of Transportion. The webinar and paper are sponsored by FatWire. An archive of the webinar is available for viewing, and the paper is now available for download on the FatWire site. It will be posted on the Gilbane site later this month.

"Where Content Management Meets Social Media" is the tagline for this year's Gilbane Boston conference. We've been covering social media tools for enterprise use at our events since 2005, just after we published Blogs & Wikis: Technologies for Enterprise Applications? - still one of our most popular downloads. But the number of speaking proposals we received on social media for enterprise applications for the Boston conference was striking. It seems nobody wants to talk about anything else! While we'll still have a dedicated track to cover social media, you will see the topic being addressed in every track.

The conference program will be published soon, and as Sarah posted a couple of days ago, speaker notifications will start going out.