Pilots Rescue Stranded Individuals In Oklahoma

So, I just arrived in my hotel in San Jose, getting ready for SES tommorrow. I happenned to catch a live broadcast of a rescue operation mounted by the Oklahoma Police - to pick up individuals who were stranded during some very severe floods out there.

Now let me break this down as best I see it. Police Officers are not trained hang off helicopters and execute rescue's of this nature. I saw some pretty remarkable piloting from the Police Helicopter Pilots and some extremely heroic stuff from the other officers. They're doing all this while CNN and FOX are beaming this stuff live - to millions of people around the world.

Imagine, trying to execute on a "stretch assignment" that you haven't really been trained for - with millions of people watching you and scrutinizing everything you do? And yet the copters are going back and forth, scooping folks up and whisking them to safety and then immediately going back out to do it again. These police officers are true heroes - and their efforts should be acknowledged.

I've often mused about different types of career paths - and what it means to excel or underperform in your daily job. For most of us, a bad day is just that - one bad day. I'm a Business Manager with a keen interest in developing and executing strategic initiatives. If I have a really bad day, perhaps a Business Unit or Organization that I oversee will not meet Revenue Goals - or we may fail to properly execute a specific strategic initiative. Most of us can recover easily from Bad Days or even Bad Years.

If these Police Officers in Oklahoma have a bad day today, people will die. Same goes for Doctors, Nurses and practically anyone in Health Services or Law Enforcement. Today - I'm simply thankful for the Men and Women who work hard everyday to save and preserve people's lives.....

Is Live Search Really Gaining Search Share?

Recently – I came across a post on the Compete blog – regarding changes Search Share gains for Live Search at the expense of Google. According to the data provided by Compete, live.com increased their query volume by 67% from May, and 48% from a year ago.

Search volume was up all across board in June, with the 3 main search engines gaining or holding share. However a large portion of the incremental Live Search Queries are coming from the Live Search Club, where the lure of great prizes is clearly encouraging users to play games for points.

All of the games involve using Live Search – and naturally, this has lead to a significant increase in Live Search Query Volume. This sounds like great news for Live Search and for Microsoft – however, there’s been some speculation that “Bots” helped boost Live Search gains.

Apparently a portion of Live Search Query gains can be attributed to bots, though the exact percentage isn't clear. Some Live Search Club users have asserted that automated searches account for a significant portion of Microsoft's search share gain. You can’t argue with the value proposition of the prizes – which include Microsoft including Microsoft Xboxes, Zunes and even Windows Vista. Interestingly, Internet Opportunists, not content to game the system, are now selling Live Search Club accounts on ebay. There's even an instructional video on YouTube to teach would-be scammers how to beat the system. So, now I’m really curious about Bots – and decided to do a little research of my own.

A Bot is derived from the word robot and is commonly used to describe a program on the internet. It is so named because it interacts with people as though it were a real person. Generally used by web crawlers and spiders on the web. These web robots interface with web pages to gather information. Internet bots, also known as web robots, WWW robots or simply bots, are software applications that run automated tasks over the internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human editor alone. The largest use of bots is in web spidering, in which an automated script fetches, analyses and files information from web servers at many times the speed of a human. Each server can have a file called robots.txt, containing rules for the spidering of that server that the bot is supposed to obey. In addition to their uses outlined above, bots may also be implemented where a response speed faster than that of humans is required (eg gaming bots and auction-site robots) or less commonly in situations where the emulation of human activity is required, for example chat bots.

Search engines use Bots to spider websites with and online games such as Quake use Bots as artificial opponents. Bots do not need to eat, drink or sleep and will relentlessly do their masters bidding until told to stop. The Live Search Club is a brilliant promotional & marketing campaign for Microsoft -becuase it leverages the use of key Microsoft Assets, Products & Services - to promote a Search Engine which is clearly already growing in popularity. Now if only they can get rid of all those pesky bots....................

Cheers.

My Take "On How To Beat Google"?

Recently, I came across a post with featuring 12 tips on how to beat Google. Below, I take a closer look at each of these tips and offer my own insights.

A conventional attack against Google's search product will fail. They are unassailable in their core domain. If you merely duplicate Google's search engine, you will have nothing. A copy of their product with your brand has no pull against the original product with their brand.
-> Not sure how you win the hearts and minds of Searchers if you don't mount a strong attack on Google's search product. If indeed Google is not invincible - then why not try to create a more relevant Search Engine - especially when it's widely known that over 40% of existing Searches go unaswered.

Duplicating Google's engine is uninteresting anyway. The design and approach were begun a decade ago. You can do better now.
-> Google didn't invent th ecurrent UI for most Search Engines, they inherited it. That said, they certainly improved overall performance and relevance of Search Engines. There's absolutely nothing wrong with duplicating the design and approach which Google uses - the key challenge is to deliver a very light page and fast ultra-relevant results. Utilizing the same design approach as Google can actually be an advantage, because users will feel comfortable with the format.

You need both a great product and a strong new brand. Both are hard problems. The lack of either dooms the effort. "Strong new brand" specifically excludes "search.you.com". The branding and positioning are half the battle.
-> I think it's save to say that the key players in the "Search Wars" are now clearly defined - at least for the next 5 years. It's highly unlikely that any totally new brand is going to challenge the big 3 -with 2 smaller players fighting for scraps. Very few Global Organizations have the resources to mount a challenge to Google in the Search Space. Yahoo has tried - but Microsoft's Live Search is clearly the key pretender to the throne. I think the value of a "Strong New Brand" is probably overated anyway. Both Yahoo Search and Live Search derive a large proportion of their Query Volume through their General Interest Portals. Google is the only truly Global Search Engine - it's brand is strong becuase it's undiluted by Portal Channels and Communications Products. If Yahoo and MSN can continue to grow their audiences and get their users to use their Search Engines more often, they'll certainly take share from Google. (assuming of course that their Search Engines achieve releative parity with Google, in relevance and performance).

You need to position your product to sub-segment the market and carve out a new niche. Or better, define an entirely new category. See Ries on how to launch a new brand into a market owned by a competitor. If it can be done in Ketchup or Shampoo, it can be done in search.
-> This makes no sense at all. Let's take a step back and consider the key objective of this post - "How to beat Google". How can you hope to defeat the Google Juggernut, by "carving out a new niche"? What niche? What Category? The Value Proposition of any Search Engine is clear - to help users quickly get information. The revenue model of most Search Engines is also quite clear - sponsored links, with a key engagemetn parameter. This market place is growing at a rapid clip already. People understand it and the ROI must be pretty good. Otherwise Google wouldn't be delivering Billion Dollar Revenue figures each quarter. So tell me how you beat Google by looking for a new "niche" market. Search Verticals are great, but thus far, over 80% of Queries are for Algorithmic Search Results, plus, there's no siginificant revneu to be had in Vertical Search, at least not today. So, you can't beat Google by looking for a sub-segment of a market which they already control.

Forget interface innovation. The editorial value of search is in the index, not the interface. That's why google's minimalist interface is so appealing. Interface features only get in the way.
-> This point directly contradicts point #2 above. I actually disagree with this point. Innovation is always important and always useful. Google had no idea that their Search Engine would be such a big hit when they began innovating in an effort to improve on existing Search Engines at the time. They intuitively felt that they could do a better job with the bid-price model with Bill Gross pioneered with goto.com, and they did. It's possible to create a strong value proposition with an alternartive, UI - perhaps one with more vertical search integration. The key challenge is that it's a lot more difficult to monetize specialized search results - and at the end of the day, that's really what drives the business.

Forget about asking users to do anything besides typing two words into a box.
-> Not so sure I understand this point - but I'll take a stab at providing my insights. As an avid searcher, I often type two or three lines in a Search Box, especially if I'm looking for very specific "time sensitive" information. I value the availabillity of the advanced search feature, which enables me to provide important context for my searches. If this comment implies that users don't want to do anything other than type a word or two in a box, I'd disagree. Search Influentials - and "Influentials" in general, help to shape Industry Trends. Your average influential does a whole lot of tail queries.

Users do not click on clusters, or tags, or categories, or directory tabs, or pulldowns. Ever. Extra work from users is going the wrong way. You want to figure out how the user can do even less work.
-> Similar point to the one made above. My response remains the same. No doubt, most users won't do any extra work UNLESS they see true VALUE in the results. That's the key. It's also worth noting none of the 3 leading search engines creates more work for users. The all have advanced search capabillities - but don't shove it down the users throats.

Your results need to be in a single column. UI successes like Google and blogging have shown that we don't want multiple columns. Distractions from the middle with junk on the sides corrupt your thinking and drive users away. -> Again, this is highly subjective. I don't care about multiple columns as long as the results I get are relevant. Most people enjoy getting a variety of results for their searches - I've never heard anyone complain about having to review multiple columns, but they'll complain about query results on a single result column, with poor relevance

Your product must look different than Google in some way that is deliberately incompatible with their UI, for two reasons. One, if you look the same as them, consumers can't tell how you're different, and then you won't pull any users over. Two, if your results are shown in the same form as Google's, they will simply copy whatever innovations you introduce. You need to do something they can't copy, not because they're not technically capable of doing so, but because of the constraints of their legacy interface on Google.com. -> The most important form of differentiation from Google - is to deliver a better quality product. If your marketing and promotional activities are strong enough, then feature and performance parity with Google may be sufficient. It is NOT necessary to deliver a UI which is incompatible with Googles -especially if you're not relying on your Brand Name to drive Traffic to your Search Engine. This goes back to my point about Yahoo and Live Search. I can see how this point may be true for ask.com or any of the smaller search engines, but they're not going to threaten Google anytime soon. If you try to create a UX which is markedly different from the Industry Leader, you force users to choose. Now, consider the fact that Google already processes well over half the number of search queries entered Worldwide - and then think about the key goal here "to beat Google".

Your core team will be 2-3 people, not 20. You cannot build something new and different with a big team. Big teams are only capable of duplicating existing technology. The sum of 20 sets of vision is mud.
-> Again subjective. Search is a very complex and interesting problem. There are many different ways to explore Search and deliver a compelling value proposition. I agree that when teams become too big - they are often unwieldy and sluggish. However, there's no reason why a team of twenty can't be work on 4 or 5 seperate projects -as part of one key objective.

Search is more about systems software than algorithms or relevance tricks. That's why Google has all those OS programmers. You need a strong platform to win, you can't just cobble it together as you go like other big web apps.
-> Who knows if this assertion is totally accurate. At the end of the day, the users will decide, and you can be sure that they will lean towards the Search Engine which consistently thrills, excites them -while delivering useful, relevant information.

Do not fear Google's vast CapEx. You should wish maintenance of that monster on your worst enemies. Resource constraints are healthy for innovation. You're building something new and different anyway.
True - but if you ever hope to Challenge Google, then prepare for the same sought of CapEx that they have. Afterall, serving over 100m queries daily requires plenty of resources

As Search Wars Continue - Vertical Search Takes Centre Stage

Microsoft is working hard to give Live Search a much need boost -but is time running out? The Search Landscape in most Markets is still dominated by Google Inc. (GOOG ) and to a lesser degree - Yahoo Search (YHOO ). In February 2005, Microsoft's MSN Search accounted for nearly 14% of all Web searches, compared with a 46% share for search leader Google, according to research firm Nielsen//NetRatings. At that time, Microsoft lauched it's Monarch Search Platform and later that year, rebranded it's MSN Search - calling the refurbished engine - Windows Live Search and later - Live Search.

Just two years later, Microsoft's rebranded Windows Live Search has a 9.6% share, compared with Google's nearly 56%. That amounts to nearly 300 million lost searches per month.

This is a troubling trend. Revenue from online advertising is relatively small--just $836 million in the first six months of the fiscal year ending in June, vs. $5.9 billion in sales of the Windows PC operating system. But the Web is increasingly the place where computing gets done. Everything from e-mail to customer-relationship management applications is moving from programs on a PC to services on the Net. Meanwhile search advertising is exploding: Piper Jaffray & Co. (PJC ) says it should hit $44.5 billion by 2011, up from $15.8 billion in 2006. If Microsoft can't keep pace, it risks seeing its Windows and Office software franchises erode as Google and others launch Web-based rivals.

Early on, Google used its simple Web site to cement the impression that to search is to "Google." And because more people search there, Google has more data with which to target relevant ads. The result: By some estimates, Google nets at least 50% higher revenue per search than No.2 Yahoo and other search sites--allowing Google to keep investing more in improvements. For instance, on Mar. 21 it revealed a new program to give advertisers the opportunity to pay only when someone responds to an ad, by purchasing a product, filling out a form, or some other action--rather than merely when they click on it. That may be more attractive to advertisers who want concrete results. The Strategy seems to be working, In May, for example, only 8.4% of all searches among U.S. Web surfers went through Microsoft's MSN or Windows Live engines, compared with Google's 56.3% share, according to research firm Nielsen//NetRatings (NTRT).

Microsoft's recent focus on Vertical Search is good strategy. I think we will continue to see more oa a focus on vertical sites, as users become more sophisticated. The purchase of Medstory Inc., a health-care search engine for consumers and Tellme Networks Inc. are useful first steps. Microsoft is also trying to nudge its massive customer base over to its search engine. On Mar. 13 it struck a deal with PC maker Lenovo Group (LNVGY ) to preload machines with the Windows Live toolbar, which leads users into its search engine. Microsoft also launched a "trial program" where it offers some large businesses service and training credits--from $2 to $10 per computer--to get employees to use Windows Live Search. Sure, that amounts to buying business - but give the company credit for doing what it takes to create awareness about Live Search.

Now if they could just improve the relevance of their algorithmic results - then we'd really have a 3 horse race on our hands.

What the heck is Universal Search Anyway?

On May 16th, Google announced the release of Universal Search. As the story goes, back in 2001 - CEO Eric Schmidt asked for a brainstorm of a few "splashy" ideas in search. Marrissa Mayer created a few mock ups - one of which was the prototype for Universal Search. ' It was a sample search results page for Britney Spears that, in addition to web results, also had news, images, and groups results right on the same page. Now that concept has morphed into a pretty dynamic SERP with an interesting value proposition for users. A few examples from Google include -these query terms : steve jobs , darth vader , nosferatu .

While Universal Search is interesting, it's certainly not a new concept. According to Dan Dodge, Alta vista introduced a similar concept over Ten years ago (1997) - integrating multi-media search results as part of regular text search results. Very similar to what Google is today calling Universal Search. At the time, AltaVista returned regular Algo results along with photos, videos, audio, and news. After a brief trial period the idea was scrapped because it didn't quite catch on with users.

At the time, users seemed to prefer Algo Results (10 Blue Links), and may have felt that the other features were "noise" or unnecessary distractions. When presented with all these results they consistently clicked on the text results and ignored the photos, videos, audio. They sometimes clicked on the News results. The users wanted deeper, faster, more relevant text results.

I'm going to hypothesize that - users preferred to keep the User Experience for Portals and Search Engines different. One thing Universal Search definitely does - is present a portal like look and feel. Also, performance was definitely an issue back in the 90's - and Universal Search would have severely impacted page load times.

Microsoft and Yahoo already offer a similar value proposition. Microsoft has Imagine Live Search which is a new experimental search engine from Windows Live. Ask has Ask X, and Yahoo has it's Alpha offering. All of these SERPs offer a mixture of results all on the same page.

Will "Universal Search" become popular with users? How will Search Engines make money with this SERP - I don't see any prominent sponsored links? What will be the criteria for ranking vertical search features vs. algo weblinks on SERPs.

We'll just have to wait and see...............

Jobs and Gates Go 1:1

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs talk about the tech world, what the future holds—and their rivalry. Nobody knew quite what to expect when, Gates and Jobs hooked up to do a joint interview at the recent All Things Digital Conference. What transpired makes for pleasant reading - especially for anyone who has followed the path's of these two great pioneers.

One thing that really intrigued me is the flow of their conversation - you could almost imagine Gates finishing off Steve Jobs sentences - and vice-versa. Truth be told, they probably have more in common than most of their peers and colleagues. Great stuff - worth reading.


Cheers......

Spotlight China: Move Over Google - Here Comes Baidu

Already - China has over 100 million Internet Users and this is just the begginning. There's no question that Chinese Internet users will soon be the largest block of online users world wide. Over 87% of the Chinese Internet audience uses search. And given Internet search’s dominance of monetization and audience rankings globally, the competition for the top spot in the Chinese search market is pretty intense.

Baidu, Google, Yahoo, Sohu and Sina are battling each other to be the leading provider of search in China. Currently the two largest search players, Baidu and Google, account for almost 90% of the searches (source: CNNIC Search Survey, 2006).

More than 3 out of every 4 Internet searchers in China use multiple search engines Therein lies one of the more interesting dynamics of this market: Baidu and Google clearly lead the field in all aspects of search, through the variety of searches they offer and the quality of their results. Sohu features more prominently in MP3 and video search, compared to its lagging ranking in web search. Yahoo, on the other hand, has been struggling with its local partnering strategy - as it failed to take advantage of large acquisitions locally, including 3721 and the much publicized Ali Baba. Indeed Yahoo's brand seems weaker in China compared to Google’s and other local players.

Baidu is currently enjoying virtually double the market share in all types of search over Google. A 2006 Study by CNNIC cites other reasons for Baidu attracting a large user base, including Baidu’s well-liked Bulletin Boards and its responsiveness. Baidu also benefits from its wildly popular MP3 search, which takes users directly to downloadable music. This could be a major headache for Baidu in the future if China decides to tighten its enforcement of IP laws, with respect to illegal music.

Sohu, Sina and Yahoo all draw significant numbers of users to their search sites through their popular free email offerings, but that’s still not enough to help them break into the upper echelon of search - currently occupied by Baidu and Google. In terms of brand awareness, Baidu once again stands out with 87% - while Google and Yahoo trail with 64% and 39% respectively (source: CNNIC Search Survey, 2006).

Furthermore, more than 50% of Baidu’s users are under 23 years old. Since 80% of people under 24 years old use the Internet in China, compared to a much lower ratio for older age groups, Baidu’s momentum is bound to continue. Maybe it’s for this reason, and lack of further explosive growth opportunity at home, that Baidu decided to launch its first international search in Japan last week.

While Google’s perception has improved considerably among Internet users in China, its refusal to offer its Gmail and Blogger services locally (due to privacy concerns) will probably slow its efforts to boost its user base. However Google continues to invest in the Chinese Internet market, with a minority stake in P2P player Xunlei - which is aimed at the local online video market. This move might have other benefits for Google, as Xunlei doesn’t support Baidu downloads for instance.

Among all the players, the one to watch is Tencent. Given its dominance in IM and success in entering new markets such as casual games, mobile chat and virtual goods - it has the value proposition to make a decent entry into the Chinese search market. The Chinese search market is bound to hold a few surprises in the next year or two, as most Chinese Internet users claim that factors such as duplication of results, freshness and quality of the way results are ranked, could use further improvement.

Speaking of improvement, Google apparently needs to pay more attention to the quality of its image search, as it returns virtually no images for the Chinese name of former president Deng Xiaoping. Baidu, on the other hand, could be leveraging its new Japanese office to offer a better service to its users searching for adult terms like “sex”. Baidu apparently returns only 3 results for “sex” in its Chinese site, whereas its new Japanese site returns 107,000 images for the same search term.

The Search Landscape in China is certainly worth watching..........

Can Anything Slow The Google Juggernaut?

The term juggernaut is used to describe any literal or metaphorical force regarded as unstoppable that will crush all in its path. Even more descriptive: any large, overpowering, destructive force or object, as war, a giant battleship, or a powerful football team.

Seems to me that a lot of people are going to great pains to define Google and explain their Mission/Vision. Growing up - I would always get into the odd argument with my elder sister. The defining moment of the conflict would always come when she say "I know you better than you know yourself". To which I would often reply - how can you possibly know me when i'm still trying to figure things out for myself?

Don't bother trying to define Google's Mission and Vision - don't even try to decipher their reasons for doing anything. How can you - when Google itself is still trying to figure things out? Heck - even the "do no evil" mantra has evolved quite a bit since we first heard it.......

That said, i'll define Google as the closest thing we have to a Juggernaut - in Online Space. A starting point for 400 million Internet users and the No. 1 gateway to the Net's vast commercial potential. With more data on what people are searching for, Google can serve up the most targeted and relevant advertisements alongside the results, drawing more clicks, more cash, more users—you get the idea. Consumers love Google's simplicity and results. At last count – the Search Engine which is clearly re-defining the advertising world, controls 56% of Global Internet Searches – and counting. No wonder eager advertisers shoveled some $10.6 billion into Google's coffers last year, up an astonishing 73% from 2005. If you can believe it, Google's $144 billion market value tops that of Time Warner , Viacom, CBS, ad agency giant Publicis Groupe and the New York Times Co. Combined.

Think about all that information on people’s buying habits – that alone could be worth Billions some day. Certainly – not everything Google does is successful. The whole Adwords for radio, print, and television concept - is yet to get off the ground.

As the Juggernaut continues to destroy business models – in advertising, publishing and just about everywhere else, there’s a growing fear that Google may be becoming too powerful. Recently, NBC Universal and News Corp announced big plans for a rival to Gootube, and I think we all know what that means – since UGC is clearly not the biggest driver of YouTube’s popularity.Viacom is took things a step further by suing Google for a headline-grabbing $1 billion, charging YouTube with willfully infringing on copyrights by allowing users to upload clips of The Colbert Report, South Park, and other TV shows. A couple of weeks earlier, Copiepress, a group representing Belgian and German newspapers, won a copyright case that could sharply limit Google's usefulness if it sets a precedent.Even some of Google's advertising customers complain that the company sometimes appears cavalier about their concerns.

That's partly because of the very technology on which it's built. Its search-ad business runs on a pointedly opaque set of complex mathematical formulas that give high placement to ads based not simply on which marketers pay the most but on how many people click on them and other factors. That prods advertisers to create better ads and more relevant Web pages to which the ads send them. But such a system leaves everyone to guess which ads work best and how much to pay for top placement, and the ranking can change without warning. I think that’s one of the key reasons why online advertisers worldwide are banging their heads against their monitors at this very moment.

Perhaps it's time to start changing Google - the verb to Google the noun

The Noun - Juggernaut: "a massive inexorable force that seems to crush everything in its way".