But it's not google - Bing goes Live!

Another long wait between entries - I really must update more often. However recent events in the Search world and in the CI world mean I have no choice but to update. My thoughts on recent changes at SCIP will have to wait till my next post. This post will look at Microsoft's replacement for Live and MSN Search - with its new Bing search engine.

Searches at Live or MSN Search now redirect to Bing.com. I like the front-end - it's clean and colourful. However I couldn't find anywhere to change the front image - at least on the UK version that's still in Beta.
The US version does allow you to scroll back to previous images - with a little arrow option at the bottom of the right side of the screen.

The US version also includes hot-spots describing aspects of the picture, plus a side-bar offering more search options.

At the bottom of both versions is a link for help - interestingly still pointing to Live.com. Obviously Microsoft still has more work to do on this. The help section gives the format for advanced commands and also allows you to remove the screen background.

So how does Bing perform. For the searches I tried, the results are good - and there isn't that much to choose between Google and Bing. One difference i did notice is that URLs with the search terms used seem to come higher than other sites - so, for example, AWARE's web-site came to the top for a search on "marketing-intelligence". Also relevant is that the algorithm is sufficiently intelligent to realise that "CompetitorAnalysis.com" is a likely candidate for searches on "Competitor Analysis". I'm not sure the same precision exists in Google. Another odd feature is that some titles seem to be edited. For example some searches on my web-site content bring up the following title: "

• Read an Article On Competitor Analysis On the Aware Website

This title doesn't exist on our web-site so has been taken from somewhere else - most likely from a link on a UK government business support web-site.

Where Bing falls is in the advanced searching and also the preferences. I like that you can set Google to display 100 hits at a time. Bing only allows 50. Bing also lacks some of the field / advanced search options available to Google. There are no wild-card searches (using the * character) or synonym searches (the ~ character) for example. However there are options that are not currently available in Google - such as the feed:, hasfeed:, loc:, and contains: options. These allow for searching for RSS sites (feed: and hasfeed:), location searches (loc:), searches for sites containing links to types of content such as WMA, MPG files, etc. - contains:. These options are not available in the advanced search boxes.

All in all - i like Bing and prefer its interface to Live. I like colourful pages, and have customised my Google page with iGoogle themes, and Ask with it's skins. Yet again, however, this is not a Google Killer - and perhaps it's not trying to be. The key thing: Bing is not google!

A number of other reviews on Bing worth reading:

Mixed reviews of Bing, Microsoft's new search engine - the Daily Telegraph
Bing Don't Bother - Karen Blakeman's review
Bing Launches - it's awful - Phil Bradley's review
Bing Bing: Microsoft's search engine unexpectedly live, but not Live - the Guardian

Cuil - not going to cull Google!

For a change I thought I'd give my opinions on a new search engine that's being touted around.

Cuil is a new search engine that claims to have the biggest search index and give better results than Google owing to a methodology that looks at word context rather than page links.

There are already lots of comments on Cuil - for example, Webware's "New Search Engine Cuil takes aim at Google" or Karen Blakemen's "Cuil - not so cool"

I too played with Cuil - for around 5 minutes before I realised that this is very much a "what you see is what you get" effort - and I didn't see very much.

One of the first things I do when I use a search engine is change my preferences - to get 100 hits per page. I find a much more efficient way of looking through pages of results - and the time to look at 10 versus 100 on a single page isn't that much more. So I headed to Cuil's preferences page - and found that there was almost nothing to change. So you're stuck with a page of descriptions - and if they aren't right, you're forced to try the next page or a new search. Not clever! Then what about modifying my search - for specific types of content - title search, filetype search. Nada!

My top test keywords (generally "competitive intelligence" and various permutations of this) came up with the expected sites - but nothing new and not even all I'd expect - plus irritating logos attached to each entry that seemed to be stolen from images that seemed relevant.

My main complaint supports a comment on the Webware blog "Didn't we stop the pissing contest over number of pages searched about 10 years ago?". I concur totally. So what if Cuil has 120 billion pages. It's not size that counts - it's what you do with what you've got that counts. (I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before in a different context ;-) That's why Exalead is so useful - as it's so easy to customise, and refine searches. That's why Google is top-dog - as its interface is so simple and the results tend to be accurate. That's why Ask works - as it gives good results, with options to refine and it highlights news, images, encyclopaedia entries all together making search seem simple.

Finally their purported killer feature - relating search to the words on the page and their context. Isn't that similar or the same as the method Ask (or it's predecessor Teoma) uses, or have I missed something? (Or perhaps it only refers to the actual page rather than related pages which is what Ask does - if so, it's also 10 years out-of-date as just relating content to the actual page rather than linked pages was killed off by Google's linkage innovation).

So - not impressed. I still think that there's scope for a Google Killer out there, but Cuil ain't that Killer!

Emotional responses

I've not posted anything for months - not because I've not had things to post, but because of work pressures, and perhaps also not having anything I thought worth posting.

That's not to say that things haven't happened - but others will have posted on the London Online conference, the SCIP annual and European conferences in San Diego and Bad Nauheim, Germany, and the AIIP annual conference in Pittsburgh. I attended all - and each was worthwhile in its own way. (My favorite was AIIP - but then this is such a great organisation anyway!).

In the last few months I've also been to China where I led a workshop on CI, and on a personal level, celebrated my oldest nephew's wedding in Jerusalem and saw the loss of my father a month later.

So what has prompted this post?

Well I try and link ideas to marketing and competitive intelligence. Those who know me will know that one of the areas I specialise in is competitive intelligence analysis and game theory. My talk at SCIP Europe (and also at the SCIP 2007 conference) was on Game Theory.

One of the areas I emphasise is that when looking at a competitor you should try and look at things from their perspective. Just because something looks stupid or illogical to you doesn't neccssarily mean that it is stupid and illogical. It could also be that the competitor is viewing something from a different angle to you - and that if you switched viewpoints it would make perfect sense. Developing an ability to switch perspectives could save you $, £, €, or ¥ as it should lead to greater anticipation of how competitors are likely to respond and thus better and more effective strategies. The assumption is that competitors behave logically, and choose strategies based on the information and knowledge they currently have.

There is, however, an exception to this. Sometimes a competitor can be blinded by hatred, greed, fear, or another strong emotion. In such cases their decisions are likely to be stupid and illogical as they can't see reality and instead, they base what they do on their emotionally biased view of the world.

As a result, when looking at a competitor it is also important to look for any emotional aspect in their decision making. Is this leading to how they behave or react? If it is, then you can use it against them to win out. Of course the same applies to you - and it's important that you make decisions that are not based on emotional reasons. Decisions need to be made based on facts, evidence and logic - anything else will lead to vulnerabilities that can be attacked by a competitor.

There are many examples of companies that have made poor decisions based on emotion: a classic is the failure of the 2000 Time Warner - AOL merger, which was partly driven by Time Warner management's fear of being left behind in a digital world. In fact many mergers fail as they are not really motivated by logic but more by fear of being left behind or greed - seeing acquisition as the best way to grow.

So when looking at a competitor, you need to

1. assume that they are behaving logically - try to see things from their perspective
2. consider that they may be acting emotionally, and not basing decisions on fact and logic.

Which of these two applies will depend on the pattern of decision making, the decisions made, and the competitor's management. Part of the job of the CI analyst is to step back from their own emotional perspectives and, dispassionately, look at the competitor and decide what has led to their decisions and strategies: logic or emotion.

I still haven't answered what prompted these thoughts.

Generally I try to understand the opinions and views of people with whom I disagree - and accept that often there is a valid rationale to these views. I fervently disagree with Islamic terrorist groups, and I totally support Israel. At the same time, I understand the view of the Palestinians and believe that they have a case. I understand the Islamic religious view of Hamas that Israel is occupied Islamic land and that only Islamic rule is valid. I don't personally agree with this - but I accept that from some Islamic perspectives (not all) this is logical as it follows some Koranic precepts. So I'm applying my rule above of trying to understand the other side, and looking at things from their perspective.

I can even apply this (with difficulty) to some terrorist actions in Europe and the USA. The attacks on 911 were reprehensible, evil and criminal. However using the above principles I can understand these actions - as they fall into a logical pattern.

1. Western Values represent an attack on Islamic values.
2. Western Values are winning out - even in Islamic society.
3. For Islamic values to triumph, Western values must be destroyed, so that the world realises that it's only true Islamic values that will lead to human peace and happiness.
4. What the West calls terrorism is actually a misnomer - and is, in fact, an attempt by true Muslim believers to alert their own governments to how they've been led astray, while at the same time to destroy the forces that are doing this - leading to a growth in Islamic values and beliefs.
   

What I fail to understand however, is how a follower of any religion can take advantage of people with mental problems and use them for terrorist activity. One of the basic principles behind all religions: Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist... is the protection of less-well-off and weaker members of society. They teach that it is a major sin to take advantage of such people.

The recent bomb attempt in Exeter, England, when an Islamic convert who was reportedly mentally ill, with low IQ and suffering from Aspergers, was so radicalised that he was preparing bombs to use to maim and kill people, suggests that the people behind him were not acting under any religious framework at all - but were driven by emotions only: hatred and fear. Worse, they bring shame on true Islamic believers, and through their actions will lead even more people to see Islam as an evil creed that only destroys and has no respect for the poor, sick and down-trodden. This is false! So called "Imams" who believe that they can recruit victims like poor Nicky Reilly have desecrated Islam and the teachings in the Koran and Hadith, and should be denounced by all true Muslims as false.

New Beginnings

September is an interesting time of the year. It is a time when the Summer is coming to an end, and the leaves are reddening and starting to fall (at least in the Northern Hemisphere - in the Southern it is a time when shoots start to appear, heralding the onset of Summer).

It is also the time when schools restart in the UK. Essentially it is the New Year for education. The astrological sign for the month is the scales or balance - Libra.

So September is a month when things change - and we need to find a balance. A balance between the seasons. A time when the old knowledge gets replaced by the new in the new school term.

In Jewish culture and religion September is also the month of the New Year - when traditionally all mankind is judged and their fortunes for the following year are put on the balance and weighed, based on their good and bad deeds from the preceding year. It is a time when religious Jews pray for forgiveness and apologize for any misdeeds they have done to their fellow human beings as well as to God. As an atonement they give charity - as prayer, repentance and charity can avert adverse Divine decrees and judgements.

Coincidentally, September this year is also the start of Ramadan - the Moslem holy month - where religious Moslems also pray, fast, and give charity.

I'd like to wish all school / college starters success in their studies, Moslems a Ramadan Kareem waMubarak, and Jews a Chatima Tova uMetukah.

May we all be inscribed in the book of
life, health, happiness and prosperity.

Communication

Most CI professionals are familiar with the standard competitive intelligence cycle (although you will often see variations). Typically the steps are given as:

1. planning & direction i.e. the boss - also known as the end-user :-) tells you what is needed and you or they work out how to get it;
2. collection - you follow your plan;
3. processing & analysis - you integrate the gathered information with other information to convert the information into something usable i.e. intelligence;
4. dissemination - you pass back the intelligence to the end-user and hope that they act on it.

Those who know me will know that I disagree with this cycle. There are a number of things wrong with the model - for example:

• the model lacks feedback steps;
• it doesn't integrate with other business processes adequately, such as the strategic/business planning cycles;
• it doesn't allow for serendipitous intelligence gathering crucial for effective early warning systems.

There are others, and when I teach CI I always highlight the problems, and also present alternatives. (For example the 4Cs model described in AWARE's brief guide to competitive intelligence)

My focus in this item however is the use of the word dissemination. The Encarta® World English Dictionary defines disseminate as "to distribute or spread something, especially information...". Most other dictionaries give similar definitions. The problem with this word is that it implies that information flows one way - from the collector to the end-user. There is no mention of information - feedback - flowing the other way or laterally throughout the organisation. Effective competitive intelligence needs an information sharing culture where information flows between those who have the intelligence and those who need it - each informing the other. The English word to describe this process is not dissemination, but communication.

The Encarta dictionary has a number of definitions for communication and the verb communicate. Communication is defined as "the exchange of information between individuals, for example, by means of speaking, writing, or using a common system of signs or behavior" while the second definition for communicate is "to transmit or reveal a feeling or thought by speech, writing, or gesture so that it is clearly understood".

Isn't this what we aim to do in competitive intelligence: not to disseminate intelligence without any feedback or even knowing if the intelligence is usable, useful or understood but to communicate it so that both parties clearly understand its impact and importance?

The problem is how to communicate intelligence so that it is understood, and used. That, however, will have to be a topic for a future blog entry.