It probably doesn’t mean much, but I’m very glad that  my little post on Google’s query assistant was read by someone from the giant from Mountain View and that it made an impact. In fact, if you try searching now, you’ll see that the number of results are no longer displayed. I had suggested that they put a number such as  an “order of magnitude”, but they may have had problems with that as well, so they chose not to put anything at all.

My suggestion was  playful food for thought, however, I am pleased to see that paying attention to the user is still an important element to Google. The fact that they completely eliminated the number leads me to believe that they may have problems with traffic  or volume (the numbers were useful indications of the abundance of the query, so it is strange that they removed them altogether if there weren’t more serious problems underneath).
Seeing as though I have their attention, I’d like to make another suggestion: why not fix the number problems in Google News, too?

I finally found some time to try out the Internet’s newcomer: WolframAlpha.

I wanted to first try the system before expressing an opinion on it, so that I could based my judgment on real, concrete evidence instead of just on speculation and theory. I thought my expert eye would need at least three or four hours to be able to scrutinize the pros and cons of this service (yes, a “service”: although everyone tends to define it as search engine, Stephen Wolfram has never called it that). In reality, it took just a short time for me to realize that, at least for the moment, there is nothing revolutionary about this “computational knowledge engine”.

Basically, it is a system developed to obtain mathematical, scientific or statistical information (most of which is already available on the Web) in the simplest and fastest way possible, making everything accessible from one entryway. At the moment, the whole thing is quite second-rate, but this normal, as it is the very first version. I am neither passionate nor an expert of the content that the system makes most accessible, so I really don’t know which advantages WolframAlpha would be able to offer to who actually works on these subjects or just uses them for fun. The impression that I get is that the service is not of much relevance for the everyday user. I tried asking it a few questions in the more general dominions (such as sports and games for anagrams), and I noticed that the coverage and comprehension are seriously limited. Also, the module that works on the elaboration of natural language is quite primitive: considering that more than 200 people worked for over 2 years on this project, I think they could have done a lot better with this aspect (and I know how they could have :-).

Most likely, this service has fallen prey to the excessive expectations of those who gravitate around the world of search engines. The frenetic, almost messianic wait for the Web’s new Chosen One, the Google Killer, makes people lose sight of the fact that the creation of something which is actually innovative and useful for millions of people, is extremely complex and difficult. The fact that Google hasn’t presented substantial research innovations in years (besides some aesthetic touchups, longer abstracts and correlated keywords), goes to show that the road towards real improvement is definitely uphill.

If we get rid of all the hype which has built up during past two months, just a couple final considerations remain: first of all, it is a good thing that someone is trying to do something new (the efforts of Wolfram and his team should be praised); second, it may be best to wait at least another month before passing final judgments. The world is big enough to give room to successful services, even if they are aimed at specific sectors (in the end, the market is nothing else than a bunch of these sectors put together… ).

The only thing that I can say for certain is that the hunt for the new Google killer is still on, giving journalists (and me) something to write about for a long time :-).

Google keeps releasing new (little) functions and refining those already in existence. This is all fine and good, but perhaps it is time that it cleared up few matters regarding what has been in place for quite some time. I find it interesting to highlight the problems commonly encountered during web searches (plus it’s fun to put King Google through the wringer

Theoretically, when we search in Google, we insert a couple of words, without quotation marks, without paying attention to the order. The system should apply a sort of AND between the two words (which then shifts to OR depending on the mysterious formulas applied). It seems, however, that this doesn’t actually occur and that the number of results are simply an approximation.

In fact, if I search for Angelina Jolie, Google tells me that there are approximately 47,100,000 results, while if I search for Jolie Angelina, for no apparent reason, the results are cut down to just 7,660,000. Perhaps this is due to the fact that most people use the first search method (first name followed by the last name). But this still doesn’t explain why: if I search for Jolie Pitt, I get approximately 1,820,000 results, while if I search for Pitt Jolie, I get approximately 8,620,000… And not only: because if I search for Angelina AND Jolie, the results decrease to 40,400,000, which is neither logical, nor intuitive (although it is possible to imagine what Google is doing behind the curtains…) and if I search “Angelina Jolie”, the results are similar to the very first search.

Similarly, the vagueness of the query suggestion assistant is baffling: I inserted the name “Brad Pitt” with the query suggestion assistant turned on, and I saw approximately 28,100,000 results. But, as I completed the query, the results became 23,400,000.

A suggestion for a Google: seeing as though almost no one goes beyond the first two pages of results, why not simplify and just write “more than 1,000 results” or “more than 10,000 results” in these cases? Or, as an alternative, they could copy Yahoo! and actually make the numbers match the different search variants.

The Big Three American auto companies are in turmoil. And they did it to themselves.

President Obama said, “The pain being felt in places that rely on our auto industry is not the fault of our workers, who labor tirelessly and desperately want to see their companies succeed. And it is not the fault of all the families and communities that supported manufacturing plants throughout the generations. Rather, it is a failure of leadership – from Washington to Detroit – that led our auto companies to this point.”

Certainly the economy has complicated the auto-makers lives. But their troubles began long before the start of the current recession. And it begs the question; “What could Detroit have done differently to avoid such a precipitous decline?” More importantly, “Are they doing the right thing now to improve their business in the future?”.

The key, as in any business, is a focus on customers. What do they want? What do they care about in an automobile? What do they not like and is Detroit fixing it?

The voice of the customer can be heard, loud and clear – if Detroit made the effort. Everyday customers weigh in on the internet in the focus of chat rooms, blogs, and auto review sites. In fact they do so at a phenomenal rate. The trick is to read enough or process enough of their thoughts and opinions to make sense of it all.

The semantic technology at Expert System can do the processing – at a speed and with accuracy that rivals human readers. Here is what we found.

Of the Big 3 Ford looks like it is in relatively good shape. We collected and measured customer sentiment on an overall brand level between Ford and Chrysler. That chart is below. It shows that both companies maintained an even impression in the minds of consumers until very recently. By nearly the 4th quarter of 2008 did desire for the Chrysler brand begin to dip significantly below that of Ford. Why?

Average Brand Sentiment Ford vs. Chrysler

The answer lies in looking at the different features and identifying where problems lie – from the perspective of the customer. Every car lie within a brand will have a range of opinions about their merits or pitfalls.

Most car models have a range of likes and dislikes across their features from very poor to excellent. This would be expected. This range of opinion is shown below for all features of the Chrysler brand.

Opinion on all Chrysler Features

But once you dive into the features – acceleration, brakes, engines, exterior, fuel consumption, interior, price, seats, speed and test drive – a big difference emerges. As shown in the next two graphs a predominance of a poor rating on brakes and engines shows itself.

If Chrysler had listened to what customers had been saying for over 2½ years it would seem they would have had time to fix the problem and prevented the decline in it overall brand image at the close of 2008. How hard would it have been to add larger more functional breaks, and at what cost? Granted engines might be a harder engineering trick but isn’t that the main reason Chrysler is now getting into bed with Fiat – for their engines? So it seems President Obama is right when he says the problems rest with management.

GM - The Right Mix of Brands?

In the last several days we have learned that GM will add Pontiac to the list of brands it will shed in addition to Saab, Saturn and Hummer. That will leave Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC. Certainly there are financial, contractual and technology reasons to reduce the brand mix in this way but is that what customers want? And should the voice of the customer be paramount in any restructuring decision? Let’s take a look.

Customer Sentiment GMC vs. Pontiac

In the minds of customers’ Pontiac edges out GMC in the excellent and good categories. Perhaps not by much but it does seem odd GM would abandon a brand that has a higher impression in the mind of those who are prepared to part with their money.

Customer Sentiment GMC vs Saab

While smaller in volume terms the comparison is even starker when it comes to Saab. If we compared Chevrolet to Saab the differences shrink but not by much. Customers clearly love their Saab more than they love the other brands GM has elected to keep. It’s as if the local jewellery store decided to sell off all its diamonds so they could keep selling gem stones. They make more money now but have less of a chance to make money later. It doesn’t seem like a recipe for long term health.

Who Has a Say?