Entries Tagged 'Thoughts' ↓

Is it necessary to present Wolfram Alpha, the new online research tool everybody is talking about those days? Obviously not! This is why we prefer to express our thoughts on it in 5 cons and 5 pros about Wolfram Alpha

5 cons on Wolfram Alpha

1. Wolfram Alpha is not a search engine but a Computational Knowledge engine. What in earth does this stand for?

Easy: Wolfram Alpha is not able to perform searches in an easy way. You have to put search terms with the right and correct words!

2. What kind of information is available in Wolfram Alpha?

Not a lot. Alpha is very specific. The best you can look for is mathematics, chemical compounds, dates, units or even the temperature in Madrid…Don’t get disappointed, we’ve warned you.

3. Wolfram Alpha is not clever on the contrary to what it claims to be

Information retrieval is based on a semantics and words tagging. With Alpha, if a word has not yet been tagged for one of its meanings in a context, you won’t get anything of it. What a pity! For example, try to ask it “Who discovered polonium?. It is not able to answer, while in google the same question is easily answered.

4. Wolfram Alpha is for hype people!

I mean, who is going to ask “How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?” in order to have this result mentioning Bob Dylan. What if we ask “Who is Luke’s father?“, well, here goes the answer namely not much.

5. Wolfram Alpha is not a resource for biomedical information.

Despite what you’ve heard about it, Alpha doesn’t provide life science publications as novoseek does.

5 Pros on Wolfram Alpha

1. Wolfram Alpha, this is not a search engine! It’s better.

The way information is treated and presented is far from what you’ve seen and experienced until now. It is not Google nor Wikipedia. It is able to “computate” almost anything you ask it. Try solve a x^2 + b x + c = 0 for x

2. Wolfram Alpha could revolutionize learning and searching on the internet

Although it takes much to learn how to use it and obtain effective results, it could be an interesting tool for pupils, students and professors.

3. Wolfram Alpha has some surprises and easter eggs for you to discover.

Here goes the top 10 easter eggs in wolfram alpha. There may be more, it’s up to you to look for them.

4. The Wolfram Alpha team is working hard to keep it updated.

If there are some failures, be patient and for sure they’ll be fixed soon. The “Give us your feedback” box at the bottom of pages is there for you to point out these.

5. They are working on making Wolfram Alpha more user friendly

According to statements, they will release an API and more detailed search boxes in order to make searches easier.

Obviously, search engines on the internet are bringing changes and new ways of accessing information. Is this another step towards web 3.0 ?

« How far do you listen to your customers? How are companies getting into social medias?” I have been thinking about asking you for a while now. In your company, do you have set up a platform (a blog, a twitter, a Facebook group, a getsatisfaction account, all of them at once) where they can talk with you? or where you could interact with them? If so, how far will you take into consideration what they say ?

You may be aware of how important are social medias today. You may also acknowledge the importance companies are granting them. Firms that have long been a one way inventing, developing and selling their products are now hiring costly consultants to get into “it“. Of course, “it” refers to social medias, users voice and to a -most of the time- unknown component of management. If they are not doing so, they still can hire a « community manager » or a « twitter manager » in a rush. I am not kidding, this job offer does exist as a twitter internship at Pizza Hut.

Undoubtedly, these jobs openings, this concern to get into social medias seem to be a consequence of several factors somehow connected.

• People now have means to speak about a product thanks to the several existing platforms
• Gathered in a community or through a communication channel, they have a voice and impact
• Firms have discovered (or at least considered) that some people say things about them
• And these things they say could either help them think and develop, benefit or do them harm

There comes the interesting part in terms of behavior and consideration towards customers. In your firm, have you developed something anticipating your users’ expectations or just responding to your boss and shareholders’ orders ? Depending on the answer, you are likely to succeed or fail.

In order to listen to your customers and get involved in discussions, there are already some good readings on the subject. I was surprised that when I asked « How far do you listen to your customer » on a our professional Linkedin Group, people would be likely to share their point of views and links. So there are few of them you may want to read :

• Social Media Monitoring: Why Life Science companies should listen?
• Unraveling the twitter riddle

I agree with statements expressed. Companies should listen to their customers. How far ? I don’t know yet. What is sure is that there must be a good balance between what you want to produce and what our customers’ expectations are. Listen too much to them and you will have the typical “design by committee horse“.

In the field of biotechnologies applied to the internet, listening is something rather new. At novoseek, this is something we put much emphasis on. We have several communications channels open and we try to answer every question that is asked to us. As to development’s needs, we take good care to explain why some of the suggestions are possible while others not. In any case, our Uservoice dedicated platform is the best place to suggest or ask us explanations.

Making long stories short, if you are a service or product’s user, how far do you think they are listening to you? And as a company employee, how far are you listening to them?

Swine Flu epidemics started a couple of weeks ago now and it has been largely covered in social medias. By social medias, I mean all those platforms where one is able to speak and share real-time information about swine flu. Like for other recent and outbreaking news, real-time information has shown its great and useful possibilities. In fact, recently they have been consulted and used to be broadcasted on mainstream channels such as television. I will insist on the “Twitter thing“, but not only and this is why we can talk of social medias.

The importance of Twitter has been largely acknowledged these past months. For example, this man twitting directly about the plane landing in the Hudson river or the Mumbay attacks. These are examples who have settled a new order in information releases. On one because people like you and me would be likely to become reporters -would they want it or not- able to release information and pictures. On the other hand because it would get people involved and react to attacks, threats or needs faster, as it was done for this hospital in Mumbai.

However, Swine Flu is pretty different: the epidemics is best managed by the WHO organization and there is few people like you and me could do besides informing about what is this disease about (H1N1, Influenza, etc). Are social medias information relevant for Swine Flu ? Is everyone entitled to speak about the Swine Flu on real time information platforms and social medias? Are there limits to one’s use of twitter? And, most importantly, are social medias infected with Swine Flu?

I was stuck by the amount of information people have been releasing on Swine Flu, regardless their specialty or their areas of interest. It just seems everybody had something to say and something to share on that matter. I admit that I (as part of the marketing team) decided too to enjoy this phenomenon to put a search example on H1N1 and swine flu in novoseek. But hey, we’re not the black sheep, other search engines did so, I’ll let you guess which ones.

To give you an idea of the phenomenon, let’s check on trends for swine flu in twitter. Obviously it’s been a hot potato on twitter. But not only. And interestingly, searches for this term experimented a great increase…that quickly dropped.

I understand this is something legitimate –getting worried and twitting about it. However not all of the twitts seem to be justified nor important. Indeed, people started joking about it or -even worse- spreading false information. And I sense that the “you can get swine flu by eating pork” comment is about to become a famous example. Trustworthy people have already been writing about it.

Don’t get me wrong, the problem is not in people joking about swine flu but in the information reliability. Since everyone can follow the hot news using the # hashtags in Twitter Search, it triggers a debate. How to find reliable information among users? Who can be trusted? Who should be avoided ? These are questions that matter-of-factly appear to me and should raise your conscience too.

According to the following statistics for Swine Flu in Google Trends we notice that the drop of interest is almost as fast as its rise. Are we dealing with a serious pandemics here, or just some buzz effect? I am wondering…

The fact is swine flu has had its days and information –good or bad- has spread like fire over social medias. People would speak about it on Facebook too. This map shows how people have been updating their status mentioning “swine flu” in it. It has gone west to east.

This is a good illustration of how people started mentioning swine flu in social medias regardless the reliability or truth of information they would state. One more example, people would start making business over it and enjoying the phenomenon, worries or hysteria (no matter how you call it)… It seems like using the Swine Flu keyword was the key to success. You don’t believe me? Have a look at this advertisement in Google when you perform a search for “prevent swine flu“.

You’ll tell me that it’s always been this way, people would tend to enjoy people’s worries and buzz events. But I fear that Swine Flu has reached a new step.

Where are we going with social medias? Is the epidemics matter enough for people to be entitled to tell all sort of things over the internet? Do we have to find a way to select and filter our contacts ? Should we move to other (new?) platforms? There are questions I don’t know how to answer but I’d sure like to have your opinion about.

Recently, Luis (General Manager of Bioalma) sent me the TV ad for the new search engine Searchme.com. For those who don’t know it yet, Searchme is a visual search engine that allows you to see the website that you are about to visit. Obviously, the ad is the perfect illustration of what Searchme is able to do for you and what changes it represents. I think it is really interesting and it brings up an exciting discussion. How difficult is it to change our processes? And how often do we change the way we do things?.

Changing is difficult. Just think of the last time you changed your favorite coffee brand you have every morning. When was that? Or the tools and programs you’re used to use on your computer. When was it? And what about your search engine. When was it? No need to give an answer now, but I guess it was a long time ago. And I can’t blame you for that, people tend to stick to what they are used to because:

• they are familiar with it
• they have it under control
• they have spent a great deal of time learning to use it at its best
• they were told to use it when they didn’t know much about them
• …

Even if we know that there are better solutions for a certain task we -you, I, everyone- don’t change that easily. The feeling of not having under control what we are doing is something not many people look forward to. Let me put it another way: change in habits is something that take time and can’t be afforded by all of us. How frustrating is it to notice that once you’re used to something, the trend’s already changed? Will you be one of the people who enjoy what they know or one of the people who enjoy what’s to be discovered?

Well, it is a tough question. For instance, how many times, when you are away from home and see an international food chain restaurant, you smile and think, finally somewhere where I know what I’m going to get?

Those are questions that have been studied and discussed more than once. Christensen CM and Raynor ME, in their book The Innovator’s Solution: creating and sustaining successful growth talk about how difficult it is for products to be successful if they request from the user to change processes. Seth Godin, in his book Purple Cow, puts emphasis on the early adopters and show how they can help one firm, one product, one idea or service spread on the market or not.

Searchme.com is a new visual search engine for the web. Unlike others, the results consist of a web site’s screenshot presented in the coverflow manner. This is a great innovation in visualization as the screenshot loads fast and allows you to skip from one to another in no time.

Antonio Ortiz, a Spanish technology blogger sustains that one of the ways of competing in the search engine landscape is by differentiation in visualization. However is not the only one.

Like Searchme there are many others search engine competing offering new visualization results. (For more information, you can read this comprehensive article on Visual Search Engines)

In the biomedical sector there are several  alternative search engine out there too. Few are based on technology to compete others in visualization and some they embraced semantic technologies to find more relevant results and make the search research process faster and less painful.

Since changing is difficult, do you think that people would change their favorite biomedical search engine for another? To what extent? And you, what would you do?

Dodo bird

The NIH’s recent measure responds to a paradox in the field of scientific publications.  It is the classic “chicken or egg” scenario.

First, much of the content generation is done so at no cost to the “publishing house”.  Researchers, sponsored mainly by public institutions – and driven by their own interests and search for knowledge – create new research.  The new content creation is usually based on “free” generation, collaboration and assessment of content.

Second, the publishing companies then add value by managing, editing and distributing that content. In this process, “end-user” scientists have willingly paid publishers for the ability to access this “approved” content.

So the paradox before us is…if the free content is based upon paid content (made available through publishing houses), should the new content be made available for free or follow the publishing payment model?

In fact, there is no black and white answer – but new technologies are creating an even more heated debate.

New technologies and the Internet have simplified the editing  and distribution processes, opening new possibilities for additional  formats and business models, such as open access publications, in  which access to contents is free and redistribution is at your fingertips.  Will the new technologies be able to handle the role that traditional publishers have successfully handled for nearly 100 years in the areas of managing, editing and distributing that content?

In the new model – what becomes of peer review?  In  the traditional method, public institutions fund the management and the peer-review  editing process, since these publications charge researchers for the  distribution and circulation of their work once it is considered  scientifically relevant.

Through PubMed Central, the NIH has generated a centralized system aimed to distribute scientific works which have already undergone a peer-review process, and have made scientists sponsored by the NIH add a clause regarding the copyright’s release to publishing companies, before the last version of their work can be  placed in this repository 12 months before the publication. Congress’s proposal wishes to avoid this kind of measure.

We must take into account that the research process is strongly supported in the maintained publication of new results, which daily becomes the base for additional discoveries by scientists. Better access to information and the implementation of easier conversations, such as access offered by the Internet would accelerate research, as mentioned  by Mr. Akst in The WSJ: “knowledge dissemination is crucial for the creation of wealth and can’t reproduce in isolation.”

It is true that the management of any peer-review process is necessary if willing to maintain the quality and excellence of scientific works,  but it is in any case a process in which scientists collaborate  voluntarily, a process in which new technologies have enabled a new,  easier distribution. And if there is an entity willing to lead the centralization of contents, is it sensible to approve measures not favoring this access to content?

Unfortunately I don’t have an answer.  To deny access to valuable medical information, just doesn’t seem right.  Neither does denying a commercial business the right to operate when it provides a valuable service.

So – chicken or egg?  All I know is this debate is not likely to go the way of the dodo bird anytime soon.