Though many computer tech heads and Internet studies folks have been buzzing around the concept of the “Deep Web”–vast sections of the Web that is not searchable or even databased by Google and other search engines–it seems that the New York Times has broken the MSM(mainstream media)’s silence about it.
Despite my finnickyness about language and naming (which I can’t help but to express), the conundrum around the problems of “Deep Web” are still worth considering in a serious way. And I do not mean in just a scholarly or intellectual way. This has real consequences for how we organize knowledge on the Internet. Most of use “the Google,” as our former Prez Dubya used to say. It’s easy and familiar, but we lest we forget what the early days of the Web looked like, we may take Google’s layout of “Search Results” for granted as well as the process by which it collects knowledge. What do I mean?
See, you can look at search engines as having two elementary aspects–collection and presentation. This is key to any research, and thus, it is no different for Google or any other search engine. Now most search engines use something called a crawler (remember Web Crawler for all my AOL heads?). Now what this does is that it literally crawls to various pages of the web and makes connections based on hyperlinks. Or as the author from the Times article writes:
Search engines rely on programs known as crawlers (or spiders) that gather information by following the trails of hyperlinks that tie the Web together. While that approach works well for the pages that make up the surface Web, these programs have a harder time penetrating databases that are set up to respond to typed queries.
The last sentence is key. What is ultimately impenetrable for these spiders are databases. So how does one make the Deep Web searchable?
To extract meaningful data from the Deep Web, search engines have to analyze users’ search terms and figure out how to broker those queries to particular databases. For example, if a user types in “Rembrandt,” the search engine needs to know which databases are most likely to contain information about art ( say, museum catalogs or auction houses), and what kinds of queries those databases will accept.
This sounds reasonable but it’s easier said than done. The challenge is not so much obtaining the data, since there is the big G and others who are on the case–including Kosmix, whom I wrote about on this very blog a while ago. The interesting problem is, as reported:
As the major search engines start to experiment with incorporating Deep Web content into their search results, they must figure out how to present different kinds of data without overcomplicating their pages. This poses a particular quandary for Google, which has long resisted the temptation to make significant changes to its tried-and-true search results format.
Now I see this as a nice little space for others besides Google to make a move on the big G. Google seems to be attached to its “Search Results” aesthetic, what I will call “vertical.” But in fact the Deep Web is about making “horizontal” connections. The question becomes will Google maintain its vertical aesthetic, and somehow fit the horizontality of the Deep Web in it? Will its stubbornness make room for others like Kosmix?
Just the thought excites me…
But back to the title of the post, judging from the reporting it seems that the Deep Web is really wide Web. One which has burrows and off-shoots that defy the simple figure of surface and depth but one which is much like the effect of spilling liquid on the city street. It finds various pathways–into crevasses and holes unrecognized before.
The Bits Blog at the New York Times has reported that Twitter has just received $35 million dollars in capital from Institutional Venture Partners and Benchmark Capital. Wowzas. I’ll let you sit on that for a second…
Now your reaction should not so much be, “Wow. Twitter is that awesome.” No. Though I love Twitter, its awesomeness is not what influences venture capital to invest so much money. You got it–it is its ability to be somehow monetized. These capital firms are looking at one thing right now: growth in users, which is at 900% in the last year. WTF?
But the question for all of us who use Twitter and/or do Internet studies is what will this look like? According to the Times, they are going to do something quite amazing–”charging businesses for certain features they can use to talk to customers on Twitter.”
(Wow. Such great detail in the reporting. zOMG!)
I still don’t know what that means. Does that mean companies can direct message Twitter users? Or that they can follow them? Or is it selling our email info? I’m still curious as to how Twitter is going to actually play this out but I’m rather wary. I know they are up to something. And I know they will not resort to banner advertising, which will all be dead soon enough as long as there is something new that will supplant it. Will Twitter be the one to develop it? Not sure, they aren’t telling us much.
Randall Stross, in the New York Times, has just written about the resilience of TV in the age of the Web. As he writes, when print subscriptions are on the outs (do I have to tell you about the budgetary concerns of all print media–magazines and newspapers), it seems people are still watching TV, in spite of the growing number of hours we are spending “online.” (I hate this term because I believe there is no such thing as “offline.” If you shut your laptop and try to relax in front of your TV with your cell phone still on, it’s not getting “offline.”)
Here’s Stross outlining what he sees as a rather peculiar juxtaposition of facts:
Why is the newspaper business losing readers at an accelerated rate while television viewership is stronger than ever? Here’s a speculative idea: A tipping point has been passed in the competition between print and screen that has been under way since the beginnings of broadcast TV and now continues with video and other media.
Consumers are increasingly avoiding newspapers — and books, too — because the text mode is now used so infrequently that it can feel like a burden. People are showing a clear preference for a fully formed video experience that comes ready to play on a screen, requiring nothing but our passive attention.
I apologize for the extended quote but I think it is crucial to see what Stross is getting at. In point of fact, it is not TV as a medium model that is resilient according to Stross but video (moving images) and screens. The bottom line here is: people no longer look to text for “immersive” experiences.
You now hear talk in the advertising trade of our “three screens”: television, the Internet and mobile devices. When I asked representatives of major ad agencies about how they chose the optimal mix of media for clients, I was led back, again and again, to television. That’s not just because it remains the one place where an advertiser can gather a truly mass audience for a single commercial message, but also because it provides what advertisers call an “immersive experience.”
Stross thinks the beginnings of the “immersive experience” is TV because of his clear bias towards advertising revenue. What film did not readily do for corporations is provide a platform to advertising, at least prior to the adoption of pre-feature ads which are very common today. But as most media theorists would now agree, the grounds of “immersive experience” is not TV at all but cinema. Again, not simply the actual film itself but the entire cultural and technical apparatus of cinema, which includes the system of the Big Five studio system in Hollywood and also the fact that movies are watched via projection and in the dark.
TV has never attempted to jockey for that central position of attention as did film. While watching a movie, you’re not supposed to talk with your neighbor and sometimes take your eye off the screen. Film’s “vocation” was to fill the entirety of consciousness, which it was able to do through technical means–large aspect-ratio, surround sound, etc.
Stross is not only a poor media historian but clearly in the bag for corporate advertising. He may do himself some good by reading Lev Manovich’s The Language of New Media.
The Grey Lady. That’s right, the venerable New York Times is who I’m talking about.
Why?
Well I just read that they are seriously considering to begin charging for online access of one form or another. Remember the days of Times Select, when they charged for the Op-Eds? According to the Huffington Post, this sort of thing may return because as you all may have heard, the Times is struggling. Reports say they are borrowing money right now at 14% interest. Read it folks. 14%!!!!! That’s like what adjustable rate mortgages come out to on the other end of the teaser rate.
Here’s more from Huffington Post:
“TimesSelect generated something like $10 million a year, which was real money, but in the end the company calculated that we’d be better off taking down the wall and letting the flood of additional visitors to the Web site attract advertising dollars,” Keller said. “The lesson of that experiment, however, was not that readers won’t pay for content.”
Errrrrr, we’ll see how successful that’ll be. I’m betting against it. Anytime, there is some kind of subscription fee, the site loses “stickiness,” that is, the eye-time that surfers spend on the site. That’s because I think we have come to a point to be highly suspicious of subscription especially for the Times, which had previously quit charging people for online access. If they were going to continue with TimesSelect, they should’ve never taken it away. I think at this point, they are going to have a tough time reinstating it, while maintaining the same kind of traffic and “stickiness.” We’ll see what happens. I like the Times and the Sulzbergers are Fieldston fam-o but I think this is a bad move. I’m willing to be proven wrong though…
As you may have already heard, the new Google Earth (5.0) is out and it is causing quite a stir for those who care. There are some new features but I won’t go into all of them. Among the highlights is this thing being dubbed “Google Ocean.” Google Ocean uses 3D bathymetry, which allows you to see wave motion and also go beneath the ocean surface. This is clearly phenomenal but there is an additional feature which tickles my fancy–historical imagery. Yes people, that’s right. You can go to satellite images of previous eras!!!!!!! Needless to say, the option does not allow you to go as far back as the Pangea days but I think this has a deep significance for something that I’ve been looking into for my dissertation work which is the development of what I’m calling “God vision” undergirded by developments in digital media. The kind of motion and scale of Google Earth eclipses “vision” as somehow defined through the eyeballs. Since the days of Galileo, this has been the case but in his day it was relegated to heretical geniuses who had specialized knowledge. Now, we are all God.
I’ll post entire chapters over the summer when I get more work done.
Props to the Google Earth Blog.
Usually we record on Saturday, but this time we did it on Friday, at the end of a long work week. So: Elliott is manic, Danyel is kinda tired and no we’re not OT at this year’s Super Bowl—which was the reason we taped on Friday night in the first place. Topics? Grammy nominations. The bloody battle for Internet Domination. The boss Rick Ross’ homage to Special Ed’s magnificence. Oh and Elliott’s ability to treat strippers and go-go dancers like the dainty debutantes they really are. See ya at Grammy’s. We promise!
