everything
Google acquires ITA for $700m, dives headfirst into airline ticket search
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/02/google-acquires-ita-for-700m-dives-headfirst-into-airline-tick/
Look out, Kayak / Bing Travel — you both are about to have your respective worlds rocked. While Google has managed to stay on top (or close to the top) when it comes to almost everything search related, the company has curiously allowed smaller niche brands to handle the travel side. Even amongst the hardcore Googlers, avid flyers typically head to a place like Kayak to weigh their options, while vacation planners either do likewise or turn to Bing Travel. In a few months time, we suspect some of that traffic will be diverted back to El Goog. The company has just announced plans to acquire Cambridge-based ITA Software for a cool $700 million, which will put one of the world’s most sophisticated QPX software tools for organizing flight information into the hands of the planet’s most dangerous search ally. According to Google, the pickup will allow consumers to search and buy airline tickets with less hassle and frustration, though it’s quick to point out that it has “no plans to sell airline tickets [directly] to consumers.” For the travel junkies in attendance, there’s a high probability that you won’t find any better news coming your way today than this.
[Thanks, Matthew]
Continue reading Google acquires ITA for $700m, dives headfirst into airline ticket search
Google acquires ITA for $700m, dives headfirst into airline ticket search originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:02:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink
Gadling |
Official Google Blog, Google | Email this | Comments
Google Rolling Out "Google Me," Their Facebook Killer, Very Soon [Unconfirmed]
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5573953/rumor-google-rolling-out-google-me-their-facebook-killer-very-soon
Well this is kinda wacky. Citing a “very credible source,” Digg founder Kevin Rose tweeted that Google is readying “Google Me,” a social service intended to go toe-to-toe (face-to-face?) with Facebook. It’s like Google stalking, but official, and thus marginally less creepy!
Google Buzz, their most recent foray into social networking, was not a resounding success (read: total privacy shitshow) and I imagine there’s some lingering skepticism about Google’s ability to actually keep all of its users information on lockdown.
Then again, they already know just about everything there is to know about you, so maybe it’d be easier to forget Facebook altogether and just click a button in Gmail that says, “Yes! Cull your extensive records to make a “Google Me” profile in my best image, selectively including the photographs and personal interests likeliest to get me laid.” Kidding, kidding, I promise that’s not what I’m all about. Seriously! Google me! [Kevin Rose via Runnin Scared and SF Weekly]
Google’s New Indexing System Is Fully Caffeinated
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5559015/googles-new-indexing-system-is-fully-caffeinated
Google’s latest web indexing system, the tool that pre-scans the entire web to have a ready answer to your search query, promises “50 percent fresher results for web searches.” It’s called Caffeine. And it comes with staggering Google search stats.
The main difference with Caffeine is that, rather than search one entire group of sites (represented in that lead graphic as a layer), then another, less prioritized group of sites, then yet another less prioritized group of sites, everything with the Caffeine algorithm is pretty much indexed constantly. Teased for several months now, Caffeine is the sort of update Google needs to follow the pace of searching services like Twitter. And indeed, Google will need to maintain/continue such innovations to keep up—our world is translated from analog to digital in more, quicker ways every day.
So now for those wicked Google stats:
• Every second Caffeine processes hundreds of thousands of pages in parallel.
• If this were a pile of paper it would grow three miles taller every second
• Caffeine takes up nearly 100 million gigabytes of storage in one database
• Caffeine adds new information at a rate of hundreds of thousands of gigabytes per day.
• You would need 625,000 of the largest iPods to store that much information
• If these iPods were stacked end-to-end they would go for more than 40 miles.
[Google]
‘we tried to buy a company called AdMob’
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/steve-jobs-we-tried-to-buy-a-company-called-admob/

We’d previously heard rumors that Quattro Wireless was Apple’s consolation prize after a deal with bigger mobile advertising rival AdMob fell through, and Steve Jobs confirmed it on no uncertain terms at the Q&A session following today’s iPhone OS 4.0 event: “we tried to buy a company called AdMob… but Google snatched it away.” Indeed they did, though that deal hasn’t yet been approved by the Federal Trade Commission while Apple’s already up, up and away with its iAd solution, so it seems like everything shook out for the best — if you’re an iPhone developer, anyway.
Steve Jobs: ‘we tried to buy a company called AdMob’ originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:41:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | | Email this | Comments
How Google Crunches All That Data
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5495097/how-google-crunches-all-that-data
If data centers are the brains of an information company, then Google is one of the brainiest there is. Though always evolving, it is, fundamentally, in the business of knowing everything. Here are some of the ways it stays sharp.
For tackling massive amounts of data, the main weapon in Google’s arsenal is MapReduce, a system developed by the company itself. Whereas other frameworks require a thoroughly tagged and rigorously organized database, MapReduce breaks the process down into simple steps, allowing it to deal with any type of data, which it distributes across a legion of machines.
Looking at MapReduce in 2008, Wired imagined the task of determining word frequency in Google Books. As its name would suggest, the MapReduce magic comes from two main steps: mapping and reducing.
The first of these, the mapping, is where MapReduce is unique. A master computer evaluates the request and then divvies it up into smaller, more manageable “sub-problems,” which are assigned to other computers. These sub-problems, in turn, may be divided up even further, depending on the complexity of the data set. In our example, the entirety of Google Books would be split, say, by author (but more likely by the order in which they were scanned, or something like that) and distributed to the worker computers.
Then the data is saved. To maximize efficiency, it remains on the worker computers’ local hard drives, as opposed to being sent, the whole petabyte-scale mess of it, back to some central location. Then comes the second central step: reduction. Other worker machines are assigned specifically to the task of grabbing the data from the computers that crunched it and paring it down to a format suitable for solving the problem at hand. In the Google Books example, this second set of machines would reduce and compile the processed data into lists of individual words and the frequency with which they appeared across Google’s digital library.
The finished product of the MapReduce system is, as Wired says, a “data set about your data,” one that has been crafted specifically to answer the initial question. In this case, the new data set would let you query any word and see how often it appeared in Google Books.
MapReduce is one way in which Google manipulates its massive amounts of data, sorting and resorting it into different sets that reveal new meanings and have unique uses. But another Herculean task Google faces is dealing with data that’s not already on its machines. It’s one of the most daunting data sets of all: the internet.
Last month, Wired got a rare look at the “algorithm that rules the web,” and the gist of it is that there is no single, set algorithm. Rather, Google rules the internet by constantly refining its search technologies, charting new territories like social media and refining the ones in which users tread most often with personalized searches.
But of course it’s not just about matching the terms people search for to the web sites that contain them. Amit Singhal, a Google Search guru, explains, “you are not matching words; you are actually trying to match meaning.”
Words are a finite data set. And you don’t need an entire data center to store them—a dictionary does just fine. But meaning is perhaps the most profound data set humanity has ever produced, and it’s one we’re charged with managing every day. Our own mental MapReduce probes for intent and scans for context, informing how we respond to the world around us.
In a sense, Google’s memory may be better than any one individual’s, and complex frameworks like MapReduce ensure that it will only continue to outpace us in that respect. But in terms of the capacity to process meaning, in all of its nuance, any one person could outperform all the machines in the Googleplex. For now, anyway. [Wired, Wikipedia, and Wired]
Image credit CNET
Memory [Forever] is our week-long consideration of what it really means when our memories, encoded in bits, flow in a million directions, and might truly live forever.
Inside Google’s Secret Search Algorithm
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/zzkIcilnJp4/inside-googles-secret-search-algorithm
Wired’s Steven Levy takes us inside the “algorithm that rules the web“—Google’s search algorithm, of course—and if you use Google, it’s kind of a must-read. PageRank? That’s so 1997.
It’s known that Google constantly updates the algorithm, with 550 improvements this year—to deliver smarter results and weed out the crap—but there are a few major updates in its history that have significantly altered Google’s search, distilled in a helpful chart in the Wired piece. For instance, in 2001, they completely rewrote the algorithm; in 2003, they added local connectivity analysis; in 2005, results got personal; and most recently, they’ve added in real-time search for Twitter and blog posts.
The sum of everything Google’s worked on—the quest to understand what you mean, not what you say—can be boiled down to this:
This is the hard-won realization from inside the Google search engine, culled from the data generated by billions of searches: a rock is a rock. It’s also a stone, and it could be a boulder. Spell it “rokc” and it’s still a rock. But put “little” in front of it and it’s the capital of Arkansas. Which is not an ark. Unless Noah is around. “The holy grail of search is to understand what the user wants,” Singhal says. “Then you are not matching words; you are actually trying to match meaning.”
Oh, and by the way, you’re a guinea pig every time you search for something, if you hadn’t guessed as much already. Google engineer Patrick Riley tells Levy, “On most Google queries, you’re actually in multiple control or experimental groups simultaneously.” It lets them constantly experiment on a smaller scale—even if they’re only conducting a particular experiment on .001 percent of queries, that’s a lot of data.
Be sure to check out the whole piece, it’s ridiculously fascinating, and borders on self-knowledge, given how much we all use Google (sorry, Bing). [Wired, Sweet graphic by Wired's Mauricio Alejo]
Additional Information on Real Time Bidding
![]()
About Me
Tags
Popular Posts
- HP Mini 311 Nvidia ION Netbook Hackintosh'ed
- Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
- When NOT to use Groupon (as an advertiser)
- How-To View Gmail for iPad on Your Regular Computer - Chrome and Safari
- social media benchmarks
- What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
- Facebook's Security Check Asks Users to Identify Photos of Friends' Dogs, Gummi Bears
- Vapor4 May Be the First Bumper Worthy of the iPhone 4
- Two Social Success Stories - Groupon and FourSquare
Recent Posts
- ‘we are prioritizing our Android platform’
- 1531
- 1529
- 1527
- HP Labs teams up with Hynix to manufacture memristors, plans assault on flash memory in 2013
- Amazon planning subscription video service to challenge Netflix and Hulu?
- It’s Time To Make Standardized Ratings For Gadgets
- Arcade Fire and Google Pushing HTML5 Together
- New ARM architecture (likely Eagle) better suited for OS virtualization
- view movie service by end of 2010, says Financial Times
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
- Augustine Fou | ClickZ
- ClickZ Welcomes Augustine Fou | ClickZ
- The ROI for Social Media Is Zero | ClickZ
- A New Definition of 'Digital' | ClickZ
- Social Commerce: In Friends We Trust | ClickZ
- 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing | ClickZ
- Digital is the DNA of All Advertising | ClickZ
- Experiential Marketing | ClickZ
- Social Intensity: A New Measure for Campaign Success? | ClickZ
- Beyond Targeting in the Age of the Modern Consumer | ClickZ
Pages
Archives
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (101)
- July 2010 (61)
- June 2010 (28)
- May 2010 (28)
- April 2010 (26)
- March 2010 (33)
- February 2010 (21)
- January 2010 (12)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (14)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (19)
- July 2009 (34)
- June 2009 (11)
- May 2009 (4)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (32)
- January 2009 (25)
- December 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- November 2007 (1)

Kellog’s [sic] Recalled Products is a new Android app. It lets you scan the barcodes on Kellogg’s items, with the results compared against a recalled products database—so you know what’s edible and what may contain traces of glass/metal/human skin.



