PointConcept

I attended a launch party for a new search application the other day. Pingar is an enterprise search platform or should I say research platform. I was totally wowed by the method they have used to produce the results. Pingar is aimed at the enterprise and specifically Sharepoint users at present and it is here that one of its unique strengths lays. Pingar does not produce a list of a zillion links for you to follow. It goes inside the resulting documents and extracts the relevant information. Which it compiles into a human readable report. So say the Chairman of a large corporation does a search on financial reports by sector. He has an overall view of how his company is doing. He can share this with his directors and it can be seen by the sales managers. However, and this is the neat bit for the enterprise, the sales managers can only see those parts of the results for which they have clearance. Pingar connects to the company permissions system and applies its restrictions.

At the party someone stated “journalists may be redundant”. My reply was that as gatherer’s on information they are, but as analysts of information, they are in more demand than ever. It is okay having all this data but, someone needs to make sense of it.

This took me back to a subject which has been on my mind of late. The nature of the content on the web. Can it be trusted and how can business know the validity of the facts on which it is basing its decisions? You see there is a method to research which academics, journalists and “researchers” should use. They should record and verify the sources of the facts they are placing in their content. There is a huge swathe of content (like this statement) which has no factual backing and no references against which it can be checked. I cannot give you a reference or source here because I can find no study on the issue. Its based on observation and may be flawed. But I don’t think so.

Take for example slideshare.com. They provide a great resource, an easy to use method for sharing power points. You go to a conference and the presenter can make his power point freely accessible to all to re watch later. But how many of those power points contain references. I looked at 20 the other day on a particular sensitive subject and only one had any form of reference. Yet people are using these as sources. But they may be the emperors new content. Without substance, without research or references to research, to back them up. Or notice that they are opinion. They may well be created using sources which where created using sources which had no factual basis at all. Yet it is regurgitated and used by the misinformed or the under-pressure  and may well be presented as facts upon which business and political decisions are made.

There is an old adage, “if it is in the paper it must be true”. It seems that this has now become “if its on the web……”

This is one of the things I really likes about Pingar, it produced a report based on the search request using contextual matching. But it also then gave all its sources and with the click of a link would pull the data in to supply me with the deeper perspective as needed. Being built from an academic research perspective, it needs to prove the veracity of the data it is supplying. I am not totally sure how this will work in the web as opposed to an intranet. But then maybe this is actually the tool for the deep web. Finding the real source rather than the conversations about it. Or it may cause a change in the way results are supported with others providing better meta data to support the authenticity of what they are supplying.

That can only be a good thing.