archive.Joe Lamantia.com

Thursday night I was at Casablanca in Harvard Square for an information architecture meet and greet after Lou’s Enterprise IA seminar. I ordered a Wolver’s. It was dim and noisy, so after shouting three times and pointing, I ended up with a Wolaver’s…
Not a surprise, right? My first thought was “What’s in my glass?” My second thought – I was surrounded by information architects – was about the semantic angle on the situation. It seems like a fair mistake to make in a loud and crowded bar. But as someone who works there, he should know the environmental context, the ways it affects fundamental tasks like talking and answering questions, and about any alternatives to what he thought I said that are close enough to be easily mistaken. Before I get too far, I’ll point out that I liked the mistake enough to order another.
Setting aside for a moment the notion of a semantically adept agent system that monitors interactions between bartenders and patrons to prevent mistakes like this, let’s look at something more likely, such as how does Google fair with this situation? Some post-socialization research shows that as far as Google is concerned, all roads do in fact lead to Wolaver’s. Even when Google’s results list begins with a link to a page on Wolver’s Ale from the originating brewery, it still suggests that you might want ‘wolaver’s ale’. Maybe this explains the bartender’s mistake.
Here’s the breakdown: Google US suggests “wolaver’s ale” when you search for “wolvers ale” and “wolver’s ale”, but not the other way around. When you search for “Wolavers”, Google suggests the correctly punctuated “Wolaver’s”. You can get to the American ale, but not the British.
More surprising, it’s the same from Google UK, when searching only British pages. (Someone tell me how pages become part of the UK? Maybe when they’re sent off to full-time boarding school?)
Google’s insistence on taking me from wherever I start to “Wolaver’s Ale” comes from more than simple American brew chauvanism. This is what happens when the wrong factors drive decisions about the meanings of things; it’s these basic decisions about semantics that determine whether or not a thing correctly meet the needs of the people looking for answers to a question.
You might say semantic misalignment (or whatever we choose to call this condition) is fine, since Google’s business is aimed at doing something else, but I can’t imagine that business leaderhsip and staff at Wolver’s would be too happy to see Google directing traffic away from them by suggesting that people didn’t want to find them in the first place. Neither Wolver’s nor Wolavers seems to have Google ads running for their names, but what if they did? By now we’re all familar with the fact that googling ‘miserable failure‘ returns a link to the White House web site. This reflects a popularly defined association rich in cultural significance, but that isn’t going to satisfy a paying customer who is losing business because a semantically unaware system works against them.
This a good example of a situation in which intelligent disambiguation based on relationships and inferencing within a defined context has direct business ramifications.
Here’s a preview of the full size table that shows the results of checking some variants of wolvers / wolavers:

Related posts:

Here’s a few examples of how Gmail has fared at matching the content of email messages to my Gmail address with advertising content.
A forwarded review of King Arthur gives me “King Arthur Competition” and “King Arthur – Was He Real?” For something this easy and contemporary, I would have expected to see suggestions about movie times and locations, offers to publish my screenplay, and collections of King Arthur collectibles.
An anecdote about Eamon de Valera delivers Shillelagh (sic.), “Irish Clan Aran Sweaters”, and “Classic Irish Imports”. This truly an easy one, since it’s a small pool of similar source terms to sort through. “No, I meant Eamon de Valera, the famous Irish ballet dancer…” Will Gmail suggest links with correct spellings at some future date, or offer correct links to things that you’ve mis-spelled?
A message about another forwarded email sent a few moments before brings “Groupwise email”, “Ecarboncopy.com”, and “Track Email Reading Time”. These are accurate by topic, but not interesting.
A recent email exchange on how to use an excel spreadsheet template card sorting analysis offers four links. Three are sponsored, the other is ‘related’. The sponsored links include “OLAP Excel Browser”, “Microsoft Excel Templates”, and “Analysis Services Guide”. A related link is, “Generating Spreadsheets with PHP and PEAR”. These are simple word matches – none of them really approached the central issue of the conversation, which concerned how to best use automated tools for card sorting.
Last month, in the midst of an exchange about making vacation plans for the 4th of July with family, Gmail offered “Free 4th of July Clip Art”, “Fireworks Weather Forecasts”, and “U.S. Flags and patriotic items for sale”. Given the obvious 4th of July theme, this performance is less impressive, but still solid, offering me a convenience-based service in a timely and topical fashion.
Most interesting of all, a message mentioning a relative of mine named Arena yields links for “Organic Pastas” and “Fine Italian Pasta Makers”. Someone’s doing something right with controlled vocabularies and synonym rings, since it’s clear that Google knows Arena is an Italian surname in this instance and not a large structure for performances: even though it only appeared in the text of the email once, and there was no context to indicate which meaning it carried.
Beyond the obvious – you send me a message, Gmail parses it for terms and phrases that match a list of sponsored links, and I see the message and the links side-by-side – what’s happening here?
Three things:
1. Gmail is product placement for your email. In the same way that the Coke can visible on the kitchen table during a passing shot in the latest romantic comedy from Touchstone pictures is more an advertising message than part of the overall mise en scene, those sponsored links are a commercially driven element of the experience of Gmail that serves a specific agenda exterior to your own.
2. Gmail converts advertisements (sponsored links) into a form of hypertext that should be called advertext. Gmail is creating a new advertext network composed of Google’s sponsored links in companion to your correspondence. Before Gmail, the sponsored links that Google returned in accompaniment to search queries were part of an information space outside your immediate personal universe,
3. Gmail connects vastly different information spaces and realms of thinking. Google’s sponsored links bridge any remaining gap between personal, private, individual conversations, and the commercialized subset of cyberspace that is Google’s ad-verse. You will inevitably come to understand the meaning and content of your messages differently as a result of seeing them presented in a context informed by and composed of advertising.
The implications of the third point are the most dramatic. When all of our personal spaces are fully subject to colonization by the ad-verse, what communication is left that isn’t an act of marketing or advertisement?

Related posts:

Five minutes after logging into my shiny new gmail account today and sending out a hello message toa few friends, I got a taste of new technology pranksterism: an old friend sent a reply to my hello loaded with keywords for everyone’s favorite flavors of spam. Naturally, my friend had read the Gmail intro that outlines their keyword targeted ad policy, stating that one of the conditions of participating in the beta was that Google would serve up ads related to the content of my messages within the new UI.
I don’t know how aggressively Google will match ads to content, but I haven’t seen anything tied to Scranton, PA on my screen yet. As a riposte, my friend should soon see plenty of discount remedies for embarrassing medical conditions, debilitating psychological illnesses, and other matters of questionable taste.
Funny or not, I find it a bit spooky that my mail is being parsed in order to drive advertising. Yes, un-encrypted email is basically as private as a post-card – but it’s highly unlikely that the local post office is going to slip a brochure for travel agencies and package vacations into friends’ mailboxes to accompany the post-cards I send them while I’m visiting Barcelona or Tenerife.
And then there are the inevitable followup questions: what kinds of patterns is Google building on top of this? Are they using geomatching to ID clusters of themes within zip codes? Maybe creating a history of my searching behavior and the number of times I follow the links placed by the engine, to establish a baseline for how susceptible I am to advertising? Or how often people in certain networks read and reply to messages with certain kinds of content?
I don’t think paranoia is appropriate, but there is a double-edged sword in every technology – especially one like this that combines accumulating personal data with tremendous interpretive power.
And even if I did sign up for the free account knowing that Gmail use implied acceptance of this practice, privacy remains a fundamental right. You can’t create valid and binding contracts that require or permit illegal activity.
Look out for travel guides to Scranton…

Related posts: