Get the real story via our monthly newsletter

Search

    2
    0

rss

Send to a colleague

Home > Commentary > Trends Archive > Not tuning the Google Search Appliance

Browse TrendWatch Blog

Recent Blog Entries

The Complete Archive

Trends by Vendor


TrendWatch by Channel

Web Content Management Trends

Enterprise Portals Trends

ECM Trends

Web Analytics Trends

Enterprise Search Trends

SharePoint


Report Excerpt

The Enterprise Search Report 2008 looks at... Google Appliance

"Even Google's marketing won't go so far as to call their implementation "enterprise-class security," instead favoring to highlight single sign-on (which the Appliance supports quite well). Document-level security is handled late-binding - the result sets are filtered for hits a searcher is allowed to see, which requires the system to fire off separate requests for each hit to see if it may be displayed. This has only one advantage - the authorization will be up-to-date to the second - but, certainly in Google's implementation, several drawbacks. "

(p. 248)

More about The Enterprise Search Report 2008

 

TrendWatch Blog

Not tuning the Google Search Appliance

01-Jun-2006

As Enterprise Search Report readers know, one of the drawbacks of Google's search appliance is that it cannot be "tuned" the way you can with most enterprise search products. Now along comes a Google to say, in effect: "not a bug, but a feature." First, kudos to the Google enterprise team for sharing their thinking about their product (Know any Autonomy bloggers? Me neither.), and for constantly emphasizing the primacy of usability. But I have to disagree with the main thrust of Google's post. Yes, tuning is a pain, but so is creating (and maintaining!) "best bets" -- what Google calls "Keymatches" -- their suggested alternative to tuning. Many contemporary search systems have simple, web-based tuning interfaces so that adjustments become a matter of configuration, rather than scripting. If everybody's information was the same, search would be easy. But everybody's information is different, so tuning (and yes, re-tuning when new repositories come online) becomes important. Google's assertion that their algorithms' inherent superiority obviates the need to expose their black box is patently wrong. The fact is, all search systems offer a brew of different algorithms that work better or worse in combination against different sets of heterogeneous enterprise data. It's impossible to know a priori how well one system will work with your collections until you test it -- and then tune it. Like much in life, searchers don't know "good" results until they see them. In search, simple is hard. Simple in the enterprise takes hard work. Test and re-test before you buy.

- Submitted by: Tony Byrne, Analyst

All Search Channel Trends

Join the conversation

Digg This! Search Technorati Tag it on Del.icio.us



Get a Free Sample

Wondering about CMS Watch research? Sign up to receive free samples of any of our products.




What we do

CMS Watch™ evaluates content-oriented technologies, publishing head-to-head comparative reviews of leading solutions. What makes us special?

  • Our critical analysis exposes product weaknesses as well as strengths
  • We deliver unrivaled technical depth and comprehensive project advice
  • Our research is led by international topic experts
  • We only work for buyers -- never for vendors

Contact us

CMS Watch

info@cmswatch.com

18113 Town Center Drive, Ste 217

Olney, MD USA 20832

1 800 325 6190 (N. America only)

+1 617 763 5336 (customer service)

+1 301 585 7004 (editorial)

Fax: +1 214 242 3048