3 Geeks and a Law Blog

The evolution of the Internet has pushed the ideas of smaller, faster, lighter, and cheaper.  For the relaying of personal knowledge via the Internet (which I'm shortening to RPK for this post), the same model seems to apply.  The evolution of dissemination of personal knowledge currently has us using Twitter as the medium of choice.  

As you probably know by now, I like to see different approaches to the way we normally do things on the web. This weekend, I was doing some searches on my favorite new addiction (you know it as Twitter), when I came across a search tool called Quintura. I thought I'd test it out and see what it has to offer, and I came away fairly impressed with the concept.

Google added a new search results feature to its search results page: ranking, deleting and commenting on search results.

Now, thanks to the brilliant folks at Google, ( you can read more about it on their blog), all the hard work that your web team has poured into your search engine results will be all for naught, if the search engine user doesn't like your site.



See, thanks to a nifty new tool next to each site on the search result page, a searcher can either delete a site that shows up in the search engine results or push his preferred site to the top of the search engine results. The searcher can also comment on a search result, indicating that site is "super cool" or "not so hot". These comments can either be made private on a personal Google Search Wiki, or made public on a public Google Search Wiki.

True, Google makes it clear that a searcher's modifications are only viewable to his own personal Google account.

But since these preferences are set in the searcher's account, no matter how well you optimize your site over his preferred site, your fully optimized site will never top his preferred site. The searcher's ranking will forever skew the search results for him.

Which only forces the sponsored links and non-organic links to get even better billing. Of course, Google doesn't mind; they get to make more money.

Yes, these selections only appear on a searcher's personal search results but you can't tell me that Google isn't measuring these deletions and rankings so that if everyone starts deleting spam farms, Google might drop these sorts of pages even lower in the rankings. Conversely, if everyone is picking the same site over and over again for a search, I could only imagine that Google would give this site higher preference.

So the Machiavelli in me thought, "I'll show them! I'm going to delete all of our competition from our target search terms! Then I'm going to select my site to the top result. Ha!"

But I refrained. Perhaps to my own detriment, because I know that there are others out there who are not so nice.

I envision that people are going to abuse this feature. Call me a cynic, but mark my word . . .

Now I have to worry about yet another factor when optimizing our site.

Bother.

Knowledge Management (KM) in the UK has meant something different than here in the US until recently. My top-line assessment has been that the UK gets the human aspect of KM and the US gets the technology part. We’ve both been working towards the middle with varying degrees of success.

In the UK, the human implementation has manifest most times as a Practice Support Lawyer (PSL). PSLs are SMEs (a.k.a. subject matter experts) on steroids. When a regular lawyer has a question about the law, about a contract clause or about any detailed legal issue, they go ask a PSL. The PSL is completely immersed in their subject of law and need to know it better than anyone else. So though the client interacts with the regular lawyer, the PSL is the holder of the high-value knowledge that will ultimately serve the client. In contrast, in the US when we want an answer about the law we query a system.

This week I saw an online demo from Practical Law which has taken the PSL concept, married it to technology and is offering it as an online service. Thus the post title, PSL SaaS. Under an annual subscription fee you can run searches, browse subjects, compare international laws and even generate quality first-draft documents. And when you hit the wall and need assistance they have a team of PSL-like lawyers available to help you. They’ve termed this approach “know-how” services, which is a UK KM term of art.

Practical Law has been up-and-running in the UK for some time now. This week they launched their first US product lines: Corporate & Securities and Finance. It’s more of a soft launch as they are in the process of rounding out the US offerings.

What impressed me about this offering is that it bridges the UK-Human and US-Technology KM gap. As a devotee of KM and a longtime fan of SaaS (f.k.a. as ASP), I am encouraged to see this development and hopeful for its entry into the US market. When I asked about the market demographics they describe them as quite broad; from solos to in-house counsel. Time will tell if this type of tool falls in the trend category or not.

As I was riding in on the bus this morning, I was reading the paper (over one of my fellow passenger's shoulder, of course) and saw an article in the Houston Chronicle titled "Skip the cuteness on e-mail." Being too far way from the paper to read the details, I started making up the story in my head about some of the "cute" things I've tried to do in e-mail, blogs, and on Twitter that have backfired on me. When I started thinking about why it backfired on me, I realized that it was because:

1. I wasn't clear on my message
2. I thought everyone that reads my message knows me personally (and my personality)
3. I forgot that sometimes sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek comments don't translate well to text (even with cute smile icons!) ;-)

So, when I cross the imaginary line, I've found that there are some pretty, shall I say - "un-shy" people out there that will quickly call you on your faux pas and I've found myself typing out an apology for my lax in social web protocol. This type of self-regulation of the social web keeps honest people honest, and reminds you that your message is hitting a broader audience than you think.

Since I'm not too ashamed of some of my screw-ups and immediate dressing-downs, I'll list some examples of what I've done, and a couple of other "self-regulated moments" that I've seen from others. I'll start with the benign and work my way up to the more malignant goofs:

The "Joss" vs. "Josh" Whedon Mistake:
I'm a huge Buffy, Angel, Firefly, and Dr. Horrible fan, and was so excited that Joss Whedon has a new show called Dollhouse coming out next year. So excited that I wanted my Twitter friends to see the new wiki that was out there about the show. So, I fire off a tweet, but made the fatal mistake of typing "Josh" instead of "Joss". Well, any fan worth their weight knows this is a major mistake in the Whedonverse, and it didn't take long for someone to step up and let me know that I was obviously an idiot and must not be a true fan. Of course, being a true fan, this made me feel a little sick at my stomach that I made this typo. So, I quickly over-geeked myself with an apology to the Whedonverse and hope that they can forgive my mistake and let me back into the fold.

The "Spying" Joke Blows Up:
Okay... if you take anything away from this posting, remember this, "INSIDE JOKES TEND NOT TO BE FUNNY."

Case-in-Point - I'm a Competitive Intelligence professional, and I do a lot of public speaking on CI as it relates to law firms. Well, one of the things that we joke about is the fact that some people think that we are basically spies, and that there is a certain ethical gray area that we work in. Of course, we are not spies, and it is something that we fight all the time. Well, my friends and I are always joking about this misconception, and bringing it up during our presentations, and we try to make light of the situation by injecting some humor. Unfortunately, I was welcoming a new member on Twitter, and made the mistake of joking about other CI professionals being in here "spying." Doh!! Well, it didn't take long to get a full-force rebuttal from another person explaining exactly what CI professionals do, and that spying is not one of them. I know better, I know better, I know better. But, I slipped up and tried to be cute, and it ended up making me look like I didn't know what I was talking about. So, another self-regulation that worked. I immediately apologized, and promised myself to watch out on the "inside jokes" via Twitter.

The "If it was offensive when someone else said it - You probably shouldn't repeat it" Regulation
Earlier this week, a well-known Legal Marketing guru retold an elevator pitch that a partner in a law firm uses, but probably should never have been used in the first place, and definitely shouldn't have been repeated. I won't repeat the pitch here, but let's just say that it didn't go over well with his readers, and it quickly got out via Twitter, and the posting was removed and replaced with a heart-felt apology. So, here's a rule that you should remember before posting something. If you were to say the same thing out loud to one of your colleagues, and you have to look both ways to make sure no one else hears the joke, then don't post it!! Inappropriate comments get ratcheted up exponentially on the social web. If you intend for a dozen people to read your post, expect that there are a dozen times as many that will, and if you post something inappropriate, start multiplying that number as well.

Social Web Self-Regulation is not the Political Correctness Squad
Some of you reading this are probably rolling your eyes and thinking that this is the PC Police gone wild on the Internet. Well, it really isn't. You can have sincere disagreements with your fellow social webbers all the time. In fact, it is actually encouraged. I've seen many a good battle out on the social web and have enjoyed even chiming in a time or two arguing my point. But, when you make mistakes, it is kind of nice to know that others are out there ready to point it out to you, so that you can either clarify your position, or as in most of my cases, apologize for letting your fingers get ahead of your brain. I'd rather have someone let me know than have my comments sitting out there waiting to come back and bite me later. So, "Regulators, Mount Up!!"

---

NOTE: No sooner did I post this, than I found out that I messed up again! I incorrectly credited the wrong author of a social media blog posting last night. And, the correct author just clued me in on my mistake. Here's to Gerry Heidenreich for setting me straight!! And to Craig Niedenthal for saying he'd still take the credit for Gerry's article. I'm sure this isn't the last time (today) that I'll be corrected!!

---

I just had to go ahead and try it. 3D-Xplorer just called to me when I saw the posting on CNET this morning that Avatars to run Altadyn business meetings. Then when I saw that Mike Elgan also reviewed this product, I knew I had to go out and test it.

There have been a few law firms out there that have taken a slow approach to Twitter, but I ran across one today that has taken Twitter straight to its homepage and says "Follow Me!!"

One of the best things about writing a blog, is that one posting can stimulate a conversation in a way that not even the writer expects.  Take Toby's post from Tuesday, Good Technology Is Magic.  Toby's discussion of e-discovery and semantic searches got a comment from one of the readers who actually works on a product that does semantic pointed us to his product called Cluuz.  Well, any one that has read my postings knows that I'm a search fanatic (I am a librarian, you know...), so I thought I'd take a look at Cluuz and see what I could do with it.

"Read the EULA" is a common phrase among security and privacy groups. EULA = End User License Agreement. This is the case since so many Web 2.0 sites have EULA's where all IP rights go the the provider. I recently posted on this issue re: LinkedIn and its less-than favorable EULA for its users.

Well ... that got me thinking. What about the EULA for Google's Blogger tool (a.k.a. the one we use for 3 Geeks Blog)? I vaguely recall reviewing this when we first set up the blog, but last night falling asleep I got to thinking about it.

Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services.

I should have looked this up last night. I would have slept better.

Kudos to Google and remember, Always Read the EULA!

I've previously noted that keyword searching has seen better days. Numerous recent e-discovery court cases and KM blogs provide worthy critiques of keyword searching as an inadequate way of retrieving knowledge.

Recently I have taken a more in-depth view of the next-generation of search, known as concept, natural language or semantic search. The basic goal or purpose of semantic search, is creating structure out of chaos - thus the title of this post.

In the e-discovery world the challenge is finding the right knowledge within massive data stores. A lawyer can only present a relatively finite set of information at trial. So the trick is getting to the best information cost effectively. Given terabyte and larger discovery challenges, this is no small feat. An effective semantic search tool is the next answer to this question.

At its most basic level, semantic search tools are able to analyze human language and make sense out of it (like a human does). For instance, they can determine what a period is in a sentence versus a decimal point. For us humans this is a simple task. But this is well beyond a keyword search engine's ability.

At this point in my thinking, I am crossing from one paradigm into another. For so long we have been focused on extracting structured data from data bases and making that knowledge universal. This has been the promise of XML. But the real magic comes when technology can find structure in unstructured data. This may sound very geeky, but it is definitely a real world problem.

For KM, it may be THE real problem. Most of the knowledge we seek to manage is buried in unstructured BLOBs. Tools that makes sense of this chaos and deliver the results in human-understandable ways will be very powerful.

More to come on this topic I'm sure, as my research continues.

Here's a different look at the law firm marketers that I've listed on an earlier posting. These are the web sites that they've listed on their Twitter profiles. Some are marketing blogs, some are personal blogs, some are firms or businesses they work for, and, some are just personal web pages that they seem to like. So, don't take this as the definitive resource for law firm marketing web pages... just enjoy the view and see if you luck across something of use!!

---

---

In a press release on Thursday, Contact Networks (now owned by Thomson Reuters) annouced that it is adding LinkedIn data into its Enterprise Relationship Management (ERM) software. Here's the meat of the press release:

ContactNet automatically maps a firm’s entire external relationship network, uncovering whom the firm knows and calculating the strength of each relationship. This relationship knowledge is of critical value to professional services firms seeking to win new business, retain clients in a difficult market, cross-sell services, or collect competitive intelligence. With the new LinkedIn integration, ContactNet now also includes the relationships that a user has within their personal LinkedIn network. Companies are now using ContactNet’s powerful enterprise software to find and rank relevant relationships firm-wide while leveraging employees’ LinkedIn networks, accelerating their ability to reach all the most valuable contacts and key business introductions.

Now, as interesting as this is, I actually got to see a demo of a few of the Thomson Reuters products (that are now in Beta or Alpha production.) The new version of West Monitor (aka Firm360) has some good functionality for competitive intelligence purposes, and they have sped up the reports considerably. The new release (scheduled for around the first of '09) also is supposed to integrate Web Part functionality for SharePoint integration (this will be a very, very good function for things like client pages.)

The best demo I saw was one for Contact Networks that is scheduled for release around April of '09. Contact Networks is developing a web browser plug-in that will look that the web page and create hover windows for information that matches your Contact Networks ERM data. In other words, if a client's name appears in the web page, you can hover your mouse over that name and you'll get a pop-up window showing some basic information about the client and who the contacts are within your firm. You could then click on the information and launch a report from Contact Networks giving you additional information. Apparently, this will also work on people names as well (but I'm imagining that this may have some quirks that may need to be worked out first.)

This sounds like a great enhancement, and a very useful function to pass information quickly to the attorneys or others within your firm. From what I could see in the demo, it looks like it is set up to work in Internet Explorer (but could possibly work in other browsers as well.) But, most firms are IE focused, so it may be an IE only tool.

So, if you have Contact Networks, it looks like there is some great additions coming your way next year.

I've subscribed to a number of e-mail listservs over the years, and have found that these are becoming less and less useful. Although I've hung on and still subscribe to a few choices, I find that I use them more for generic topical information, than I do for specific topic resources. What has changed?? I thought of a few things that are wrong with Listservs and how Twitter might be a better option:

1. Lazy Research:
Some of the law library listservs that I have subscribed to in the past have become what some call "lazy researcher" listservs. Those are the places where you ask for an Interlibrary loan to a list of 2500 people for an item that you probably could have requested from your local library.   Don't get me wrong, these listservs are great resources for finding these types of things, but it seems that this type of activity breeds more of this type of activity.  Pretty soon, people forget that the listserv was set up to be an online community for idea sharing, question asking, and resource gathering.  The last item can tend to overwhelm the first two (which I find most important.)

After posting yesterday on LinkedIn Does KM, I went back to further investigate the Company Groups tool to see what else I could learn about it. But it was gone! I came up with five possibilities.

1) Someone had flagged me as not employed by The Firm. Possible, but not likely since relatively few people had formally joined the group. I contacted my co-bloggers and the link had disappeared from their pages as well.

2) Another company had reacted to the tool and "suggested" it be removed. Again ... possible, but so few people knew about it, not likely.

3) A developer uploaded code to the production server instead of the development or testing servers. Possible, but again not likely since companies like LinkedIn typically have very well-defined protocols for software process management. And they wouldn't leave it up for five days.

4) The Company Groups tool was supposed to be loaded only on the "for fee" side of things. Maybe. If anyone who is paying for premium service can see this function, please let us know.

5) The Marketing and Programming departments don't communicate well. This would mean the programmers followed their software development protocols, but didn't keep marketing in the loop. Again ... possible but doesn't make sense.

In the end, I am left quite curious. The only information I have is what I found when I went into my History and found the Group page:

You are not authorized to view this page LinkedIn takes privacy and security seriously. We want to provide spaces for groups of professionals to discuss news, ask questions, and share information. To find out more, you may contact LinkedIn customer service.

Thanks for your understanding.

I also sent an e-mail to one of the few addresses I found on LinkedIn's site asking about this. No word back yet.

Halloween was yesterday, but we're still left with a mystery.