Steven Covey published The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People and it was a great book.

When Dr. Covey came out with a new book, The 8th Habit, I was skeptical.  Why didn’t he think up the 8th habit right from the start?

Now I understand it.  Ideas evolve.  We are the sum total of your experiences at any point in time. You create a set of rules that you believe are universal.  In my case, I am the author of The Seven Laws of Internet Search.

The Original Laws …
1. Permutation
2. Completeness
3. Iteration
4. Frequency
5.  Process
6. Taxonomy
7. Measurable Results

It has been about a year and a half and now, guess what?  I came up with another Law of Internet Search.  The 8th law could not have been created by me…unless I was able to observe people learning and implementing the first seven laws in their Internet search activity.

Here is what I observed:  The Internet is “non-homogeneous”.  The idea of homogeneity  also resonated with me as I wrote the original seven laws.  I played with the idea of a Law of Non-homogeneity.  This means that the Internet exists in many different formats and there is no way to query everything, with a single method or game plan.

“Non-Homogeneous” sounds ugly.  To define something with “non” in front of it…it would be like cheating.  Each of the seven laws of Internet Search is meant to be a simple axiom of advice.    I failed to get my concept of Homogeneity into the laws.

Why did I fail?  It is simple.  Each of the seven laws is a solution.  Whereas “non-homogeneous” or “non-homogeneity” was talking about a problem.

What was I trying to get at?  It is also simple.  The Internet is not homogeneous, therefore, many different methods are needed to search it.  It is those very search mechanisms that the 8th Law takes into account.  The 8th law is  The Law of Environment.

In fact, the 8th Law is so important, I have moved it the top spot in The Laws of Internet Search.  It is now The 1st Law of Internet Search.

To understand the Law of Environment.  Get your mind around the concept of the Internet having many modalities. Many sites, each with it’s own set of rules or search environment.

Next.  There are some simple questions to ask.   What is the access method?  What are the sites restrictions?  Etc

In addition to the simple questions about the environment, the more advanced Internet search may want to dive into further understand the full capabilities of the search environment.

Once the simple questions about the environment are answered, the Internet search can proceed with quantifiable expectations on what to expect from their chosen search medium.

For example, it is important to understand that Google will only give you a maximum of 1000 results from any search.  Even if Google reports that their are 2450 results, you only have access to the first 1000.  Understanding this is understanding the limitation of the environment.

Here are the The Laws of Internet Search, Reloaded

1.  Environment
2. Permutation
3. Completeness
4. Iteration
5. Frequency
6. Process
7. Taxonomy
8. Measurable Results

Dr. Steven Covey, now I understand. Looking forward to the ninth law.

Semantic search is a fantastic technology, if used correctly.  I am not talking about users of semantic search technology, I am talking about the technology vendors that make it part of a system

I was inspired to write this blog after reading Glen Cathey’s (The Boolean Black Belt) Article on Why Do So Many ATS Vendors Offer Poor Search Capability.  The article made me think about search engines (google, yahoo, etc) and how semantic search is being used with them.

What is semantic search?  To put is simple: semantic search can take, as input, a word like “Java” and offers up other related terms like “J2EE” or “Beans” (both are related to Java).  This allows the user to type in a few terms but match many, many terms.

The matching terms are built into an “expert system” that is continually built over time.  Many fancy names are given to these systems, based on how they are built, but basically they are sets of rules.

Semantic search is not AI (artificial intelligence).  If you hear that, it probably started in a marketing department somewhere.

Companies that have built semantic search engines, while they have not created AI, have spent a tremendous amount of time and resources to build these sets of rules.  The better engines can build rules on the fly from a new set of data, like resumes.  This is very cool stuff.

Overall, I like semantic search.  It has great potential, however, it has great weaknesses if used incorrectly.   If built into the engine itself, semantic search can be very powerful,  this is because semantic processing is done at the search engine side, without any limitations or constraints.  However, if bolted onto a search engine, it can be more harmful than good.

Here is what I mean.  I’ll try to keep my logic simple.

1. The Google search engine has a limit in how many terms can be submitted to it.

2. Semantic search, by it’s nature, creates permutations upon given terms. For example:

“Senior VP of Sales”  can be “SVP Sales” or “Senior Vice President of Sales”

to translate that into a boolean expression you get

“senior vp of sales” OR “SVP sales” OR “senior vice president of sales”

3.  After creating permutations upon several concepts, you are out of search terms.

I’m a big believe in laws (maybe not speed-limit laws), but more the “laws of the universe” type stuff.  I like to understand and deconstruct the rules and see if each one stands alone, or, do I need to recheck my premises.  In this spirit, just before the first sourceCon conference, I developed the Seven Laws of Internet Research.  I felt there was too much emphasis on memorizing search strings and the latest search engines or sites, but not enough fundamental thought leadership on how to think about searching the Internet.

The first two laws are

1. The Law of Permutation
2. The Law of Completeness

The Law of Permutation simply states that when searching the Internet, as it is not a homogeneous source of data, you must describe what you are looking for in the language of the many vs. the language of the one.  (YES, this is what Semantic search is doing).

The Law of Completeness states you must strive for completeness of search engine results in order to have the superior outcome

Big Question:  What happens if semantic search is applied before you reach completeness of results?

Answer:  Missing data. Competitors eat your lunch.  If you are a sales person, it means missed sales leads, if you are a recruiter, it means missed resumes or passive candidates.

Does this mean that I am anti-semantic search?  No way.  I think it has great potential.

Here are my take-aways:

-Semantic search should be inside the search engine for optimal results

-Semantic search bolted onto a standard search engine is severely limited.

-Semantic search will cause data to be missed if applied before reaching completeness of possible results

-When combining a standard search engine and semantic search, it is best to apply the semantic processing AFTER completeness of data has been reached.  In reality, this would not be semantic search, but semantic filtering.

Having worked with many databases as well as having extensive experience in searching the Internet, I thought I’d share some thoughts on the differences between the two.

When I observe people searching the Internet, there is a common mistake I see them making.  Most people search the Internet like they are searching a database. Don’t get me wrong,  the Internet does include databases. Thomas Register, Spoke and Zoominfo are examples of different types of databases. Via different methods, information is added to these data sources and some sort of query mechanism is provided the subscribers. Can you use the Zoom query on Thomas Register and visa versa? No, these are proprietary systems that have search methods specialized to the content inside them. Each of these databases is limited, incomplete, but stored in a homogonous fashion.

The Internet, in its entirety, is not homogonous.
Read the rest of this entry »

Most CRM implementations fail.  This is a fact.  Look it up.

In my years in the industry, I’ve worked with many vendors on the consulting side to help reduce the possibility of CRM failure.  While there is a whole host of reason that failure occurs, I have a very unique perspective into one of those reasons.  The Nature of Contact Information.

The nature of contact information is fairly finite (i.e. Company, URL, Name, Title, Email, Phone, Social Network membership, etc). In addition, the concept of contact information is a simple one to grasp. It is so simple, in fact, that if often gets overlooked.

One of the most important concepts in business is “be brilliant at the basics”. If you are brilliant at your basics many more complex processes will fall naturally into place. So how are you treating contact information?

The miss-handling of contact information can lead to dire consequences across your company.

Take the following work flow as an example:
Read the rest of this entry »

In 2002, I was excited to get phone calls or even emails from anyone.  My company was a start-up. 2 guys in a office with a dog and a bunch of computer servers.

Today it is different.  Perhaps I am partly to blame.  My contact information is on the Broadlook website, I’m the registration contact for 100’s of domains, and I freely put all my contact information into my email signature.

And…yes, my company, Broadlook,  makes software that pulls information from the Internet to empower sales and recruiting professionals.   Again, I am guilty, but having my contact information is not an excuse to sell badly to me.

Here is a secret:  I love being sold to.  Truly being sold to means that somebody has done their homework, looked at my needs, my company needs and has a solution to my pain.   To save those hundreds of sales reps time, I’ve decided to (1) define the rules of engagement of how to sell to me and (2) post them on my corporate bio.  If you follow the rules, I promise I will respond.  It may be an email that only says “no thank you”. Or try me next quarter, but if you take the time, I will take the time.

I like the transparency of establishing the rules of engagement.  When I passed this idea by a few of my peers, leaders in both small and large companies, they all liked the idea of establishing the engagement rules and being transparent.   My rules are not the next persons rules;  they are mine.  Everyone should craft their own and make them transparent.  If more people did this, selling would be so much more efficient and enjoyable, for both sides.  Imagine that!

In order to sell at a high level, you need more than an email address.  Perhaps having Broadlook’s lead generation tools at my disposal for the last 7 years has spoiled me.  When I reach out to someone, I know something about them and I always personalize my message.

I titled this blog verbosely so people looking to sell to me would find it.  SEO stuff.  We’ll see where it lands…

Rules to sell to Donato Diorio

1. Get my name right.  I can see how people mistake my first name for a last name, but it’s not brain surgery. It shows respect.
2. Personalize. I will not respond to a mass emails. Period.
3. Understand what my company (Broadlook) does.  Can you believe that there is some idiot out there that keeps trying to sell me a list of recruiting firms?     Talk about selling ice to an Eskimo.
4. Show me that I am special.  Customize your sales pitch for my company.  Don’t use generalities.  Research what my company does and ask me good questions. I don’t have a burning need to seek others approval, but if you take the time to tell me.
5. Call and email.   You will probably get voice mail, but I will listen to it.  The email will give me your contact information if I like what I hear.   Tell me you will also be sending me an email.   Be articulate, gosh, I’m sorry, but if your accent is so heavy that I have to listen to your voice mail a few times to understand it, it will get deleted at the very beginning.
6. In your voice mail,  say your phone number two times.  Give me a chance to write it down if I like what I hear.
7. Don’t use a voice mail script.  If you do, you are not at the level yet to successfully sell to me.  Try again next year.
8. Don’t use a negative sell.  i.e.  The economy is bad, and you can help.   Bad for who? Do your homework.  I’m an optimist.  I love hanging up on pessimists.  Realists welcome.
9. Know your product inside out.  If you can’t answer nearly all my questions, you should not be reaching out to me. Have you manager or top sales rep do it.
10. Don’t call me if someone else at my company makes the decision.  I don’t make the decisions on office supplies.
11. Did I mention… get my name right?

Here is the email that put me over the top to write this blog.  It was nth in a series, polite but impersonal.  I will not be working with this company.

==============================================================

Dear Danato,  (got my name wrong)

Hope you are doing fine.   (does he really?)     (the DELETE button was pressed when my eyes hit this line)

This is with reference to my previous mail dated 4th March 2009. (reminding me of his spam) I hope you have received it. I eagerly await your reply as I look forward to exploring a potential business opportunity with your company , which I am sure would prove to be mutually beneficial.  (he has no clue what Broadlook does)

Please let me know your interest and your availability for a short introductory call at a time that would best suit your schedule.  During the call, I would primarily like to introduce XXXXXXXXX, our services, capabilities and address any specific queries that you may have.

Eagerly awaiting your reply.  (and 50,000 others he spammed)

Thanks and best regards,

XXXX

==============================================================