Microsoft's Live Search was the only search provider to gain market share in June, but still trails Google and Yahoo!, with less than a fifth of Google's share. However, according to Microsoft numbers, 60% of Internet searchers use multiple search engines, and 30% of searchers use Live Search from time to time.

Live Search has gained new users by finding new ways to penetrate the Web search market, which strategically positions Google and Yahoo! on the defensivean unusual posture these days for the pioneering Google. Making Live Search a household name by spreading it across the Internet in different channels is the foundation for creating a loyal user base.

Microsoft's senior VP Satya Nadella acknowledged that they were not there in the beginning of this Web search story, we missed it, but we are getting back into the game in a major way. By not being one of the first movers, brand recognition was stunted, but the following excerpt from Intelligent Enterprise analyzes the actions Microsoft is using to intrude the Web search market.

Live Search gaining search share at the expense of Yahoo and Google in June. A recent promotion called Live Search Club that rewards users with ringtones, t-shirts and copies of Windows Vista may have helped bolster Live Search, but one month does not a watershed make.(read more)

Well, as my first conference on Prediction Markets this one left me a little puzzled, even with James Suroweicki and Robin Hanson there in person. So here are my thoughts, questions, and reactions to what was presented, talked about, questions asked and examples thrown out to us.

What seemed a way to learn about the concept and applications, successes and failures, ended up being a way for Google, Yahoo and other vendors to tout a process they just happened to have new tools for. The 4 hours seemed to be for the "true believers", and really glossed over PM 101, even though presentations by both Surowiecki and Hanson were meant to address the basics of the concept.

Reps from Microsoft and HP really had the most valuable lesson for me - they have been testing prediction markets in various forms and for various business functions, but neither are using them to make real business decisions at the group, department, business unit or corporate level. Yes, the markets can be very accurate, more so in many cases than internal and external "experts" (PM's are cheaper, too!), but no, they aren't taking over from the more entrenched ways of forecasting and decision making.

I heard a lot about how to get people to trade in the market, pros and cons of real money vs. other forms of "payoffs" (social standing and reputations), how to address the issues of risk attitudes and "quality" of trading over time (people getting it right, or close to it).

One really useful set of thoughts came from Adam Siegal of Inklingmarkets.com - lessons learned as to why PM's will fail within any group:

1. No concept of what a PM is
2. Using software that is too complex and not easy to use, to set up, trade in and run a market
3. Market structure was wrong
4. Asking for an opinion - questions must be quantifiable, even if just yes or no
5. Description or rules of the market not clear/understood by the trading populous
6. Questions posed are biased
7. Time frame of the market is too long - apathy over time and the market becomes static
8. No information is available for the traders to make a reasonable judgement - trades are based on information and knowledge (duh!)

Now this last one really struck me - I thought the whole idea in a PM was to bring out hidden tacit knowledge in an organization in a way to focus it on an issue or challenge to meet a specific business need. It would seem that there is a issue here of simply bad selections of the trading group members. I would also say there is a real issue on selected traders vs. self selected traders?(read more)