• content-based policy for inbound and outbound email traffic for more protection of sensitive data, such as credit card and Social Security numbers
• the ability to create advanced policy rules based on content patterns and apply a variety of dispositions including logging, routing to reviewer queue, bcc: to reviewer queue, bounce and encrypt using Postini Encryption Services
• new granular content inspection capabilities for messages and attachments
• email security advancements for faster detection and protection of viruses and spam, including early detection of zero hour threats, additional defenses against botnet attacks and new dispositions for encrypted files

How do you measure the value of a CM / DM system? Do you measure it by its purchase price? The time it takes to deploy? The cost of maintaining it over time? Or do you tend to measure it more subjectively - do you calculate the benefit to your organisation in terms of its potential efficiency and productivity in time saving and document location?

Whichever way you calculate the value of your systems, your users may have a very different view of the world and ask just one simple question: What Can It Do For Me? And the truth of the matter is, if what is on offer is not as effective, as quick, or as easy as their current behaviours of ringing around to find documents or duplicating work, then users will feel underserved and adoption will undoubtedly suffer. Which of course will have disastrous effects on value, whichever way you calculate it.

This was just the case with the Hampshire Police, here in England, who spent £11m (well over $20m USD) during 2 years in their customization a much needed records management system aimed at making the working lives of county's police more pleasant and productive. But, it missed simply because it was just too difficult to use and too time consuming to learn how to use. So the net result here was that officers just simply chose not to use the system, leaving a large hole in the budget and even larger one in the deployment calendar.

There is a lesson to be learnt from this cautionary tale, and in this case the calculation of value and the route to success would have been: Usability = Adoption = Value.

"based purely on market awareness and the elusive "Q-factor"—how well recognized are the market leaders in their respective fields? In our online and print survey, we asked this question: Which of these companies do you immediately think of as the leading provider of business intelligence, document management and so on?"

There was talk in the Google Search Appliance group this week about the new inmeta query operator; I thought it's time to introduce this new feature to a wider audience.

In a recent release of the Google Search Appliance we added the inmeta query operator allowing search-users to easily create more advanced queries based on meta tag values. The appliance has had this capability for a long time using the requiredfields and partialfields parameters as part of the search API protocol. The inmeta operator allows search users to issue partialfields and requiredfields type searches directly from the search box (in the q= parameter).

The syntax is pretty simple:

inmeta:{meta_tag}
inmeta:{meta_tag}~{meta_tag_value}
inmeta:{meta_tag}={meta_tag_value}

For example, if you had content source with all documents having meta tag author and each document having a different value for author meta tag such as john, rajesh, mike, etc. A search-user may be interested in the documents that provide information about "Q3 Revenue" but restrict to only those documents that were authored by John, as John the CFO of the organization. To express such a query she would simply enter a query like:

Q3 revenue inmeta:author=john

Now, if you didn't know that the data was well formatted, and some might have John's full name (John Smith), and some might have his email address (john@acme.com) then you would want to use the following syntax:

Q3 revenue inmeta:author~john

As you see from the above examples, it is very easy to express your queries and perform advanced, sophisticated searches across structured, semi-structured, and unstructured information. We welcome the new inmeta operator to the search town!

http://search.corp.mycompany.com/search?q=query+string
                        &site=all_content
                        &client=default_frontend
                        &output=xml_no_dtd
                        &proxystylesheet=default_frontend

http://search.corp.mycompany.com/search?q=query+string
                        &site=sales|marketing
                        &client=default_frontend
                        &output=xml_no_dtd
                        &proxystylesheet=default_frontend

http://search.corp.mycompany.com/search?q=query+string
                        &site=engineering.support
                        &client=default_frontend
                        &output=xml_no_dtd
                        &proxystylesheet=default_frontend

"We needed a product to replace our legacy search tool. It had to be simple to integrate with the SharePoint Services sites which make up the PSI, and be as user friendly as possible. An excellent search function is vital to the PSI and the Google Mini functionality fulfilled all the criteria," said State Services deputy commissioner of ICT Laurence Millar.

"I can guarantee one thing: you will keep making more files, and losing track of them, every day. And whether you buy a search tool tomorrow or never, getting a grip on your files will save you time and money."