> As someone who "Googles" most every day, I think "good enough" is
*just
great* most of the time.
As one who Googles, hacks and catalogs most every day, I think is
question is not IF "good enough" is good enough, but WHEN. And I'd
argue that "most of the time" ought to read "SOME of the time". I use
Wikipedia for a lot quick answers to questions where I just need a quick
answer and "good enough" is indeed just "great". I think most people
choose the tool whose sophistication matches their purpose.
I'm actually pretty OK with grabbing a vendor record and slapping a call
number on it for most of the Romances, Sci-Fi because after all the
purpose of buying those books is to get the book to the shelf/customer
not to the cataloger.
However, I'm not OK with that approach for more serious works that are
needed for more serious research. Yes, there is a difference! I'm not
saying that to denigrate the people who read Romances or Sci-Fi. (Did I
mention I love to read fantasy novels? and I want them on the shelf
promptly, just like a real customer!) But research needs are different
for different people and types of material. I'm often surprised by the
"heavyweight" books that "ordinary" public library customers check out
and difficult topics that they research. It's not a one size fits all
world.
Now what happens when you mix the data from "light" with the "heavy"?
This points to the difference between being brief and being sloppy. If
you didn't bother to assign subject headings to the popular fiction,
probably no problem. If you failed to authority control the authors you
probably have Madonna the singer mixed up with religion. No so great
when you're looking for serious theology, or, for that matter, sound
recordings of "The Virgin Tour".
This also points to where keyword searching becomes unhelpful and
inadequate, especially in a large database. The point here is that just
because sometimes we make the (quite reasonable) choice to drink instant
coffee, doesn't mean that we should throw out the coffee maker! Don't
blunt all the machine tools just because you've decided it's reasonable
to carry add a cheaper line of widgets!
JJ
**Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
the Queens Library.**
Jane Jacobs
Asst. Coord., Catalog Division
Queens Borough Public Library
89-11 Merrick Blvd.
Jamaica, NY 11432
tel.: (718) 990-0804
e-mail: Jane.W.Jacobs_at_queenslibrary.org
FAX. (718) 990-8566
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:52 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: Resignation
Julia,
I think that was a great post you did. I agree 100%!
As someone who "Googles" most every day, I think "good enough" is *just
great* most of the time.
I think the problem is when for more and more people it is increasingly
seen the only option for most everything - and when the word "relevance"
is increasingly about *MyRelevance* and decreasingly about the realities
of our the world we share.
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
B.G. Sloan wrote:
> I've always thought it was interesting that librarians often use
"good enough" disparagingly.
>
> Isn't it possible that "good enough" information can be "good enough"
for the task at hand?
>
> Bernie Sloan
>
>
I actually wrote a post on my blog about that not long ago:
http://folksweb.blogspot.com/2007/07/satisficing-is-not-dirty-word.html
It's more about information that's "good enough" for patrons rather
than for library professionals, but if anyone's interested, I've copied
and pasted it below.
Satisficing Is Not a Dirty Word
Another one of my pet peeves is people who complain about students and
other information-seekers "satisficing"-looking for information that is
just good enough, rather than for the best information. A related pet
peeve recently came up on PUBLIB (don't ask why I lurk on PUBLIB; there
was a reason at the time I signed up for it, but now it's mostly for
amusement value), when someone called easily searchable digital
information systems a "prop" that hinders the development of thinking
and reasoning skills.
While these complaints have a certain degree of merit to them, they
ignore a couple of important economic principles. (Humor me here; my
undergrad background is in the social sciences.) We all have a limited
amount of time, money, energy, etc., to get through our days, and we
have to make rational decisions about how to "economize" those
things-how to use them most efficiently to achieve the most we can based
on our constraints. This means we can't have it all-things that are
time-consuming might not be expensive monetarily, but they're
"expensive" in terms of another scarce quantity: time. Home-cooked "slow
food" meals might not cost more than take-out, but an hour spent
preparing a slow food meal is an hour that you can't spend, say, mowing
the grass or sleeping or doing other things that you need to accomplish.
Information is no different: an hour spent digging through a pile of
poorly organized information trying to find the piece that is needed is
an hour that a student can't spend writing the paper he needs to write,
or doing homework for his other classes, or having a life outside of
school. Yes, sometimes it's important for students to take the time and
effort to really dig in and learn the structure of the literature in an
area, to see who the big names are and what they're arguing, to learn
the contours of the discourse . . . and sometimes they just need to find
a piece of information quickly and get on with the rest of their lives.
I suspect that this is doubly true of public library patrons, who
generally don't feel the need to engage with a broad swathe of human
knowledge the way students should. So give the people what they want
already and don't make them feel guilty for having other things in their
lives that are more important to them than conducting the best
information search possible! Unless you live up to every other field's
standards of perfection: if you eat only home-cooked healthy meals,
exercise for the recommended 30 minutes per day, sleep for the
recommended 8 hours per night, maintain your home in a state of Martha
Stewart-like perfection, check the air pressure in your tires every time
you gas up your car....
Received on Thu Sep 06 2007 - 06:55:36 EDT