What strikes me about Google's approach is the way, possibly by
treating them all as 'users', they manage to align the needs of the
different groups.
That is, advertisers use adwords because it drives traffic to their
site and allows them to make sales. Anecdotally clicks from adwords
are very likely to then buy - depending on the choice of the words -
because the searcher has not been tricked into clicking. The adverts
are apart from the search results.
Search Spammers, on the other hand, are offered no such assistance
and are actively fought - clearly not included in the 'user' camp.
Is there any real difference between Google adwords and Starbucks in
the library?
> "We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users,
> colleagues, or our employing institutions."
I think Google would say that they do not advance private interests
at the expense of search users or colleagues - that is their conflict
of interest clause.
Perhaps if libraries could be as good as Google at aligning the needs
of commercial organisations with the needs of library users - to the
detriment of neither and the benefit of both - the landscape would
change.
rob
On 4 Jan 2008, at 03:17, Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
> Rob Styles wrote:
>> It contains a section on serving their users well, taking a stand on
>> issues that affect their users, respecting each other at work and not
>> letting personal issues become a conflict of interest; all in all it
>> seems to me to be very similar.
>
> Except that "users" to Google means something rather different than
> "users" to libraries, I think:
>
> "...our users, whether they're simple search users or advertisers,
> large companies or small companies. We have many different types of
> users but one primary goal for serving them all. "Is this useful?" is
> the one question every Googler should keep in mind during every task,
> every day. "
>
> So when the *advertiser* is asked "is this useful?" don't you think
> that there might well be considerations affecting the response
> compared with when the *simple search user* (i.e., Joe Q. Patron) is
> asked? Particularly when compared to the ALA's:
>
> "We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users,
> colleagues, or our employing institutions."
>
> It seems to me that Google wants to blanket nearly everyone with the
> "user" label (perhaps as a way to do whatever they want and justify
> it with "just serving the user") but in the library many of those
> would be under the "private interests" label. And as the ALA states,
> "Ethical dilemmas occur when values are in conflict." How convenient
> to have nothing conflict because both the advertiser *and* the simple
> search user are *all just users*. (But some users are more equal than
> others, no?) The "personal issues" part of Google seems to put "you
> [Google employee] or your friends or family" into a separate category
> from everyone else (the users). I just don't see why making money for
> an advertiser should be any different than making money for you or
> your friends or your family. But in the Google world, the former is
> "serving the user" and the latter is a conflict of interest.
>
> But maybe I'm ascribing too much holiness to libraries and there are
> all kinds of deals of which I'm not aware.
>
> Mike
Rob Styles
Programme Manager, Data Services, Talis
tel: +44 (0)870 400 5000
fax: +44 (0)870 400 5001
direct: +44 (0)870 400 5004
mobile: +44 (0)7971 475 257
msn: mmmmmrob_at_yahoo.com
blog: http://www.dynamicorange.com/blog/
irc: irc.freenode.net/mmmmmrob,isnick
Received on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 04:45:49 EST