Sorry the discussion has left you depressed :(
There is a danger with a discussion list like this one that it feels
like a whole load of talk, and not much action. My own hope that
discussion on the list does refine and feedback into the community, and
so having the discussion and pushing a point of view will help move on
the community as a whole, so perhaps we can chip away at the complacent
part of the community - and I suspect in reality the really complacent
part of the community is not anywhere near this list, although it would
be interesting if anyone wants to pipe up and say "I don't think there's
nothing wrong with library systems" (I dare you). No doubt this is a
slow job... I also hope that discussion on the list occasionally
inspires people to go and do something, as well as talking about it.
Unfortunately I'm not in a position to make bricks or windows, or code
systems (sorry), but I'm an interested party in the outcome - so if you
are making 'more brick resistant windows', then I'm happy to discuss the
whys, wherefores and historical precedence of brick resistance, and
eventually throw test bricks at any windows produced - I would even go
as far as thinking about getting brick resistant windows in my own house
(although I'll have to get planning permission first).
Best,
Owen
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Casey Durfee
Sent: 04 January 2008 23:52
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Relevance ranking: was Aqua Brow
This conversation has left me more depressed about the future of
libraries than I've ever been in the 7 years I've worked in this
business. So, a few parting shots, and I'm outta here.
1) Library catalogs most certainly do not work on the basis of concepts.
They work on the basis of text, and algorithms for matching against that
text. For Google, the text in question is statistically derived data
based upon billions of source documents. For libraries, it's the MARC
record.
It's all text, though.
It's not concepts, whatever one might mean by such a loaded and
ambiguous word. The text in the MARC record is more useful than the
text in a bunch of LibraryThing tags or Google's indexes in some
respects and less useful than others. But they're all text.
Just because a cataloger generated that text doesn't give the text in
question some kind of supernatural metaphysical significance. The fact
that user-generated tags are not considered by some to have the same
metaphysical power of cataloging by librarians is very telling -- the
idea being that librarians are a sort of information priesthood, with
the power to breathe elan vital into their clay golems of metadata in a
way that mere mortals can't.
Amateur philosophy has been responsible for more death and destruction
over the course of history than amateur brain surgery. Please leave
metaphysics to the metaphysicians, everyone, or at least try to develop
an attitude of Socratic ignorance when it comes to fields you know
nothing about. Anybody who can say with a straight face that library
catalogs search concepts really needs to spend at least a couple of
years reading up on the last
2000+ years of philosophy and learn a thing or two about how computers
actually work. This hubris and willful ignorance on display is a big
part of why people in other fields do not respect library science.
2) Libraries are not doing a better job than Google. Arguments to the
contrary are examples of cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger
effect [1] in their purest form. The first step is to admit that you
have a problem. Everyone, repeat after me: we have a problem.
3) If somebody did develop a truly innovative, revolutionary catalog,
I'm more convinced than ever it would be a commercial flop. The vast
majority of people in the library world understand that radical changes
in the library world are desperately needed, but decisions in libraries
are done on the basis of consensus. A few reactionary people with a
Panglossian attitude that what we have now just may be the best of all
possible systems can completely kill any effort at innovation.
4) Someone I respect immensely but disagree with vehemently once told
me, "it's a lot easier to throw a brick through a window than it is to
make a brick or a window." If you're not actively writing code to try to
make better systems, you're just throwing bricks. Stop it.
--Casey
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Received on Sat Jan 05 2008 - 04:06:57 EST