I just can't believe that this conversation continues. I'm about to
dev/null this list for a while until people come to their senses. I said
this before in a post that has been universally ignored, and I'll say it
one more time before taking some time off:
"We also have to remember that there are lots of different information
needs. If I'm looking for the tech support for software, I go to the
web. It wouldn't make sense to look for that in the library catalog. If
I want to buy a book, I go to Amazon online or (if I'm feeling like
browsing) I head to a local bookstore. If I need a plumber, I check my
local yellow pages. If I'm looking for primary resources, I first
determine what institution is likely to have them, usually by picking up
a book on the topic and checking references. It's simply not a question
of Google v. library catalog. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking that not
only is "catalog" not the answer, it's not even the question. The
question should be about available resources, and there should be
multiple ways to discover and use them."
You could compare a search done in two library catalogs. You could
compare a search done in Google and in Yahoo. Comparing Google and the
library catalog is NONSENSE! It's like walking into a hardware store
looking for a handbag (or walking into Macy's looking for wood screws).
It isn't the SEARCH that matters, it's the information resources behind
the search.
Meanwhile, anyone wanting to get together at ALA to talk about the
future of ... just about anything, my cell is 510-435-8234. I'm going to
be spending time there lobbying for some real work on a future
bibliographic data carrier. I'm ready to start creating something.
kc
kc
B.G. Sloan wrote:
> Jim Weinheimer said:
>
> "Try searching Google for dogs and see what you get: rude references to women and probably politicians, porno and who knows what else, and you'll spend hours going through them all, but it will all be arranged by this magic of 'relevance.'"
>
> I tried searching Google for dogs and the results made me wonder if Jim actually TRIED the search himself. I looked at the first 150 search results (more than the average user would do) and 97% of the results were about the canine animal. The first non-canine result didn't pop up until the 30th result. And the five non-canine results were not offensive in the way Jim alluded. While a lot of the matches are for dog breeders and people selling dog-related paraphenalia, there are several meta-sites that provide a fair amount of info about dogs.
>
> I'm not defending Google, or saying it's better than library catalogs, etc. I'm just saying that it's unfair to misrepresent Google the way that Jim did.
>
> Bernie Sloan
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Sun Jan 06 2008 - 14:29:13 EST