I still maintain that Google search should be judged in terms of what it
retrieves from Google, and library catalog search should be judged in
terms of what it retrieves from the library catalog. It's rather hard to
compare the results when the data that is being retrieved is almost 100%
a null set.
kc
Tim Spalding wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Google and the library catalog are two ways of finding information
> about a topic. Not infrequently they are in direct competition. While
> it true they have different information behind them, and stand at a
> different remove from that information, they vary greatly in their
> effectiveness in searching the information they do have. With all due
> respect, the search matters, not just the resources behind it.
>
> The basic problem is this: Google does a generally good job of
> searching billions of web pages of wildly diverse quality and lacking
> professional metadata. Library catalogs do a lousy job of searching
> small numbers of resources of apparently high quality, outfitted with
> highly detailed, professionally-created metadata.
>
> This is a tired topic, certainly. But it's still a relevant one.
>
> Tim
>
> PS: I am the first to agree that the world would be a better place if
> we would all talk less and create more, but I've been programming all
> day and need a moment's diversion!
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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 - 15:10:07 EST