That's fair. But I think we can split out the questions:
1. How do the two resources compare as ways of finding useful information?
2. How do the two technologies compare as ways of searching their resources?
We can debate endlessly about #1. About #2 there can be little
argument--OPACs are lousy—and this failure has considerably impact on
their fitness for #1, finding useful information.
So, while I understand your frustration at comparing two dissimilar
services, I think there's good reason to keep thinking about why
Google is so good and OPACs so bad at what they do.
Last, whether you intended the nuance or not, I want to note the
phrases "what [Google] retrieves from Google" and "what [the OPAC]
retrieves from the library catalog." We do not judge Google by how
good it is at finding material in the Google index. Rather, we speak
of Google's ability to find things on the web itself. Librarians could
take a cue from that and stop talking about how great an OPAC is at
finding things in the "library catalog." Finding things in the catalog
is a technical issue, not a goal.
Tim
On 1/6/08, Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 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
> ------------------------------------
>
--
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
Received on Sun Jan 06 2008 - 15:35:34 EST