What is interesting in this thread is that it touches on so many aspects of traditional librarianship.
First, comes the reference problem: the user *really* wanted one thing, but searched something else. This happens with everyone, even with someone with as much experience as Martha Yee. This is one of the main purposes of reference services in libraries: to help people figure out what they really want. People take classes in this in library school, and there are even books written on this topic, along with lots of articles. The LCSH heading used is the array:
Reference services (Libraries)
Interviewing.
The idea of the reference interview may seem very strange, but it is a fact established by centuries of experience. This is also one of the purposes of browsing the headings list: it allows the user to see various aspects of a specific topic. My example was searching "Dogs" and finding, "Dogs -- War Use" (or something like that). Through the broader/narrower/see also terms (in jargon, this is called "sydentic arrangement"), you may discover that you really wanted "Afghan hounds" or another term altogether. Whether this system works well or poorly is a different topic for discussion at the moment, and whether it works (or should work) in an online environment is yet another topic.
We have also discovered that there are different words for "coots" (probably a scientific term as well). When we get into different languages, the task increases in complexity.
Finally, in Martha's original message, she mentioned "universal employment" which touches on the fact that if there were more staff, catalogers could delve more deeply into the topics of a resource than they do now. At present, there are strict rules for subject analysis, stopping at 20% of an item. (My own opinion is that most books have an index and these could be incorporated in some way) In any case, the only reason a reference librarian could do his or her job (i.e. helping the user) was because both the selector and the cataloger performed their jobs in a standardized and reliable manner.
So, we see that Martha's original question actually hides a plethora of tasks, each complex in its own way. Before the internet, users were in a highly controlled environment the moment they entered a library, where there was an entire array of tools designed to help them. Whether the majority took advantage of these tools is debatable.
Today, the controls are off and many people feel liberated, but they are having problems as well: they expect Google or Yahoo to do all of these extremely complex tasks automatically, and for all the cultures of the world, and for free. The tools that reference librarians use are no longer so reliable. Whether we agree with this new world or not is completely irrelevant: our task is to help our users to the best of our abilities. But this demands tremendous changes for everyone: all the way from the selectors, to catalogers, to reference, to the users themselves.
If we think in terms of retaining the system that we currently have and moving it in some way to the internet, I personally do not believe that this can be done. But, if we refocus and see that many people out there are essentially doing the same thing and all of this at least *could* be harnessed, I am far more optimistic that we could offer substantial help to our users.
Thanks Martha!
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Wed Jan 30 2008 - 03:12:11 EST