I guess I didn't make myself clear: I think this is an excellent example of a real-world question that would have been asked and answered by a reference librarian using the various tools at his or her disposal. I have no doubt that a reference librarian (and Martha, herself!) could and would have used the catalog to be able to answer such a question. As I tried to point out, this is a more complex task than it would seem and is beyond the abilities of an untrained user. In the old days, the user would have been expected to go to the reference librarian since they would probably have not been able to solve it on their own. As I mentioned in my previous message, whether the earlier methods and tools were successful or not is not at issue here. So, whether the better and easier answer to Martha's question was by using Google or a catalog is also not at issue here.
Today, we expect users to avoid reference librarians entirely and rely entirely on automated results. This is just the way it is (reference librarians certainly feel the pinch!), and I don't believe that part of the solution is for all the systems (library catalog, full-text results ranked in various ways, perhaps hand-made research guides, etc.) to work together to supplement the other's weaknesses.
Jim Weinheimer
> This thread honestly seems like a terrible example to me. It is not
> as though the library catalog would have offered Martha her answer
> (or, rather, it _might_ have, but not intentionally). She would have
> had to found a volume that addressed her question in the catalog, gone
> to the library, found it in the stacks, looked in the book's index or
> ToC (if they exist) and then find her answer.
>
> This is, note, after she _knew how to ask the right question to the
> catalog_. If she had merely asked a different question to Google (and
> my guess is that that's what most users do if they are unsatisfied
> with their search results, unless of course, they are librarians with
> an agenda) she would have gotten her answer in a fraction of the time
> that the catalog route would take.
>
> I'm not saying that the former scenario isn't better in certain
> scenarios, but this is a horrid example of it.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 3:14 AM, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> > 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 t
he 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 - 04:33:35 EST