Let me suggest that you try this search in google or yahoo now.
It's important to remember that these search engines are soft clay,
and we too can shape them to the needs of our/their users.
--Casey
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:07 AM, James Weinheimer <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
wrote:
> Not to belabor the point, but I am saying that it is an excellent
> example of
> *a real-world question* that people have every day, not as an
> example of
> whether Google or the library catalog is best to answer this type of
> question. Some tools work better or worse with certain types of needs.
>
> Now, if you believe that her question about coots is not a good
> example of
> the sort of questions people have, that's a different matter.
>
> One thing that is often not discussed, as I tried to point out in my
> original post, is the vital role of the reference librarian, who
> helps the
> users figure out their own questions and how to use the tools to
> answer
> those questions. That is a surprisingly complex task.
>
> And I didn't bring up the issue of whether the information about
> what coots
> eat is correct or not....
> Remember, one of the founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, left it,
> saying
> that Wikipedia is "broken beyond repair." (See story in the Times at:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1637535.ece
> ) If somebody like Larry Sanger is worried about Wikipedia, which is
> at
> least semi-monitored, it should make people far more skeptical of
> things
> that aren't monitored at all. Who knows? Maybe coots are carniverous
> and eat
> small animals :-)
>
> Also, just because people may find fault with some of these tools
> doesn't
> mean they have an agenda. My concern is if we do what several people
> have
> suggested: leave catalogs and search engines separate because each
> is strong
> and weak in their own ways, then this means that catalogs will
> simply be
> ignored. People want to do one search (this has been demonstrated many
> times) and if that one search will be in a catalog or a Google-type
> search
> engine, we must accept that everyone will opt for Google.
>
> It is my stance that this is not in the best interests of our users.
> Certainly Google is fine for its purposes, but the power of
> traditional
> access should not be ignored, as it would be if we keep the two
> separate.
> Our goal should be to merge them into something new so that their
> mutual
> strengths and weaknesses are balanced. This means that catalogs must
> change
> tremendously and perhaps they won't even be recognizable as catalogs
> in the
> future, but the functions of the catalog are just as important now
> as they
> have ever been.
>
> James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> via Pietro Roselli, 4
> 00153 Rome, Italy
> voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 327
> fax-011 39 06 58330992
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:49 AM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Another Google adventure
>>
>> I guess I'm not making myself clear, either, because it's still a
>> terrible example.
>>
>> Google is a _much_ more efficient tool for finding information _like
>> Martha's question_ than the library, the library catalog and the
>> reference librarian. Why? Because it's right there in your house
>> (setting aside issues of the digital divide for the moment).
>>
>> Martha, completely unempirically, didn't try the same, _errant_
>> search
>> on the catalog (and fail). Instead, she backed up, used her
>> knowledge
>> and found what she was looking for.
>>
>> Which, if she wasn't trying to cram an agenda down our throats, she
>> could have _just as easily_ and most likely _much more quickly_ by
>> using Google with the same level of critical thought that she applied
>> to the library.
>>
>> Jim, you have a point, there is a dependence on the machine to answer
>> our questions. The problem is that this example (and, frankly,
>> almost
>> all ready reference examples) are most likley more easily answered by
>> Google. Does this mean libraries/librarians are obsolete? No, but
>> perhaps this isn't the most efficient use of their or the user's
>> resources.
>>
>> -Ross.
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2008 4:35 AM, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
>>> 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 - 07:56:56 EST