Ross said:
"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...
The problem is that this example (and, frankly, almost all ready
reference examples) are most likley more easily answered by Google."
(end)
I agree 100% with Ross here (sorry Martha, James). At the same time, I
think there is so much wisdom packed into James Weinberger's messages
(and Larry Sanger's too actually - I read his Citizendium blog) here
that I don't want to see lost. Therefore, I think we need to make a
valuable distinction here.
Libs should have a good sense of how and when to optimize Google.
Therefore, we should acknowledge the very legitimate point, namely that
for quick facts, information, *reference*, etc., i.e. basic facts that
are important at the time for our particular purposes (but depending on
reason for seeking the fact you may want to verify it with other
sources...), search engines are often are the best choice. Call it
"good enough searching", "satisficing", or "basic hunting, gathering and
consuming". I personally think the Coots question is a good example of
this.
However, in life well-educated persons value the "tough investigation
search" (think "CSI"). This is where we sense that we need to examine
the wider context of particular facts, and also that *some facts might
even be understood differently given this or that "frame"* (this
acknowledges that other facts might radically alter our whole picture -
think Einstein). Here, a person senses the importance of searches that
attempt to "cover all the bases", "interrogate all potentially relevant
sources", and use "NOT 'good enough'" searching, in our quest to see
more of the "whole elephant".
Of course, as I have talked about before, this is related to the value
of, and help offered by, expert authorities (across disciplines).
When we talk about this kind of difficult search-work, I don't see how
people will be able to avoid search processes that they might find to be
a little bit "unnatural" - going way beyond what Google, for example,
has to offer. After all, the desire to perform, and the abilities to
do, the careful kinds of research that I am talking about above - which
I think we as librarians ought to be nurturing - do not come without a
good deal of outside education / guidance... So far the educational
mindset of the librarian.
And the tools of the librarian that complement this mindset? Here I
begin to think about the cataloger Francis Miska's idea of the catalog
as an "intellectual space" that encourages and nurtures idea
exploration... Here I think about the principal that is actively played
out in Montessori school pedagogy - the concept of "structured
possibilities" (freedom to explore in an ordered framework). It seems
to me that libraries need to be structured to support this kind of
mindset - with efforts to make virtual spaces, such as library
interfaces, front and center in a way we can be proud of (Eric Lease
Morgan)
Of course, current lib catalogs - especially ones like WorldCAT - , are,
despite all of their weaknesses, still indispensable tool for serious
research (for discovering as well as accurately locating). And of
course, this hardly minimizes the importance of the many other sources
and strategies as well (including search engines like Google) that often
can and should be utilized, as James notes.
Finally, Eric Lease Morgan says that: "Increasingly people are not
physically visiting libraries and so we as a profession need to figure
out how to put our smarts into the applications we are supporting."
"Physically visiting" is key here. I heard somewhere recently (in a
podcast I think Ross recommended) that *local* library webpages actually
reach a similar percentage of their *target customers* as services like
Amazon. If that is true, it is of course no reason to rest on our
laurels.
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:54 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Another Google adventure
Jim Weinheimer said: "Remember, one of the founders of Wikipedia,
Larry Sanger, left it, saying that Wikipedia is 'broken beyond repair.'"
I seem to recall reading that Sanger has an axe to grind about
Wikipedia. He wanted it to be like his Citizendium project, and lost
out. I don't think he's an unbiased source for balanced info about
Wikipedia.
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 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 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
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
Received on Wed Jan 30 2008 - 12:00:48 EST