> > The problem is: while *we* know the problems of Google, studies have shown
> that the majority of users think they are good or excellent searchers. And why
> not? They almost never get a zero hit, while they do all the time in a library
> catalog.
>
> This is so patronizing. People aren't happy with Google over the
> library catalog because they're stupid.
I never said people are stupid. It's just that Google is very good at hiding things and making people "happy." Google, just like library catalogs or anything else, has its strengths and weaknesses. My tired old example that I use all the time to my students is: what should you search in Google if you want items on world war 1? It's a no brainer, right? "WWI" and you get zillions of things that you could never read if you spent your entire life. But then, I ask if it's a good search, and then I point out that by definition, they are *not* getting some of the most important types of materials. And what are these? Primary sources--in fact, anything written before world war 2, because it wasn't called world war 1 until world war 2 happened. You would have to search for "european war' (but how many of those have there been?). Not a single one of my users has ever realized this before I point this out but they begin to realize it's a little more complicated than they thought and they are all a little less enamored of the Google result.
If somebody doesn't realize this, does it mean that they are stupid? No, of course not. But it shows the difference between a regular user and an information expert. People aren't born knowing how to find information, just as they aren't born knowing how to read a map. You have to learn. Sure, you don't have to have a map when you enter a forest, but it can sure save you time and keep you from making lots of false turns. And some people are better at reading maps than others.
Google is the forest without a map. A library catalog at least has a map but it is terribly difficult to use. Both have weaknesses and strengths but in either case, people should be aware of the opportunities and pitfalls in both.
> >On one list, I mentioned that the most heartbreaking thing I had seen in
> some time was on Google Trends, one of the big searches that week was
> "financial hope."
>
> You should try using Google to confirm things you hear. Google Trends
> indicates the search doesn't have enough volume to chart.
From the Google Trends site:
"With Google Trends, you can compare the world’s interest in your favorite topics. Enter up to five topics and see how often they’ve been searched on Google over time. Google Trends also shows how frequently your topics have appeared in Google News stories, and in which geographic regions people have searched for them most."
It turns out I was thinking of Hot Trends. Pardon:
"With Hot Trends, you can see a snapshot of what’s on the public’s collective mind by viewing the fastest-rising searches for different points of time. You can see a list of today’s top 100 fastest-rising search queries in the U.S. You can also select a recent date in history to see what the top rising searches were and what the search activity looked like over the course of that day. We update Hot Trends hourly."
http://www.google.com/intl/en/trends/about.html
Both seem a little different from not having enough volume.
Current hot trends are at: http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X. Everybody's excited about the Oscars.
> > People need help when they search for information, and they need to rely
> on people who follow a code of
> > professional ethics. (Sounds like a librarian!) But unfortunately, people
> are all too often unaware of what
> > they are missing, or what they are really looking at.
>
> This is completely out of touch with both the world as it exists and
> with the inherent value of others' minds. Librarians can be very
> helpful. They are not the only or necessarily the best guide to what's
> interesting, useful or germane to someone's interests. They are not
> Plato's Guardians.
I guess I gave out the wrong attitude concerning what librarians are. I didn't say that we are the "only" or "best guide to what's interesting, useful or germane to someone's interests." People figure that out themselves. But we do have knowledge and skills that can help others. Examples are: the reference interview to help people figure out what they want (yes, people need that), controlled vocabulary to help bring concepts together to avoid the "wwi" problem, but there are other tools, such as the guides to the controlled vocabulary, the proliferation of research guides and so on. In any case, the goal of librarianship is to make people as independent as possible and to be able to use these tools themselves. And certainly librarianship is among the most anti-censorship groups I have ever met.
I have met several respected scholars who consider they don't need help to find information and that the Google algorithm will do it all for them. I have met several from the "Google generation" who are especially hostile to the idea that Google is not enough.
I don't think this is what you believe and seems to related to what Bernhard was mentioning with his references to Kant. But it is one of the major problems librarians have had to face for a long time, and it is becoming especially intractable today.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon Feb 23 2009 - 06:10:59 EST