Isn't a lot of this the difference between searching metadata and
searching full texts? Surely the full text search will be richer and the
results will be more informative. I like the idea of having metadata *in
addition to* full text, but metadata alone is looking very limited
compared to full text. And we all know that LCSH has huge problems,
scattering topics all over the catalog, as Tim shows here. If we start
adding more intelligent linking to the web (that is, links that have
meaning beyond "link") then the web becomes a true information space,
not a finding aid. And if we could get beyond the linearity of our
library metadata, we could make it much more usable.
kc
Tim Spalding wrote:
> First, let me apologize for my compressed and somewhat hostile tone. I
> appreciate your willingness to play ball even so. Ultimately, even if
> I disagreed with you on every point--which is not at all so--I would
> be grateful for the opportunity to discuss it thoughtfully with you.
>
>
>> 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 an!
d they are all a little less enamored of the Google result.
>>
>
> But again, Jim, this is false. You're not Googling these things and
> looking at the results. In fact, primary-source documents annotated
> with the term "World War I" are the rule online, not the exception.
> It's library subjects—which used "World War, 1914-1918"—that have the
> problem, not the web.
>
> No primary sorces? Well, from the first ten links Link #5 is the
> "World War I Document Archive" from Brigham Young University, a
> massive collection of primary sources, helpfully subdivided into
> Conventions and Treaties, Official papers, Diaries, Image Archive,
> etc. Link #9 is the website "Eyewitness to history," which excepts a
> few dozen personal accounts of the war—a good introduction to some
> useful or interesting resources. And link #10 is the well-known
> Internet Modern History Sourcebook, an extensive link list of WWI
> resources—from the Zimmerman Telegram, telegrams to and from various
> European capitals, multiple versions of the Treaty of Versailles, as
> well as personal accounts by the Red Barron and Rosa Luxemburg, and
> the poetry of Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. Of the other links,
> very many contain bibliographies and link lists to primary sources.
>
> Turning back to libraries, I did a "Subject Search" on the Library of
> Congress for WWI and the first two hits are:
>
> 31 Eskadra Rozpoznawcza--World War II.
> Aerial gunnery--History--World War, 1939-1945.
>
> Only at three do I get a clue of what's going on:
>
> Aeronautics, Military--Germany--History--World War, 1914-1918.
>
> So, World War I isn't a valid subject time--I must use "World War,
> 1914-1918." But in this case, the "10,000 results" (a curiously round
> number!) are mostly of this form—"World War, 1914-198" stuck at the
> end of some other subect, like "Australia--Army--Recruiting,
> enlistment, etc." or "Dutch East Indies. Militaire
> Luchtvaart--History--."
>
> This list is, of course, far too much, even if it were possibe to
> remove World War II items. I couldn't figure out how to do a
> "left-anchored" search, so I would get only things that *start* with
> "World War, 1914-1918." If the system weren't so obviously borked, I'd
> be tempted to conclude that controlled vocabulary, like artificial
> intelligence in search, is an idea too far ahead of current
> technology.
>
> To return to Sassoon and Owen, it's also worth remarking that many of
> their books lack WWI-related subject headings in the Library of
> Congress and other libraries. They're often just poets, and the
> granularity consensus of library cataloging makes it hard for
> individual poems on a topic to surface. The web does a better job of
> contextualizing their work, of splitting it into appropriate units,
> and of making it findable by its predominant subject.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Before the web, the people who "couldn't be bothered" never thought
> about the process by which information was "made." It was in a book,
> and that was good enough. Teaching ancient history some years ago, I
> found this a continual battle--forcing students to think critically
> about how documents "work."
>
> Rather than a decline, I see an ascent. The web (Google, etc.) has
> taken the veil off the thing. The whole connected world is undergoing
> an intensive--enjoyable!--graduate seminar in Quellenforschung--with
> every blog post, Wikipedia entry, tweet and YouTube video an object of
> study. All of a sudden the basics of source criticism--that every
> document came from somewhere, has some opinion, has an intended
> audience, and has no inherent claim on your belief--is before the eyes
> of all. Searching, and being rewarded for good searches used to be a
> fringe activity; it's now central to all our lives.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> A twelve-year old knows Google isn't enough--it's pretty lousy at
> finding YouTube videos, for example! Mutatis mutandis this applies
> across the information spectrum. People learn what's good and what's
> not. And Google has opened up options, not closed them.
>
> If searchers today are unaware of many relevant printed source, they
> were largely unaware before. Many are now looking back on the "old
> days" as an age of close, personal contact with good sources. That's
> nonsense. Fifteen years ago, people may not have been copying from the
> internet, but they were cribbing out of encyclopedias and copying
> essays kept on file at their fraternities. (I personally benched half
> the U. Mich hockey team for that offense!) We have better tools now,
> but ignorance and laziness are renewable resources.
>
> Best,
> Tim
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Mon Feb 23 2009 - 12:23:52 EST