Alexander Johannesen wrote:
If I may enter into this...
> > We can't just rely on the Google machine
>
> Why?
As in my message to Tim, librarians go into some pains to show that the results from a Google search are not reliable enough for genuine research. Certainly they are a great supplement, but research demands some more rigid and assured methods of access. I will be the first to concede that the current library methods leave a lot to be desired as well, but it has still not been shown that full-text searches are so good that the traditional methods can be eliminated. As I have pointed out, in Google Book Search, it can't even bring multiple volumes of booksets together. If it can't do that, what else can it not do?
But just because I find fault with the Google machine doesn't mean that I also cannot use it in some great ways.
> > But the point is that no
> > library is interested in collecting free e-books.
>
> Why not?
This goes to an entire batch of reasons. First reason for not collecting them (at least I believe), free e-books can disappear tomorrow, or they change, or who knows what will happen to it. If you buy access to ebooks (which in effect, is often renting them since in some plans you pay a yearly charge for them), if you buy say, 50,000 volumes and next year you can't afford it, all that work at cataloging is gone. (this is the way old hands look at it, and few of the arguments I bring up here are really valid).
But I think the main reason is that it bypasses normal library workflows. With printed books, there have been long established relationships with book dealers, who provide selectors with pre-order slips, allow for approval plans, blanket orders and other very nice, time-saving devices. If it's a free book, there is no incentive for the book dealer to include it (they are not making any money at all). Therefore, it all falls to the individual selector in the individual library, who is stuck looking at..... the Google box! The task is absolutely overwhelming when viewed in such a way.
There are some very interesting projects however, such as Intute, Infomine and some others, which attempt to coordinate selectors' work, so that all can benefit from the selection of one librarian. Still, these projects lack a lot when compared with the well-established work of a Blackwell's or Harrasowitz.
Of course, there are excellent answers to all the points mentioned above, but everything is still new and untested. It means deep, substantive change for all kinds of people and libraries tend to move slowly and cautiously.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon Mar 02 2009 - 05:27:41 EST