I think that basically we are in agreement here, but of course, there are still a few points:
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 21:27, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> > This misses the point of library selection: we are not there deciding what
> > is "right," but using our tools made in close contact with the
> > administration and faculty (and we hope users), we decide on the materials
> > that would be most useful.
>
> I hear this argument often enough, so I feel I need to talk a bit
> about it. First of all, "right" is of course a subjective misnomer,
> and most people understand that no one would ever get anything
> absolutely right for any others. The problem is that when working with
> and talking lots with librarians everywhere I find they often have a
> delusional idea of what to collect and what not to collect, and I say
> "delusional" in the nicest possible way, where the end doesn't justify
> the goal (or library ideal). Of *course* collecting and limiting and
> censoring and limiting has been part of being a librarian, and I'm not
> saying that because you can't get it right you shouldn't do it with
> traditional materials (although I do have some different thoughts on
> that matter too, although not important right here and now). What I
> *am* saying is that since you won't get it right (and especially as we
> go digital), stop pretending that you _might_ get it right.
Pardons, but of course we "might* have gotten it right quite a number of times. I think the history of libraries from the very beginnings shows that we have gotten it right more times than we've gotten it wrong. But pretty early on, it became clear that no single collection could ever supply all the needs of users, and this is why sharing in all its various ways, began. Library sharing seems to be much simpler than it would appear: there are lines of responsibility of collecting (e.g. if library A is responsible for collecting in topic area B and other libraries are relying on library A's collection, then library A has much less flexibility in its own budget and collection development, and tthe administrators may not like that very much. This is only one small example).
Now of course, people are becoming less and less patient and want materials right here and now, instead of waiting for interlibrary loan or to have to hop on a bus, go 30 minutes and get the book in another library.
But selection never meant: because an item is in my collection, it is good and "right" and if an item is not in my collection, it is bad and "wrong." And it certainly never meant that materials would not be made available to users; it was (and is) still a matter of ease of access.
> The world is changing, and more and more things are digital resources,
> even old physical resources are turning digital. In this new world
> there is no need for *exclusion*, only filtering, and this is a
> totally new way to see the librarians role and their job. This is my
> point, and it's a rather important one; with digital resources you
> must redefine what it means to be a librarian.
>
> So, no, I'm not missing the point of librarian selection; I'm saying
> it needs to cease and be redefined as we move into a digital world.
Again, I think you are still missing the point, although I am willing to set that aside to agree that it needs to be redefined in a digital world. But not completely. Selection will still infer: making the item available to the users, which then infers the ability to find it, which then infers getting access to it. Each of these tasks contain enormous responsibilities and types of work from cataloging to conservation. They are fundamental tasks of a library and, although the actual human/computer efforts may change tremendously, I think these basic tasks will remain in a digital world, but most probably libraries will not be in charge of each part, however.
> > Different collections with different purposes
> > will select different things.
>
> Someone does the
selection, someone agrees with that person or even
> guides her, some are happy with the selection, and some are not
> getting those things that weren't selected, knowingly or otherwise.
> That is the library world up til now in a nutshell. Doesn't mean it'll
> stay that way, though.
Again, it didn't mean that a library would not try its best to supply an item not in the collection if requested by a user. If that was a library's attitude, it was not fulfilling its mission. Not having something in the local collection simply wasn't (isn't) as easy for the user, who had to wait, maybe go somewhere else in the city, or even pay some money for a copy to be made.
> > To use an exhaustive collection demands a lot from a user because there is
> > so much junk to sift through since it is so incredibly complex. Again, one
> > man's junk is another man's treasure, but it still must be organized in a
> > coherent way to save people's time, otherwise nobody could ever do anything
> > with it.
>
> Even when you argue *for* selection, you notice all the problems
> *with* it. :) I'm sure that a limited shelf-space has a lot to do with
> this, probably more than the intellectual capacity to sift through
> much to find golden nuggets, especially if the catalogers have done a
> good enough job and their catalog reflected their good work. *rimshot*
>
> > Google attempts to be exhaustive in its own domain (no selection), although
> > there is still the "hidden web" so lots of materials are missing.
>
> That's not Googles fault, mind you.
>
> > Its method
> > of "organization" (a type of selection by ordering the links) is
> completely
> > secret, this arrangement of links can and has been manipulated by all kinds
> > of people for various purposes, and this arrangement cannot be changed by
> > the user except to come up with additional words to use, limit to a
> specific
> > domain or format, and so on.
>
> As in all things competitive, if you can't find your stuff in Google,
> but you can in Microsoft, Yahoo, or whichever other search engine out
> there, you swap over. That's the beauty of this whole debacle
> librarians tend to ignore; you can swap methods, engines, processes,
> systems, etc, when they don't provide an answer.
If you can't find something in Google, then you can in Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.? That's certainly not my experience. They all suffer from many of the same problems, just as you point out that searching library catalogs all suffer from the same problems.
> What can I do if the librarian in front of me that I need help from
> doesn't like me, or I can't figure out that catalog they've got? Hop
> in the car, and drive to the next one? :)
>
> > While I am not maintaining that Google is bad--it is what it is, Google has
> > very serious weaknesses that must be acknowledged
> . This is the only way
> > forward. While these limitations are difficult to see in regular Google for
> > various reasons, these limitations become crystal clear to all in Google
> > Book Search.
>
> But I don't think they are crystal clear, especially not in the light
> of weaknesses in the library world. And if there's one thing that's
> consistent with the Google way is that it *always* improves, something
> I can't always say about the libraries. Google *must* improve, and
> will improve. (You mentioned some things that you find tricky in, was
> it, Google Book Search. Have you told them? Are you interacting with
> them in any meaningful way?)
The example of not bringing together the separate volumes of a bookset is crystal clear. That can be understood and seen by anybody. Now, some people may reply that it's not important to be able to get volume 2 if they have volume 1, but that in my opinion is a case of "sour grapes." Of course people want the multiple volumes of a set and if the retrieval system can't get it (and it exists in the system), then it is definitely broken in this way. To me, there is absolutely no argument about it and trying to explain it away doesn't hel
p anything.
And the point that Google always improves may or may not be true. It changes, without a doubt, but lacking any yardsticks or any control group to go by, it is very difficult to know if these changes constitute genuine improvements or are simply changes. When using Google Book Search, which is the only thing where there is a possibility of comparing, I have seen no improvements myself, although perhaps others have, and in spite of my own efforts, the results that it comes up with are often quite bizarre. In any case, I am always looking at items that are completely unrelated to my search and I am sure I am missing a lot.
Still, I would be very interested in some experiments using full-text search results and comparing it with results in a library catalog. Now that there is a large corpus of texts available that are already cataloged, it would be possible to do some objective analysis.
> > Although I may be wrong, my reading of Tim's comments is that Google is so
> > good while the OPAC is so bad, that the OPAC is unimportant for scholarly
> > research.
>
> I think what he is saying, and which I would agree with, is that it is
> going that way.
>
> > I pointed out some really glaring inadequacies in Google Book
> > Search
>
> Yes, sure there are. Just a quick question; for how long have GBS
> existed, as opposed to how long librarians with OPACs have existed?
> How long did you spend getting to the stage you're at, and how fast
> are you improving your game, say, as opposed to Google?
>
> This is not meant to be a Google lovefest, mind you, but I feel the
> urge to point out that Google keeps reinventing and extending and
> improving itself; it has a deep commitment to continuous change that
> is the pole opposite of the librarian way.
This is the main point of the entire debate, I think, and I completely agree. Library "stuff" must be seen as changing continually now, whether it "improves" or not, so that people believe things are moving forward. That has been entirely lacking and in fact, antithetical to some library values. I hope this will change, possibly with the new generation of librarians.
> > I don't say that the results are useless or bad, but they are clearly not
> > organized. It is only natural to wonder if the same limitations are in the
> > regular Google search as well but they are more difficult to see.
>
> Well, Google usually will push "relevance" more than order, so I'd say
> that's fairly normal. Maybe the one that comes up as no. 1 is the
> raunchiest of the batch and that's what people want? :)
>
> > This is why I maintain that we need both methods, although as you point
> out,
> > it could easily work in one system so that people could search all at once.
>
> Yup, and by that I think libraries have the most to lose if ignored.
And a final agreement at the end.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Fri Mar 06 2009 - 05:08:22 EST