Michael Mitchell wrote:
> I really don't think the sky is falling, nor will it when Google books get
> online. I don't catalog all the books available to our students for ILL now and
> I won't be cataloging all of Google's content either. I don't catalog the
> Gutenberg Project content either. I let them provide access to their
> content. I do catalog some Web sites because they seem especially appropriate
> for our students or staff. Some are so well done they are worth highlighting I
> don't worry that I can't do them all. Don't need them all in our catalog. Like
> Jan said, we will still select for our users. Even federated searching tends to
> overwhelm our people with too many choices. We'll have actual books here in the
> library because that's what many, many of our students prefer. They like to
> leaf back and forth as they take notes, etc. All in all our future looks bright
> I think. The addition of Google Books to the mix just increases our value.
I was not discussing cataloging here, but selection. Jan Szczepanski was saying that his users do not need all of Google Books, which I agree with, but in order to do that, somebody, somewhere, has to make a selection. Selecting from 8,000,000 items is an absolutely titanic job and will most probably take several years at least (and this collection is growing, very possibly exceptionally quickly after the Google-Publishers agreement eventually becomes a reality). This is in addition to all of our other work, and is just like a "backlog" cleanup project.
Only after these items have been selected can they be included for cataloging, which will have to be done since that will be the only way of letting our users know what has been selected, but we are probably talking about a minimum of several hundred thousand records, if not millions. And each library is supposed to do this? When and who will do it? We do it cooperatively? OK, that's fine. How long will that take?
No matter what happens, we will be forced to send people to Google Books for years for the vast majority of materials. What is the percentage of a library's books that are normally used that are also in Google Books? Pretty high, in my case, and probably in the majority of other English-language libraries as well. These materials will be easily available directly from their office desks and from their homes, and will certainly be more easily available than running over to the library, prowling the shelves and finding out that the book is misplaced or otherwise not available.
Then, after several years have passed, we are supposed to win these people back somehow, after they have seen the ease of using the scanned materials, because of our "superior selection" and traditional library metadata? Pardon my skepticism, but I just don't see it. What will be the purpose of the library's catalog when 90% of the library's physical materials are available online, and where the users can find lots more by *not* using the local catalog?
Still, I think our future looks bright so long as we reconceive ourselves and what we are really doing. Trying to maintain the old ways with the old methods will disintegrate under the new realities. I like the idea of Cindy Harper's about using the technology to help us. It's not a matter of rolling up our shirtsleeves and putting our noses to the grindstone. The task is far too big for that. We need new methods.
I think there are a lot of tools such as these where we can find realistic solutions, along with lots of help, too, because we will surely need it.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Wed Sep 16 2009 - 10:32:31 EDT