Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> B.G. Sloan wrote:
> > I think there's a different reason why some of those in the
> "non-bibliographic world" undervalue or ignore library data. They
> perceive library data as being created *by* librarians, *for* librarians, to
> help manage library collections.
>
> And I don't think this is an _entirely_ inaccurate perception. It's
> not
> entirely accurate either. And it was never our collective _intent_ to do
> that. But that's largely what we've ended up with, and it doesn't serve
> us well anymore even just for ourselves.
>
> I would not be shocked if Google had simply decided that the
> work/resources required to try to pull useful data out of the OCLC
> corpus in a sophisticated way was not worth the gain.
Although I find it highly regrettable, I must agree with all of this. When library card catalogs were first designed in the 19th century (and the basic design of the catalog hasn't changed since then), we have to remember the physical layout of the library and its catalog. Here is a good example of NY Public Library around 1923:
http://curledupwithabook.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/ny-public-library1.jpg?w=500&h=391
(from the page: http://curledupwithabook.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/desperately-wanting-a-library-card-catalog/). Here's another example: http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2009/01/wilbour-library-catalog-online.html
I can't find the reference librarian(s) in the NYPL photo, but I'm sure he or she is around, and there certainly is a librarian very prominently in the second photo. When the catalog was originally designed, it was designed with this in mind: there was always supposed to be reliable help quickly available: a knowledgeable, experienced person who was watching (benignly!) the *single spot* where the catalog lived, and who would come to your aid the moment the expert saw that you were having trouble. Reference librarians still do this today, and this highly personal approach is still the best way to help people: in the moment of distress, the helping hand arrives and people are much more willing to listen seriously than in one of those "information literacy" sessions. When someone checked out a book, the librarian could start up a short conversation and drop something like, "This is an interesting book. Did you know about our special collection of ___?" The personal touch is the most highly rewarding part of the job for many librarians and is how many patrons remember their libraries with fondness. I certainly find it rewarding.
Those days are gone. It's not to say that it doesn't happen at all anymore because it does. But nobody can see when patrons are having troubles anymore since patrons are "virtual." Today, it happens only in those increasingly rare instances when patrons just happen to be using the computerized catalog where the reference librarian just happens to see them having trouble. And the librarian sees that they are *not* having troubles with their email, or playing an online game, or watching a youtube video. The vast majority of the people who use our materials are "virtual" and this will probably only increase in the future. Knowing what they want, and how they use our tools (or whether they do at all, or only through gritted teeth!) is exceedingly difficult to know.
*If* Google is getting the entire catalog record from OCLC, then it seems to me they have chosen not to use certain parts. As one example, they have decided to go with BISAC terms instead of LCSH. If this is true, why? Most probably because they don't find a lot of the LCSH useful in the new environment, and it is difficult to argue with this. Examples are legion: who in their right mind will search for "computer network resources"? In a keyword environment, that is useless. Who searches for "personal narratives"?
I can understand why Google would opt for simpler BISAC terms, although I want to emphasize that I do not agree with this at all, but it certainly is a logical conclusion. It's a completely different information environment today, and has been for quite some time. And if I am right about the overwhelming importance of Google after a Google-Publishers settlement, they will be the most important players around. They will be calling the shots.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Sep 17 2009 - 03:33:16 EDT
