On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:34:12 -0700, B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Thomas Krichel asked: "Got a better one, Bernie?"
>
>My basic point is that we don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of GBS
right now. Read the last paragraph of my posting, where I say that
librarians will need some clear talking points that explain the strengths
and weaknesses of GBS. Librarians could use these talking points to answer
questions from administrators.
I think we need to keep the distinctions clear between 1) the materials
available in Google Books, and 2) the searching/discovery mechanism. I
personally *LOVE* the materials in Google Books but the searching/discovery
mechanism is primitive to me.
This is exactly the same situation that most patrons have with the library:
they *LOVE* our books, journals and everything else, but *HATE* the way our
catalogs work. Traditionally, libraries haven't really cared whether people
liked the catalog or not (they had no choice) and would only offer some
small courses that few took, even fewer understood, and an extremely limited
few retained. Instead, libraries always relied on 1-1 reference work when
someone experienced difficulties.
That rather ad-hoc method, which has been breaking down for a long time, is
not the method followed by Google. Google focuses on the business practice
of customer satisfaction, and I am sure they will continue. When the
agreement eventually goes through, there will *really* be a genuine choice
for people: the library catalog, or Google Book Search. One will offer
immediate access to vast amounts of information, the other will lead into
the stacks.
I'm sure that everybody on this list knows about the Google API, where a
notification appears if there is a copy in Google Books of a book in your
catalog. I have no doubt that Google will set up a system that will do it in
reverse: if you find something in Google, it will search your catalog
automatically. It won't take long for people to realize that when they
search Google Books, they will in essence, also be searching your own catalog.
For those items/editions not in Google Books, we'll see how much people want
them. Those are probably the items consulted once every 50 or 80 years, but
we'll see. Will the answer to this be to get them scanned into Google Books
I realize that this is a rather dire scenario, but it only takes a bit of
imagination; all the technology is in place right now and it could come
about very easily and quickly.
This is why I say we must reconsider ourselves and what we do. There are a
*lot of things* that are not in Google Books that people want and I think it
will be our task to make these easily available. We should not expect Google
to do it all. Just as people ask me: where is JSTOR? or where is
Lexis-Nexis? I use the opportunity to tell them that there are lots of
excellent materials out there that are not in JSTOR or Lexis-Nexis. These
places are companies, and they want everyone to think: I want JSTOR, instead
of: I want scholarly articles about a certain statue of the Italian
renaissance, no matter where those articles might be. Therefore, most people
don't really want Lexis-Nexis, they want information from Elsevier, Oxford,
etc. etc. etc. and let's not forget open archives. Lexis is only one tiny
part, but when people turn only to Lexis-Nexis, while that makes Lexis-Nexis
happy, they in effect have allowed this corporate entity to limit their own
minds.
One task of ours will be to convince people that Google Books is only one
resource among many, and we can do this best by building tools that will
show them this is true.
Among other things...
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Oct 08 2009 - 05:54:48 EDT