Alexander Johannesen wrote:
<snip>
I've yet to see how much better the library tools are. Prove me wrong.
</snip>
And therein lies the entire discussion. I proved the statement wrong and it is simply ignored, along with dismissing everything else I demonstrate. I desmonstrated that there is a difference between searching concepts and searching text, and that *people cannot search concepts in full-text tools such as Google. They search text. And within certain, known limits, people can search concepts in a library catalog.* Period. I realize that this must be very uncomfortable, but it cannot be denied, only ignored or to say that it's unnecessary.
But I think more than anything the following statement is revealing:
<snip>
> [about the term "relevance"] The Google use is a
> secretive business term but one chosen strategically to make their customers
> more comfortable. It works.
Yes, it does work.
</snip>
Yes, it has worked. All of this deep skepticism toward libraries disappears in the face of the Google-hype. They have succeeded in making their results so comfortable that everyone is supposed to simply accept whatever the black box serves up to them. I find it interesting that even you, with your deep skepticism towards us, which I admire in many ways, have thrown it off towards Google. Why can't you be as skeptical toward Google as toward library tools?
Again, the library-type tools are not simple to use, but are an expert system. They have needed to be changed for a long time but I've gone into that in other messages and won't go into it here.
<snip>
> When a
> cataloger puts in metadata, it's a completely different matter. In a library
> catalog, you don't have to search these older terms, but in full-text you
> do, or they will never come up in the result--and you will never realize it.
> As a result, you miss entire categories of really useful information.
Again, you're assuming people are complete idiots.
</snip>
Not at all. It was just stated that people are supposed to simply accept whatever Google throws at them, after just looking through a few screens. Why would they suddenly become skeptical and display a much higher level of understanding to consider something like, "Oh! I shouldn't forget that I'm only searching terms and not concepts, so therefore, I must think about other words used for African-Americans in the past." And immediately be able to come up with half-a-dozen or so. I have met no one who has ever thought that way: students, or well-established scholars, *except* for some librarians.
I personally think that people who do not understand these sorts of things are not idiots, they are simply not experts. Much as if I don't know how to work on my television set it doesn't make me an idiot.
Sorry, but to paraphrase:
"I've yet to see how much better the full-text tools are. Prove me wrong."
Regards,
James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Mon Apr 26 2010 - 08:13:29 EDT