Hi,
> I've yet to see how much better the library tools are. Prove me wrong.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 22:13, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> And therein lies the entire discussion. I proved the statement wrong and
> it is simply ignored, along with dismissing everything else I demonstrate.
No, you've proved nothing. What are you holding up as evidence here?
You merely talking about the wonders of a different method doesn't
mean the different method by default is proven better. This is a tug
between methods, and to prove them you need to do the methods in the
tools that support them, and I suspect you agree with that one. But
you *haven't* pointed out what you do through your method that is
objectively better. You say it is better, that certain kinds of
searching demands it, yet where is the evidence that we *need* your
method, that it performs *better* than alternatives, that your tools
are better at *supporting* that method, and so on.
> 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.
What is the difference between a concept and a text? Nothing in itself
; they're both pieces of text string. The difference lies in the data
model behind the *tools*. The human aspect of this is completely void;
it's a null argument. The tools *may* have an advantage searching
concepts, but you have not demonstrated that this is so. Show me a
concept, even the African-American example, being done better, that
you somehow get to better results through your tools rather than
Google. Show me the juice.
> 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.
No, it's not uncomfortable ; it's nonsense. Perhaps if you wish it
really, really hard you would hope it would be so, but it simply
isn't. Search Google with any concept, and you will get results. The
whole idea of what a concept is is pure bunk. Again, I dare you to
show me better search results in an OPAC than in Google. Any example
will do. Here's what I suspect will happen ;
You'll get lots of stuff. You start sifting through it to see what is
relevant, what is useful. You do additional searches, maybe similar
concepts, related subject headings, maybe even a hardcore librarian
combination of sorts. You end up with a shortlist of stuff.
How *exactly* is this different to how I used Google in my previous
email (and removing the word "concept" completely)?
> But I think more than anything the following statement is revealing:
...
> 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?
Well, there's a few things I need to say. The first is that remember
that I have developed several OPACs in the past. I'm not some idiot
observer on the sidelines talking crap, I happen to know very well -
probably better than most librarians - how the backend ILS and OPAC
systems work. And remember I'm also a data model buff, working with
semantic technologies ; the difference between two conceptual ways of
doing search on the same meta data lies in the data model. But here,
talking Google vs. libraries, there's a paradigm shift in how that
search works ; it's limited but precise (and I'm not talking about
data quality here) meta data vs. fuzzy and complex full-text. I know
how both works. I can evaluate which one does it best. And, sorry to
say, but due to a number of factors Google wins hands down (factors
that work against the library way include data quality, lossy data
model, rules so complex integrity falters, human validation, and a few
other bits and bobs). Google win by already being good, and will win
by still getting better.
But let's get something perfectly clear ; I'm not skeptical of
librarian knowledge, only the tools in place and the meta data
integrity which renders the knowledge pretty useless at times. I don't
have any deep skepticism towards you - the lovely and stubborn
librarians of the world! - I have a skeptic, or more to the point
depressing, hope of you guys being able to pull off tools and meta
data quality in order to promote that your knowledge is valuable to
the world. I don't see it happening, but I would love nothing more
than being proved wrong in this!
> Again, you're assuming people are complete idiots.
>
> Not at all. It was just stated that people are supposed to simply accept whatever Google throws at them
But you see, that simply isn't so! People don't accept whatever comes
out of Google anymore than they accept whatever comes out of your
OPAC. And to be frank, people are not stupid ; if they don't get the
results they want, they search again, at the library, using Google, or
going to the hardware store.
> 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.
So what you're saying is that your OPAC does this? No, it most
probably does not. There might be a librarian sitting behind a desk
that might think this, so your point is more that the human guide is
valuable. Sure, no disagreement there. Doesn't make our tools
superior, though.
Oh, btw, Google has ontological suggestions by default now at the
bottom of the page. They're pretty good, and getting better. And
filtering. And sorting. And I'm sure they'll think of something funky
next. Like a thesaurii option.
> Sorry, but to paraphrase:
> "I've yet to see how much better the full-text tools are. Prove me wrong."
Well, are we looking for books, or knowledge?
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Mon Apr 26 2010 - 09:20:53 EDT