Jim and Nathan,
First Jim : "Better" and "reliable" are synonyms to the subjective
user, and I'm always writing from his or her perspective, never from
the librarian perspective, which perhaps not only clarify my language
and stance, but why we seem to have these contradicting views which
when scrutinized become agreement. I'm sure that "reliable" is - how
to put this? - a better goal, however I don't think I see users worry
about the operating word here, nor what your goal is per se.
Apart from that I don't have much to say as you didn't really address
many of the larger points I was making. :)
Nathan :
> Of course, the structure of the Google system is secret and protected -
> and open to all who would seek to understand it - where the structure of
> the library's system is not. It is transparent.
The library system may be open in theory, this we all agree too. But
in practice the system requires librarians to function, which is one
of my main points.
> Therefore, of course,
> the "Google tricks" you learn may or may not be useful later.
The Google tricks I learned 10 years ago are still valid today. I'm
sure the librarian tricks you learned 10 years ago are still valid,
too. All these tricks mostly amount to models of operations and
semantics of functionality, and these things usually stay the same. If
you look at how Google have changed their underlying methodology of
page ranking over the years it is however tremendously impressive how
they haven't broken the knowledge of usage. Will the same be the case
for the Next Generation Catalog?
> With Google, who knows what they are doing
> with their ever-evolving secret sauce?
Their business goal is to get the best results for their users. I see
no reason to fear that nor expect them to degrade or fail me in this.
They make money if I find my stuff, which is a better incentive than
the library system. (Note: speaking here of incentives, not goals or
ideals)
> (and of course I'll teach my kids the same thing: namely, don't
> trust systems that aren't transparent, that aren't potentially
> knowable).
There is a tremendous amount of non-transparent systems out there,
including most ILS software in use today (sloooowly changing). I'm a
sucker for open-source and open data and open models, but don't kid
yourself into thinking that closed systems somehow should be less
trusted by their very state. Trust should come from the organisations
that back them up and develop them instead, to their record over time
and their stated goals and ideals.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Wed Apr 28 2010 - 00:49:03 EDT