Jim,
I agree that we're not that far apart on some things. But on others, well, not so much. ;)
> Does it also follow that people prefer to *not be able to find*
> resources reliably by authors, titles and subjects?
I want the option of ignoring that kind of searching. The ease of Google and its lack of fields is hugely helpful in my professional life. For example, I'm using a lot of nonparametric statistics in my current research. But when I want to find out about a specific procedure, a catalog is nearly useless. Will the procedure be mentioned in the title of a book? Probably not since it's too specific. The author's name? I don't know many people with names like Runs Test. A subject heading? Doubtful, because most books cover too many procedures for catalogers to mention each one. A table of contents? Maybe, if the table is in the record, but the author may have used an alternate name for the procedure. And so on. But I can throw a bunch of terms into Google, get the lay of the land, use Google or Amazon to find a book (or article) that fits, then use the catalog to see if the University has the book. Of course, I don't really want the book. I want the fragment(-s) that will explain
the specific procedure. The book as a container is a necessary inconvenience until publishing practices catch up to the needs of users like me. Sometimes it seems that the most common piece of information I get from the catalog is that what I need is checked out. Take a look at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/ for a good counterexample.
So this raises research questions like, Do our cataloging categories fit users' mental categories? How often can users phrase their need with the precision necessary to use a catalog effectively? On what level do users want information to be aggregated? What medium(-a) will best serve user needs? Would our metadata efforts be better spent outside the catalog?
I have no problem with people pointing out the limitations of general search engines like Google. But articulating the usefulness of what we offer when the easy tools like Google fail isn't the same as some of the eye rolling condescension that gets directed at search engines on library listservs, or the assumption that people use it out of ignorance or sloth.
> old-fashioned, I think it is vital for professional librarians to be
> able retrieve materials in a reliable, almost guaranteed way, from the
> collection that is under their control so that they can help people
> and have some kind of control.
I agree in spirit, but we've created systems that even practicing librarians struggle to understand (cite below). These are, in many respects, technological problems. MARC is too impoverished to allow exploitation of document structures on any meaningful level, and card catalogs and early OPACs required compact notation that is largely inscrutable to users, and difficult even for us.
Steve
AUTHOR: Karen M. Drabenstott, Schelle Simcox, and Marie Williams
TITLE: Do Librarians Understand the Subject Headings in Library Catalogs?
SOURCE: Reference & User Services Quarterly 38 no4 369-87 Summ 1999
=====================================
Stephen Paling
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Studies
4251 Helen C. White Hall
600 N. Park St.
Madison, WI 53706-1403
Phone: (608) 263-2944
Fax: (608) 263-4849
paling_at_wisc.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:17 am
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Copernicus, Cataloging, and the Chairs on the Titanic, Part 1 [Long Post]
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> I agree with many of the points you make, but on some, I have some
> difficulties agreeing:
> <snip>
> "Stop Bashing Google
> Bashing Google for not allowing people to search by title, author,
> etc., misses the point of a general purpose search engine".
> </snip>
> Does it also follow that people prefer to *not be able to find*
> resources reliably by authors, titles and subjects? My own experience
> is that people actually believe that when they search for, e.g. Samuel
> Clemens in Google, they actually believe they are getting "everything"
> by this author; the same goes for subjects.
> I admit that titles are weird.
>
> Just because we can point out problems with Google does not mean we
> are bashing it. Just as any other information tool, we need to know
> its strengths and weaknesses.
>
> <snip>
> Stop Bashing Users.
> Have you ever implied that users don't use our tools because those
> users are ignorant of how our tools work? Because the users are
> impatient? Don't be surprised if those perceptions color our
> interactions with users. How many times on this list, and others, have
> we heard people advocate ignoring user desires and needs? Let's stop
> telling users what they need, and instead focus on meeting those needs
> as they are.
> </snip>
> I think it is also important to point out that expecting people to
> find useful information/knowledge/whatever-you-want-to-call-it without
> any training at all is rather naive. People accept that they can't
> work on their cars or do anything on a computer without training. Yet,
> research has shown that most people believe they are expert searchers,
> but of course, they are not. Anybody who has done any reference work
> knows this. Of course, this doesn't mean that people are ignorant or
> stupid, but they have been untrained. Just like I cannot work on a car
> competently or work on my electrical wiring.
>
> It's nice to believe that Google-type searches, i.e. the black box,
> will solve all problems, but I think it is clear that this is not
> correct.
>
> <snip>
> Consider Eliminating Cataloging.
> </snip>
> and
> <snip>
> [This one from pt. 2]
> Users First, Technology and Standards Second.
> </snip>
> I sympathize with the concept of users first, and while I may be
> old-fashioned, I think it is vital for professional librarians to be
> able retrieve materials in a reliable, almost guaranteed way, from the
> collection that is under their control so that they can help people
> and have some kind of control. Perhaps the methods we use will not be
> obvious to the general populace, but that is not unusual, just as
> there are special ways into a car for a mechanic, or special methods
> for a plumber. We all want these experts to have their own ways to
> maintain our cars and plumbing systems. If there are no standards, I
> submit there are no real possibilities for experts, i.e. librarians,
> to help users who experience trouble.
>
> Standards for bibliographic retrieval are necessary, just as they are
> accepted as necessary in many other aspects of specialized areas of
> endeavor. It's no secret that I don't believe we need RDA and FRBR,
> but we need some kinds of standards, in any case. What those standards
> will be is a very interesting question.
>
> James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> Rome, Italy
Received on Tue Jun 29 2010 - 15:41:54 EDT