It's a tough sell, that only a deep researcher might appreciate
http://www.google.com/search?q=caravaggio+paintings
vs
http://tinyurl.com/39o77fr
I do hear you though Jim. Google is a commercial entity despite the do
no evil mantra. I actually think we are barking up the tree that Alex
was tossing our way. I too would love to see a high quality unbiased and
ethical library search that rivals the features of commercial search. I
just don't see us as terribly close, which is especially frustrating as
I too believe the information and services we provide are vital.
The following article was very eye opening to me on the evolution of
commercial search in terms of what is under the hood and constantly
changing:
“On most Google queries, you’re actually in multiple control or
experimental groups simultaneously,”
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_google_algorithm/all/1
This is such a different perspective on search than what we typically
talk about in libraries. We may even consider this unethical that
different people will get different results, or that the results will
change over time. Regardless of if Google survives they have set a
standard of quality for search that we cannot ignore.
Paling's original suggestions ironically included that we expose our
collections more deeply to commercial search by better understanding
SEO, in addition to thinking beyond the book as the center of our universe.
Stephen Paling:
> Stop Bashing Google.
> Bashing Google for not allowing people to search by title, author, etc., misses the point of a general purpose search engine. Instead, let's create rich resources like the American Memory Project (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html), and let search engines such as Google serve as the gateway. Search engine optimization (SEO, http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf) of the resources we create may benefit us much more than attempts to convince people that Google is a bad thing.
--Jimmy
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> Jimmy Ghaphery wrote:
> <snip>
> One of the initial points of this thread had the audacity to say: "Stop Bashing Google." I think there is a middle ground between blindly
> accepting Google as perfect and treating it as useless.
>
> When I search for "Caravaggio paintings" (without quotes), I am not aware of any library catalog that does as a good of a job with this
> search query.
>
> I get a nice cluster of images, top three links are not bad at all...
> caravaggio.com
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio
> www.wga.hu/html/c/caravagg/index.html
>
> Latest news on Caravaggio, current and from respected newspapers.
> ...
> </snip>
>
> Perhaps I need to clarify: what I wrote (or at least meant) was that, as the people who make websites learn ever more subtle methods to manipulate Google results to their own advantage--as is happening right now, with entire businesses created for this purpose (see the Google search for Search Engine Optimization http://tinyurl.com/37kfmj6), the searcher for "Caravaggio paintings" will get results that are *increasingly* useless, i.e. search results that actually serve the purposes of *those who wish to manipulate the results* you see vs. what is really and truly relevant for your informational needs.
>
> While the results in Google may be interesting and useful, we must contrast then with a search on a subject in a library catalog, e.g. browse search for subject "Caravaggio, Michelangelo Merisi da, 1573-1610." http://tinyurl.com/39o77fr
>
> I won't say that one result is necessarily *better* than the other, but each is different and useful. One however, is definitely more "unbiased and ethical" and has the advantage of allowing searchers to not worry about some unscrupulous cataloger trying to get as many dupes as possible out there to open their wallets or to twist people's minds in some way, which happens all the time in Google, although very few people realize it. On the other hand, it has the normal problems of anything created by humans, and of course, it is unrealistic to expect people to do browse searches in this way any longer.
>
> What we are providing is useful and I believe, vital. It doesn't mean the other ways are no good, but somehow we need to figure how to bring out the power of each.
>
> James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> Rome, Italy
--
Jimmy Ghaphery
Head, Library Information Systems
VCU Libraries
http://www.library.vcu.edu
--
Received on Fri Jul 09 2010 - 09:12:32 EDT