Fall+2006+q3+Answer

Question #3
content.**
 * A variety of commentators have noted that Google’s search engine interface is far superior to what is found in a typical on-line catalog or database and often yields better results. Using one or two examples of your choice, discuss the assets and liabilities of the “Google way” contrasted to the way that librarians have traditionally provided intellectual access to

Jody -- I agree Google has more content overall, but I feel like libraries have more of a certain KIND of content -- deep web stuff, scholarly stuff, monographic content, whole books, etc. Good points about terminology and familiarity with tech. My outline's at the bottom of the page -- just wanted to toss this comment out there next to yours. -Meghan

Just a couple of comments I (Jody) want to add here: Google has more content; however, the application of authority control is, for the most part, completely missing. Google indexes the terms in the link from referring pages, which results in social tagging long tail-type results. In addition, page ranking is by popularity; the greater the frequency that valued pages link to a site, the higher it will rise in the page ranks. Most users only peruse the top 5 links in search results, and usually click something in the top 5. If you are seeking for a particular known item, and are using the same terminology as was in the full text indexed (a hit-or-miss proposition), then you are much more likely to find it in Google than in an OPAC. However, if you do not know the terminology, or you want something obscure, new to the web, old and not digitized, you are better off using the "librarian way." --jody

Preliminary Thought! Just got this email and thought this was a neat explanation:Got this email on my ILI listserv and thought it was appropriate to our readings this week: Explaining the difference between the WWW and Databases Original message: "I am looking for brief, easy-to-understand statements about the difference between searching the web, and searching online library databases. Does anyone have any good examples they use of why the students would want to use the databases? I know librarians are aware of the reasons, but how do you explain it to students who really are not very familiar with library terms and research beyond Google & Wikipedia?" Answer: "The metaphor I like use is that the Internet - or more accurately the World Wide Web - is like a shoe box that holds everything in a jumble - souvenirs, papers, receipts, etc. in no particular order while a database is like a well organized filing system. Search engines look through the shoe box but because they look for specific words or phrases that appear anywhere in the shoe box they may find items that aren't relevant, and because they don't search by concepts they miss items that are relevant. Using a database you can search for words in a specific content area and limit the search by many more criteria. A good example is the difference between finding boxes using a library catalog and looking for a book in someone's personal collection where all the books are shelved at random."

Shelly Warwick Director, Touro College of Medicine Library - New York swarwick@sprynet.com

"Google way"

Some Assets to consider Simple User interface (one box) -- User friendly Not wrapped up in so much library jargon ("boolean?" Correction for misspellings ("Did you mean...." Lightening fast User can be directed directly to content sites (i.e. When doing a report about MS, can go directly to MS web site) So much information now available on the web (i.e. annual reports, graphs, product reviews, etc)

Liabilities: Quality of Information questionable - not screened for content Relevancy based on hits Relevancy based on $ Accuracy of information -- what is trust based upon

The bottom line is creating an information literate individual and teaching them critical thinking skills to discern and validate any information found... whether through the "google way" or through traditional library means. This does not mean that there is not a place for the traditional ways.... IP needs to take the good things about the "google way" and try to be sensitive to the variety of technological skill which is out there... make interfaces more user friendly... make searches and retrieval easier... and give "google" a run for its money.

FROM: Lauren lbray2@utk.edu

Everything you say is true, Susan. Excuse my soapbox, plse. In determining the pros and cons of common search engines over search engines used in database searches, we have to consider the goals of the users. Librarians have the skills to go deeper than Google but if the user doesn’t care to then that’s another story. If the user does want comprehensive information then databases could save time since terms will be searched within the context of the database topic and not pull up a heap of fallout. Secondary school students answering worksheet questions will undoubtedly prefer even a basic Google search until their limited key terms yield nothing useful on the first page of results. If the goal is to find ‘the answer’ then a more traditional means could be employed…enter the librarian with the almanac, an early database with an index to browse; or a librarian in a school that subscribes to age-identified topical databases. Databases may not be a best source for answering a broad range of specific questions that teachers pull out of their notes, a print or digital encyclopedia may be better, but for more refined searching on a topic the dialog boxes are still as simple as Google and often provide terminology that can then be used for further searching anywhere. This is scaffolding-by-user and one of the information gathering skills librarians can teach for developing higher thinking skills. Librarians scaffold user literacy by identifying/bookmarking relevant databases and gradually teach the skills for choosing which databases to use. Using traditional print sources for gathering information is a concrete, developmentally appropriate way for teaching the principles of organization that illuminate information literacy. An encyclopedia index is much like a site map or directory. Why not be familiar with the layout of both. My middle school teaching experience with print almanacs vs. Google confirmed that books invite browsing much like Google invites surfing but without the frantic obsession of moving through as much as possible as fast as possible. Yes, Google works fast but at the risk of losing focus and perspective about what is useful to know and what you want to accomplish. Is the purpose of completing a worksheet using whatever sources you want to get a grade or to gain knowledge? Google is one of many tools available to library users but since we know that it only searches a teeny amount of the information available on the web, the majority of the other being held in databases with unknown search engines, information seeking by the populace will continue to evolve if information literacy professionals expect and teach the value of high quality information.

Meghan's response(I've put a couple of things in bold to come back to -- this is one of my 15-min. outlines):

Define: Google Way Uses a search algorithm to comb a vast portion of the web for matches **(more detail needed)**. Searches surface web, not necessarily Deep Web (example here). Does not hit many OPACs or databases. Content keyword index, ignores author-created metadata, no controlled vocabulary, Boolean AND assumed.

Define: Library Way Machine interface: Catalog indexes only library holdings using controlled vocabulary, keyword, title, author or combination of the four. Databases work in the same way **(review 530 and 535 notes for this answer)**. Human interface: Librarian talks with searcher, refines question in order to determine relevant needs, audience and direction of search. Librarian often can refer to individual knowledge of collection to go straight to immediate materials (medical encyclopedias for a general question about disease symptoms) while continuing to search other options. Human can determine depth of response necessary.

Assets of each: Liabilities of each:
 * Google**
 * Fast
 * Access to enormous surface of web
 * Knows most-used/popular sites
 * Often can provide a quick answer to a short, simple question (known item questions; best way to find a company website)
 * Frequently updated
 * Library**
 * Collocation with controlled vocabulary
 * Some degree of source authority can be presumed
 * Human interaction brings more understanding – better question asking, answers geared toward correct audience
 * Repeat questions, such as those from a class assignment, can be handled quickly and efficiently with advance preparation
 * Database results for available items
 * Google**
 * Surface web
 * GoogleScholar often returns unaccessible results
 * Authority of information
 * While millions of results are often cited as an obstacle to users by information professionals, my experience has been that average user doesn't look at number of results but focuses instead on first two pages
 * User must be able to clearly define information need without help
 * Precision of results often low
 * Library**
 * Slower
 * Intimidating arrangement, classification system
 * Subject searches clunky and require expert knowledge
 * Often requires intervention from human to get good results
 * While results are often better, especially for complex or scholarly needs, they can be difficult to achieve. Also, Google always returns results, even if they are just mediocre, so users have a feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment regardless of the quality of their returns. A PAC will often return no results simply because of an inadequate search, even if the library or database does have materials, and a novice searcher will not know how to perform a search to get results. The Google way is much less precise, and therefore more attractive to those who do not understand how to use the library way.

Conclusion: Library way is better if you know what you are doing, or if your needs are complex. However, Google serves a purpose, too, and is very useful for popular culture questions or for known-item searches. Also, library catalogs and libraries should do something to make their collections more accessible. Suggestions: Better IR Better keyword searching – argue merits/demerits of CV here, but conclude that most users think in keyword searches, not subject term searches so it's best to improve keyword search functions than to struggle to force users to improve subject searches (although should simultaneously improve IR) Roving reference Label subjects in reference section, quasi-bookstore style

[Maryke] Another advantage of Google has to do with user anxiety. A simple search box accommodates the beginner by being less complex and intimidating than advanced search interfaces. Unlike interfaces which require knowledge of specialized terms (boolean) and concepts (limiting, truncation, proximity), Google requires no up-front training. As its algorithm usually provides results which seem if not great, then good enough, most users will "satisfice".