[WEB4LIB] Re: Re: Google Answers questions

[Robert Tiess]

[Sending again this message originally sent on Friday, May 24, as it did not come through the list. R.T.]


Dan Lester wrote:
> Because most sensible persons....
> 1) Never think of libraries.
> 2) Haven't been in a library in years
> 3) Think that libraries and librarians are old and stuffy and wouldn't
> know good and useful stuff.
> 4) Want to get it from the net and want it RIGHT NOW.
> 5) Too many others to mention

I hope not most, but your points illustrate exactly what the library community has to do a better job of: getting the good word out.  The disconnect between people and libraries, as presented above, seems fixable through improved communications between a library and its community.

As far as the "right now" notion: good in-depth research anywhere (on or off the web) takes time.  Ready reference type questions can be quickly answered, but my concerns tend to focus on deep/scholarly research, where one or two random web sites just doesn't cut it.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> As far as feeling lucky, in most libraries you take that gamble on who
> you run into at the desk.  Some are good, some are bad, some in the
> middle, and of course that is compounding by varying abilities in
> varying subject areas.


This is true to some extent, but I'm of the opinion the best bet is still with professional librarians.


Dan Lester wrote:
> Most people NEVER HAD any faith in libraries.  They were either a
> place where you had to go in school, and you probably hated, or
> they're a nice place to go get a mystery novel to read in bed.

Again, I hope not most.  Most public libraries have budgets which must be voted upon, and, while there are always difficulties in passing budgets (particularly when a small library proposes a sizable tax increase to support the creation of a larger facility), most budgets do get passed.  Presumably the people voting yes have some faith in their library.

Of course, one can try to say the number of voters relative to a library's service population is an indicator that the majority of available votes don't bother to vote because they don't care, but that's not necessarily true.  I hope not, and I hope most staff members in libraries have not lost faith in their communities.

The Internet has been somewhat disenchanting for librarians and researchers, for all its resources: too much, too little, authority issues, takes to long to find things, browser problems, and so on.  Libraries need to continue striking a balance between web and in-house content while demonstrating to patrons why libraries are the best starting place, even if the patron is inevitably referred to an online resource or a third party expert or "Ask a" service.
 

Dan Lester wrote:
> Whoa....I'm not thinking of people who are into some "work at home and
> get rich quick" scheme.  I'm thinking of accomplished researchers in
> almost any field, but who don't happen to be librarians.  I can think
> of all sorts of friends and neighbors, on and off campus, who have
> great research skills, at least in their subject areas.

Okay then, no argument there.  "Accomplished researchers" is more like it.  Many "Ask a" services rely on such accomplished people who are not librarians yet are confirmable experts in their field.


Dan Lester wrote:
> And that's a problem.  I work just four hours a week at reference.
> I've not done ref regularly (i.e. 20 hours a week or so) for many
> years.  But I also see colleagues take patrons off on some long and
> tough print search for something I can pop up on the net for them
> before they even get off to that section of the reference stacks.  The
> old "if the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, it is the right
> tool for everything" cuts both ways.


Right, and I'm sure you've encountered questions that have no answers on the web.  You can only find so much on the web.  Quick is good only if it leads to good information.  Patience is a factor.  For the best possible information in any form people can learn to wait a few minutes.

Web resources are also limited also by copyrights and licensing: how many print reference volumes, for example, do wonders for us, yet how few of them are on the web via electronic resources we can license or access freely.  No researcher should be limited to one tool; use them all.  The library is the toolshed.


Dan Lester wrote:
> Once again, the researcher for hire may be ten times better than any
> librarian, at least in his/her field, and that is presumably the field
> that they'd be picking googlequestions in.  And those freelancers
> certainly have access to libraries.  We see bunches of them in our
> library, that's for sure.

"May be" is the problem.  Again, if one is "feeling lucky," go for it, pay up, and hope the information gained is indeed good.  It's always a gamble, but I still say the best bet is the library.


Dan Lester wrote:
> I've never argued against starting with a librarian.  I've been trying
> to indicate that we professional librarians aren't the be-all and
> end-all of research, and we certainly don't have, or don't even have
> access to, all the answers. I've also been trying to indicate that the
> majority of questions are simple and hardly require all the wonderful
> things or resources you describe.

It depends.  Questions received at institutions I work for rarely fit the "simple" category.  And then there are academic libraries.  There's always a fair share of ready reference type questions, but it's been my experience that most people wind up at the library because of class assignments or questions they could not answer on their own -- questions that rarely could be described as simple.

Another trend I noticed over the past few years is that many people wind up at the library because they got frustrated searching for hours online.  This is not to say they are "bad searchers," but it does show that, no matter what, there will always be a portion of the community that needs libraries no matter what.  Expanding on that portion remains a challenge for libraries, which is why libraries need to do more on and off the web to renew the faith of their respective communities.

I think that can be done, and quickly, because the only the libraries really need to do is advertise their services more prominently and then be sure to back up their claims with quality service (which I don't anticipate being much of a problem for most libraries).  Public relations, consistently good service: give patrons a reason to visit and then return to the library (and the library's website, if it has one).

Robert Tiess