[WEB4LIB] Re: Google Answers questions

[Richard Wiggins]

I'm afraid my use of the term "compiled results" may have misled you.  The
whole premise of Google Answers is: I offer to pay a sum of money for
someone to go out and research my question anew.  By "compiled results" I
meant a set of answers (citations and annotations) compiled by the
researcher in response to the question just posed.  I do not mean calling up
a previously compiled set of answers.  Google Answers is not AskJeeves; it
is not a set of pathfinders or FAQs; it is not a knowledge base.  (However,
I believe they are indefinitely archiving and making accessible to others
previous questions and answers.)

Thus if I asked a question concerning the hearbreak of psoriasis or efficacy
of laser eye surgery, I'd expect the researcher to compile a new list of
source links at that time.  Yes, if the researcher limits him/herself to
freely-available Web resources, that's not as good as searching commercial
databases.  But that's a different issue.

I urge everyone who has commented upon this new elephant based on their own
conceptions of its trunk and its tail to, at the very least, browse some of
the asked-and-answered questions online. 

/rich


On Thu, 23 May 2002, Robert Tiess wrote

> 
> Richard Wiggins wrote:
> > I believe it's possible that the paid Google model
> > can lead to compiled results superior to what the
> > free Web-based desk will deliver -- and in much less time.
> 
> Precompiled results, as in questions already answered, can be good or bad:
information
> changes, especially in fields such as heath, law, and the sciences, such
as your astronomy example.  Even history "changes" when new historical
documents and information becomes available -- stuff that doesn't make it to
the web right away, or ever: stuff only professional librarians are likely
to know of or have access to (versus the non-librarian online researcher).
> 
> While Google's approach could lead to more quickly compiled results,
libraries offering virtual reference services could and should build their
own internal knowledge databases so that librarians have one more local
source to consult before going out on the web: they can check there to see
if another librarian at that institution has answered a similar question.  I
have done this at my library, and it has proved very helpful.
> 
> Throughout this debate some people may have forgotten that, while online
research services can often connect people with good information, it's
really the local librarian who is in the best position to offer answers
where local community related queries are concerned: the online researcher
geographically situated elsewhere may not be aware of resources available
where the patron lives; this is especially the case where the location of a
patron is kept anonymous.
> 
> Also worth noting: the online researcher paid to answer questions likely
does not have access to the licensed databases and print resources most
librarians would have at their disposal.  This is more than a noteworthy
disadvantage and could very easily make the difference between a minimally
acceptable answer and a comprehensive, definitive answer; why pay for the
former when you could get the latter for free?
> 
> Researchers really would be best served by going first to their local
libraries.  This is what my own research network, ResPool, had urged all
members to do before submitting questions.  Go straight to the best
community based information source, and then consult third party services if
acceptable answers are not provided.  It would be nice if more online
reference services realized and emphasized that.  People really need to
rediscover what libraries offer for free.
> 
> Robert Tiess
> rjtiess at warwick.net

Richard Wiggins
Writing, Speaking, and Consulting on Internet Topics
rich at richardwiggins.com       www.richardwiggins.com