[WEB4LIB] Re: Re: Google Answers questions

[Jean Hewlett]

I was talking with two of my daughter's friends this weekend (early 30s, not at all
intellectual), and they asked what I do at the library. They were amazed to find
that I answer questions. "You mean I can come in and ask for information about
basket weaving and you'll find it for me? No wonder you don't publicize that
service--you'd be overwhelmed with questions if people knew it was available."

Jean Hewlett
North Bay Cooperative Library System / University of San Francisco
hewlett at usfca.edu



Dan Lester wrote:

> Friday, May 24, 2002, 11:20:05 AM, you wrote:
> >>   I don't think this is accurate.  We've already established that some
> >>   of them are done by moonlighting librarians.  In addition, they could
> >>   be done by someone else with a library connection, such as a
> >>   researcher or other patron who has access in the library, or remotely.
>
> RT> The key word, of course, is "some."  Some probably are librarians, but
> RT> so what:  why hope your question gets answered by a "moonlighting
> RT> librarian" or "someone with a library connection" when you
> RT> can go to your local library first, physically, by telephone (or
> RT> virtually through a VRD if they have one) and interact with a real
> RT> professional librarian directly?  I suppose it's all well and
> RT> good if "you're feeling lucky" (to paraphrase Google's famous words),
> RT> but why wouldn't a sensible person begin with the best possible
> RT> starting point, which is the library?
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> RT> I sometimes get the impression some people may have lost some faith
> RT> in libraries since the Internet became widely accessible.  I know I haven't.
>
> 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.
>
> RT> If anything, librarians are more capable than ever.
>
> Of course they are.  But our light is under the bushel. Not that I
> have any magic answers for moving the bushel, or building up the fire
> enough to burn away the bushel.
>
> RT> Why not tap that freely available power instead of paying for
> RT> potentially inferior information?  As far as "someone with a
> RT> library connection," that someone is not the equivalent (or even
> RT> likely a reasonable approximation) of a librarian;  to suggest
> RT> anything to the contrary is to imply librarians have nothing more
> RT> to offer than the untrained searcher at home who sincerely
> RT> believes anything everything can be found on the web in a definitive,
> RT> unbiased, and comprehensive format.
>
> 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.  I'm liaison
> to chemistry, and I can guarantee you that there's no librarian here
> who can come close to the weakest of the chemists in searching
> chemical literature.  And if any of those folks want to make a few
> bucks hanging around the net....   Hey, I wouldn't even know if their
> use of ChemAbs online was for their research or to answer their Google
> question....  I'd just get the bill.
>
> RT> Professional librarians know this not to be the case and, rightfully
> RT> so, often invoke Internet searching as a last resort.
>
> 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.
>
> RT> We must remember what valuable resources are exclusively maintained at
> RT> our libraries, many of which do not circulate and are kept on ready
> RT> reference shelves that the public does not have immediate access to,
> RT> along with other information, such as rare local history
> RT> documents.  The hypothetical untrained searcher "with a library
> RT> connection" can only go so far.  Even "moonlighting librarians" can
> RT> only go so far, unless they are earning extra income answering
> RT> questions while on the job (i.e. "double dipping"), which would raise
> RT> ethical questions and provide potential grounds for dismissal.
>
> No argument with any of the above.  However, for twenty bucks you're
> not going to get anyone to come into the library between 8 and 5 and
> dig through special collections of rare local history....
>
> RT> Granted, public access to databases is better than ever, but most
> RT> users rarely tap the full potential of a database, relying
> RT> overwhelmingly on keyword searches versus advanced search interfaces
> RT> and syntaxes.  It certainly does become an issue when a patron get
> RT> into serious, in-depth research, as in peer-reviewed journal articles.
>
> Again, no argument.  But for the vast majority of questions in
> academic libraries the advanced search features are not necessary. I'm
> not sure they'd be needed for the googlequestions I've seen either.
>
> RT> Fundamental issues also come into play, such as a librarian's awareness
> RT> of existing, definitive resources (in and beyond journals), versus the
> RT> untrained online researcher-for-hire who, yes, might have access to some
> RT> databases and library services, but may not have either the experience,
> RT> discipline, or complete access to in-house only databases a real
> RT> librarian has in order to fully answer another person's question.
>
> 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.
>
> RT> It should be so obvious the professional librarian has multiple
> RT> advantages over lesser educated and equipped researchers-for-hire
> RT> and really is the best first person to consult.
>
> 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.
>
> cheers
>
> dan
>
> --
> Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
> 3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
> www.riverofdata.com  www.gailndan.com  Stop Global Whining!