Google Answers questions

[Robert Tiess]

Dan Lester wrote:
>   Thursday, May 23, 2002, 8:23:48 AM, you wrote:
>   RT> Also worth noting: the online researcher paid to answer questions likely does not have
>   RT> access to the licensed databases and print resources most librarians would have at their
>   RT> disposal.
>
>   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.


The key word, of course, is "some."  Some probably are librarians, but so what:  why hope your question gets answered by a "moonlighting librarian" or "someone with a library connection" when you can go to your local library first, physically, by telephone (or virtually through a VRD if they have one) and interact with a real professional librarian directly?  I suppose it's all well and good if "you're feeling lucky" (to paraphrase Google's famous words), but why wouldn't a sensible person begin with the best possible starting point, which is the library?

I sometimes get the impression some people may have lost some faith in libraries since the Internet became widely accessible.  I know I haven't.  If anything, librarians are more capable than ever.  Why not tap that freely available power instead of paying for potentially inferior information?  As far as "someone with a library connection," that someone is not the equivalent (or even likely a reasonable approximation) of a librarian;  to suggest anything to the contrary is to imply librarians have nothing more to offer than the untrained searcher at home who sincerely believes anything everything can be found on the web in a definitive, unbiased, and comprehensive format.

Professional librarians know this not to be the case and, rightfully so, often invoke Internet searching as a last resort.  We must remember what valuable resources are exclusively maintained at our libraries, many of which do not circulate and are kept on ready reference shelves that the public does not have immediate access to, along with other information, such as rare local history documents.  The hypothetical untrained searcher "with a library connection" can only go so far.  Even "moonlighting librarians" can only go so far, unless they are earning extra income answering questions while on the job (i.e. "double dipping"), which would raise ethical questions and provide potential grounds for dismissal.


Dan Lester wrote:
>   RT>  This is more than a noteworthy disadvantage and could very easily make the
>   RT> difference between a minimally acceptable answer and a comprehensive, definitive  answer;
>   RT> why pay for the former when you could get the latter for free?
>
>   With all the libraries, academic and public, that offer databases
>   locally and remotely, this wouldn't seem to be much of an issue.


Granted, public access to databases is better than ever, but most users rarely tap the full potential of a database, relying overwhelmingly on keyword searches versus advanced search interfaces and syntaxes.  It certainly does become an issue when a patron get into serious, in-depth research, as in peer-reviewed journal articles.

Fundamental issues also come into play, such as a librarian's awareness of existing, definitive resources (in and beyond journals), versus the untrained online researcher-for-hire who, yes, might have access to some databases and library services, but may not have either the experience, discipline, or complete access to in-house only databases a real librarian has in order to fully answer another person's question.

It should be so obvious the professional librarian has multiple advantages over lesser educated and equipped researchers-for-hire and really is the best first person to consult.

Robert Tiess