[WEB4LIB] Re: Re: Google Answers questions

[Dan Lester]

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!