[WEB4LIB] RE: Chronicle article: Google Unveils a Search Engine Focused on Scholarly Materials

[Ross Singer]

Karen,

I think this goes to show that Google Scholar (or anything else, for 
that matter) vs. native search interfaces shouldn't be viewed as an 
either/or issue.  It's definitely a case of using the right tool for the 
right job.

Much like you wouldn't use dynamite to carve a replica of 
Michaelangelo's "David", you might use it to blast the quarry to get the 
marble.

This is a somewhat bad analogy, I realize, because you don't have the 
same person doing both of the above tasks, but a person's preliminary 
scan of what's out there on a topic may lead to much more refined 
searching later.

What we need to do is be able to offer both alternatives, seamlessly and 
intuitively.

-Ross.

K.G. Schneider wrote:

>The researcher they interviewed said, "With a good ranking algorithm, the
>need for limiting is less significant than it used to be. ...It is if the
>ranking is not good that I have to increasingly refine my search until I get
>exactly what I want."
>
>I'm mulling over that, search-wise, and I don't disagree with it in general
>(and Google is aiming for "in general"), but there are some specialized
>searches that come to mind that this doesn't address. For just one example,
>a scholar may be looking for major news articles for a particular date in
>history, to give background and context to a historical piece. You can do
>that in the NY Times database (although I wish it could be filtered better).
>
>
>This made me wonder in a big-picture way if we should let other people fuss
>with aggregating data and put our emphasis on pushing specialized search
>interfaces. 
>
>I thought it was interesting that the Chronicle reporter used the term
>"navel gazing" rather than "ego surfing." 
>
>Karen G. Schneider
>kgs at bluehighways.com
>
>
>
>
>  
>