[Web4lib] Interesting article on Google Book Search

[Sloan, Bernie]

Karen Schneider said:

"Can you cite some examples? Because the point I was making is that even
non-critical comments come up for the torn-orifice treatment. I would
like to see the messages from the loud librarians (so unladylike!) who
are talking about the Great Evil Plan."

Yeah, I can't tell the Google-bashers from the Google-apologists without
a scorecard.  :-)

I'm the person who posted the original note that sparked this exchange,
and who has posted quite a few other notes pointing out interesting
writings about Google. I do this to try to generate some critical
discussion of the various things that Google is doing (and I mean
"critical" as in careful evaluation/judgment, and not as in finding
fault). Why do I tend to focus on Google? Because they are doing lots of
interesting things that have an impact on library services. I think it's
a mistake to uncritically accept such significant undertakings, just as
I think it's a mistake to bash them for bashing's sake. To loosely
paraphrase Shakespeare "I come neither to bury Google, nor to praise
it."

Bernie Sloan 

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:21 PM
To: Web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Interesting article on Google Book Search

> I think the level of frustration is that those loud librarians who
pick
> apart every move Google makes aren't interested in focusing the same
level
> of criticism at other efforts. It seems to be "Google is big, works
well,
> and is popular. And it has a 'don't be evil' philosophy and
reputation.
> Therefore it should not be allowed to think about or attempt answers
to
> this
> problem." Every Google functionality is analyzed as a clue to The
Great
> Evil
> Plan that will eventually use it.

Can you cite some examples? Because the point I was making is that even
non-critical comments come up for the torn-orifice treatment. I would
like
to see the messages from the loud librarians (so unladylike!) who are
talking about the Great Evil Plan. (Well, except Gorman, and he doesn't
count.)

> When a database created by a library comes out with, oh, 100-200
records
> in
> it, we don't jump all over it and say it's by definition useless; we
say
> it
> could be better if development continues.. When Google Scholar came
out,
> within 2 weeks every library pundit was complaining that it wasn't
> comprehensive enough, etc.

Poor comparison. I don't match Google Scholar against a database of 200
records, which sounds like someone's very special localized tool. I
match
Google Scholar against tools it is competing against that I use already
that
make me very, very, very happy in a searchalicious, linkalicious,
findagainalicious way--ProQuest and Gale and so forth. I practically
live in
the Gale Literature Resource Center these days, so I'm picky, but
shouldn't
I be? Google came out with something that it gives the tagline "Stand on
the
shoulders of giants" when its front page should have had that 1993-ish
image
of a construction sign and a little guy swinging an axe. Didn't have the
content, didn't have the organization, didn't have nuffin' like what I
need.
It's not a good product (versus Google Big Fat Book Database). Google
Blog
Search also disappoints... it may get better, but until it does I'll
keep
groovin' on Technorati. 

> Let's just stop and think about that for a minute. If the alternative
is
> Google doing it, or MSN/Yahoo doing it, or it never getting done, why
are
> Web librarians so convinced that the only good choice should involve
> Google
> NOT doing it?

Who said that? YOU said that. That's a false dichotomy: either do it on
Google's terms, uncritically, unquestioningly, as fast as possible, or
don't
do it at all. Then when questions about the terms of service are raised,
paint people as foot-draggers. 

> What I'm seeing here is people saying "We can't control Google, even
> though
> it does something we'd like to do. So it would be better to have it
either
> 1) not done at all, or 2) done by people we already know and hate/get
> frustrated with, or 3) done badly by us as long as we can keep these
other
> people from doing it better."

It's interesting that this is what you're seeing when this hasn't
actually
been what has been said. Not be me, not by Roy, not by Siva. (And if
we're
the Three Stooges, well, shoot, I'm happy to be Curly.) But you do prove
my
point about how people respond to criticism of Google. 

Karen G. Schneider
kgs at bluehighways.com


_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/