[Web4lib] RE: Another Google question

[Jeremy Dunck]

On 7/15/05, Mike Taylor <mike at miketaylor.org.uk> wrote:
> No.  And that's the whole point.  We couple of hundred information
> professionals on this list care deeply about this stuff, but we do
> need to come to terms with the fact that no-one else does.  As far as
> the other 5,999,999,980 people out there are concerned, Google is just
> fine.  If we pretend otherwise, we're hiding out heads in the sand.

First, I'd like to thank you for voicing what I've been too afraid to.
 Which is to say, I'm no librarian, I'm just here because I want to
see the web become more useful to libraries.  I've been quite
surprised at the-- I'm sorry but it does seem accurate-- glee that
folks on this list seem to take at poking holes in information tech
that's available.

Scholarship and accuracy are great, but they are not the end-all of
utility, and most of the time, people just want to get things done. 
Should we burn the libraries once Google Print has all stuff scanned? 
Hell, no.  Libraries have purpose, even if they are underfunded and
get far too little emphasis in the press.  But Google Print will still
be useful in a way that's different than libraries.  Get your head
around it!  It's not a zero sum game.

I'd be very happy if the depth and richness of major libraries were
available online, but the resources haven't been there, have they?

> After all, the world's most dominant software vendor achieved that
> position by producing a badly flawed product that was "just good
> enough".  Why should we be surprised that the world's most dominant
> search provider is adopting the same strategy?

I think that goes too far.  What google's doing is making profit on
the back of an unprecedented commodity hardware farm and the ideas of
a lot of smart people.  You shouldn't interpret failures of
transparency are the Evil Empire out to snooker the poor
used-to-be-a-library-goer into trusting the web as gospel.  Providing
useful feedback on this stuff is great, and I think that largely
that's the spirit Bernie's effort is towards, though sometimes I'm not
sure.

What if making a totally accurate "links to" index would require 10x
the resources that it currently does?  Should Google really not have
offered it?  If you want to go that way, I have yet to see a library
which carried all titles ever produced-- hey, I'm missing a viewpoint
there!

Would it be sufficient for there to be a disclaimer like "links are
not comprehensive", and "total results are approximations"? 
Continuing the comparison, it's pretty well understood that no single
library has all titles, right?  Roy, what would you have expected?  If
it was perfection, well, how would that be sustainable?

And what's with the Google fetish, anyway?  Isn't this list supposed
to be about using the web to the benefit of libraries?