[Web4lib] RE: Another Google question

[Karen Coyle]

Jennifer, you are absolutely right, much of the problem with Google is 
really a problem with keyword searching. Which reminds me that when the 
Google Guys were planning their new search engine, I had this exact 
conversation/argument with Carl Page (who was bragging about this new 
system his little brother, Larry, was developing and how it would solve 
ALL of the searching problems on the Internet). And I've had this 
argument with many computer scientists before and since, and I'm sure 
that I've never convinced any of them, especially any who made 
gazillions on keyword search technology.  I think this is the classic 
nerd inability to understand that what they think and do is not exactly 
what everyone thinks and does. (This is also how you get programs that 
have popup messages like "Error 99. Take appropriate action.") Solving 
YOUR problem does not necessarily solve MY problem.  If we could get 
away from the "one size fits all" mentality, then we could embrace a 
plurality of search types.

The reason why I think it's worth continuing the argument against the 
assumption of  "Google is all you need" is that we librarians have the 
commitment to serve all info seekers, even those whose information needs 
are not satisfied by Google. It's not that Google isn't good, it's that 
in spite of its existence there is much work yet to be done to help 
match users and the information they need. And I for one do not want to 
give up the pluralistic information society for a single vision 
information society. Yet sometimes I think we are headed in that latter 
direction.

kc

Jennifer Heise wrote:

> Ok, I'm missing something. Even without relevance ranking, the problem 
> described below is going to be a problem with any full-text searching 
> tool. Lexis-Nexis is a prime example. I've spent years explaining this 
> as one of the advantages and disadvantages of full text vs. 
> metadata/subject searching. But people don't naturally do subject 
> searching, especially limited-vocabulary subject searching. That's why 
> academics (who use known item searching most of the time anyway) have 
> been gravitating towards the searching of publisher databases rather 
> than subject indexes, and why the Web of Science is so seductive to them.
>
>> For other types of searches, Google doesn't work so well. There's no 
>> "conceptual" searching. Topics like "childhood development" or "legal 
>> theory" come out very poorly. For names of people, you tend to get 
>> pages that have lists of the graduating class of blah blah high 
>> school, because they have every possible forename and surname 
>> combination. (Note: you and I do well on google searches because not 
>> only do we have our own web pages, we have our own domains. I suspect 
>> that makes a big difference. My friend Bill Jones doesn't fare so 
>> well. Even adding the name of his institution I don't see anything 
>> about him until the third page.) Do a search on something like 
>> "antique candy dish" and you find yourself with ebay-like pages that 
>> list 20-50 items, each with one of the words in your query.
>
>
>

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------