[Web4lib] Google Print gets new name

[Suzanne M. Gray]

Hmmmm, but you are still searching within books, regardless of whether the 
result set may contain different amounts of immediately available content.
And you are exposed to books that you might not have ever known to exist.

It brings to mind many subscription databases that include a mix of 
citation only and full text items.

Limiting searches would seem to be key here.  This reminds me a bit of the 
challenge of books held in remote storage.  Many of our users would rather 
limit their search to the library where they are, rather than have to 
travel or request an item from another facility.  So I am sure that many 
would want to limit to items immediately available online, whether that 
gets them the best possible information or not.  For most patrons, it 
seems good enough is good enough for them, but often not for us.

The problem of helping our patrons become better information consumers is 
not going to be affected in any way by the name of this product, imho. 
However, regardless of name, its availability will get someone in Carthage 
TN immediate access to more information than they ever would have known 
existed.  "School girls" and we former "school girls" are a cagey bunch, 
so don't worry about us.  I think folks will be able to figure it out 
rather quickly.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Suzanne Gray
Web Services Manager
University Library
University of Michigan
sgray at umich.edu
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Richard Wiggins wrote:

> What's misleading is: what object are you retrieving?  If it's an out of
> copyright or in some cases apparently out of print book, you get full
> text.   If it's in-copyright, you apparently get a "snippet" and perhaps a
> link to purchase the book.
>
> Today, for this crowd, that is all understandable, parsable. For the
> prototypical school girl in Carthage, Tennessee searching the Google Books
> Search collection, is the book from 1899 in full text superior to the book
> from 2005 in snippet?
>
> /rich
>
>
> On 11/23/05, K.G. Schneider <kgs at bluehighways.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that "Google Book Search" is likely to be shortened by real
>> people
>>> in everyday use, but it's hard to imagine a better alternative that's
>>> reasonably concise, contains the target word "books" yet isn't grossly
>>> misleading.
>>
>> What's misleading, grossly, or otherwise? It's Google, and them are
>> books..?
>>
>> Karen G. Schneider
>> kgs at bluehighways.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web4lib mailing list
>> Web4lib at webjunction.org
>> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>