Last night, I asked a librarian I work with what she thought was the most useful information retrieval system that librarians use. She replied, "I don't think you are going to like my answer, but Google.com" (anonymous, personal communication, February 26,2008). We spoke in length about how librarians have gone from using card catalogs and textual indexes to using sophisticated online card catalogs, search engines, and online databases. She reminded me that we no longer even have microfiche and microfiche readers in most of the branches, including our own (anonymous, personal communication, February 26, 2008).
Our conversation left me wondering how much information retrieval has changed for librarians in not a very large amount of time. In going back to our Chronology paper, it is very easy to see how technological changes have impacted the world of librarianship, and inherently with it, the way we retrieve the information our customers request.
About Me
- Jennifer
- I work for Broward County Libraries as a Grad Intern. I am in my second to last semester before graduation. My spare time (those few brief hours I'm not working or doing school work) is mostly taken up by doing things to improve our house, going to the gym, and spending time with my husband.
9 comments:
I think there are good things and bad about how information retrieval has changed. I think the first step in IR is probably the same. Deciding what information you need and identifying a good source or sources. What has changed is that a lot of those sources are online now, and that there is such a vast universe of information to shift through. That's what still makes librarians relevant. We have the training to find and evaluate those sources. And yes, I admit I use google a lot for general questions, however, I feel like I know how to evaluate whether a site is relevant and reliable to answer my question. For research type questions I use a range of resources including online sites, databases, and even print resources. If you think about it most information online is what use to be printed resources. We just get it faster and it can be updated quicker.
I also agree with the librarian at your job to a certain extent. Google does provide a great deal of information, but you have to be able to determine if the information is valid. Because sometimes you pull up things from the Internet and cross refrence it with an actual source and things don't always match up.
Tamu
this brings up some interesting points. Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. (straight from the Google website). And that's a great mission. But what happens to the world of organized information when librarians are not involved? Do you think librarians should be involved and what do you think the differences are when they are or are not?
Google definitely has its value. In research, I use it as a starting point for topics about which I know nothing. This helps to sort of springboard me into more reliable, traditional sources of information.
RE: Bridget's comment; I think it's very interesting that Yahoo! uses a hierarchy to organize the websites it indexes, yet Google has more success. I'd be curious to see if there are studies on known-item vs. unknown, fuzzy searches and people's preferences. As I said, I usually use Google for very broad searches that lead me to better organized info like library collections or specialized websites .
I agree and disagree with the librarian you work with. I use google but only when I need a place to start from, if I don't know exactly what the person is looking for. From there, I try to point them to books that will have the information that they need. I don't think that google and other search engines are a bad thing but you need to know how to determine whether sites are valid or not. You don't want to give people/patrons false information, we are suppose to be the professionals.
What I love about Google's search capability is the flexibility. Spelling doesn't matter much with their "Did you mean..." feature and search terms can be varied and broad. Compare this with my library catalog, for example. We use Follett Destiny, which those of you in school libraries will know is a very good product, maybe the best out there for school libraries. Even so, the search feature is almost archaic. Subjects must be entered precisely and without spelling error. If you don't know the exact Library of Congress subject heading, well you're probably not going to find what you need in our catalog.
With users wanting the fastest and most flexible search, is it any wonder they turn to Google over the library catalog?
Google is very useful for finding information for personal use, which is what most librarians spend their time doing (at least in public libraries). This was a big surprise to me when I first started working at a reference desk. The questions were rather mundane, or crazy sometimes, but not related to academic research. Academic research is better done using tools other than Google, for the most part.
I also use google as a jumping off point for some basic reference questions. I usually use google when the question is a subject that I am not familiar with. Then, I gather the basic information I found from my search and go to an online database or e-journal that I am familiar with. That way I know the information that I am receiving is valid.
I also use Google in prelimary or exploratory search. It becomes habitual and I tend to forget that there ARE other search engines. Bates (2005) described drawbacks in Google that have been improved upon by other search engines.
Bates, M.E. (2005, August 16). You still Google? That is so last week. EContent. Retreived 24 March, 2008, from http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=13514
Post a Comment