There has been a lot of discussion on this topic and obviously these words became quite controversial. There were the loyal googlers (According to Wikipedia a "Googler may refer to:
1) A person who uses Google's features very efficiently 2) Fan of Google 3) An expert online searcher 4) A full-time Google employee.) and the hardcore librarians on the other side.
Even thought I am not a hardcore librarian (yet!) the white bread part did make sense to me instantly. Google has changed the way we search and our expectations of our searches. Put in a couple of words which you know by experience that will come up with a number of useful links, and wupti your information is presented to you after a few clicks!
That is how the Google world works, but that is not how searching really works. We do not charge people money for doing a couple of "quick and dirty" (that what we used to call them in uniy) searches and present to our users. Do we? No really, we don't: First of all we will be aware of the limitations of the source (in this case Google), we will combine terms according to our experience and the way the source is catalogued, we will consider searching for either separate words or phrase we will use search operators such as Boolean, truncation, limiters and so on. Once the search results appear we will carefully look at the sources before looking at the information on the link and after checking the credibility of the source we will select the article and rank its relevancy compared to other articles available. This can take anything from 1 minute to much longer.
I think it is clear in everyone's mind that the pros of Google is the simple search option, the listing of results and the speed of retrieving information. The downside is at times its credibility and ranking (most popular first) and the "clutter" of information that you get with your search results. I guess Google has affected the information world in such a way that it is changing the way we and our users search. When it comes to Google we librarians seem to be a bit redundant (or on the positive side, we can almost always assume that users who approach us have already tried to Google their results and now come to us in desperation!). There was a time when our academic theory of how to search and where to search was the practise, but now we are being told by new technology where to go and how to get there. It's as if we are adapting to the technology, and not the technology adapting to us any longer. That is probably the story in every industry.
I have a feeling that Google can only rely on this sort of behavior for a limited time, I am sure something will change for the poor websites which are on page 9.568 on Google search results. If they got the proper indexing terms, and we searched using a Google thesaurus, they would be given justice too, popular or not!
I wouldn't say that Google is database, such as a library database, it is more a dumpyard for information and although Google's techonology works on the same priciples as citation indexing, I do, along with other of my kind, feel that the future of IS in is doubt, because people's understanding of information retrieval is changing.
Last week I was in the local Gurdwara with my hubby, we were having langar, the "free meal", and a friend of my in laws came and sat with us. He is a very nice person no doubt, very jolly and very loving. He asked me if I was still working in Uxbridge, and I answered no no I am in Maidenhead now, working as a information professional. I often don't expect people to understand right away what it means to be a information professional, but his reply was "oh, so you find a document on the shelf and give it to people, here you go"?
I was left a bit shocked but jolly as he is, he started laughing and made me laugh too. But truth is that it is people's perception of information retrieval that has changed and we do not seem to have become part of that change. Maybe that is not so bad, because at the end of the day, when people fail to find the information they need on their beloved Google...... eventually they will turn to us won't they? Gives me hope :) We have to know the sources that go beyond Google and also look at Google's competitors.
This may be my thoughts presentend in a very messy way, but I have been inspired by something I read on a blog:
http://zerotwozero.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/non-google-day/ :
Here is a suggestion for something that I reckon, would prove a hit in any academic library. A ‘Non Google Day’. Google is now a verb in itself, to ‘Google‘ something is the act of looking up information on the internet, “What’s a multi faceted information architecture?” ”I don’t know, why don’t you google it!“ etc.
So here is the challenge. Make every student that you comes to you with an information query look for the information through another web based search engine other then Google, or even in a book/journal/magazine. This excersise should prove to students that there are other resources other then Google such as www.ask.co.uk, infotrac/other online journal database, hard copy journals, the list is endless.
Pros: Increases and promotes greater information literacy, fun to do, will help lecturers who find students increasingly rely on Google for information.
Cons: Needs promotion, needs understanding and support from lecturers, not enforcable without blocking Google from whole institution (through firewall).
Although we haven’t actually done this yet at our library, it would be interesting to see if anyone has done anything similiar and the results from that excersise!
and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/14/altsearch_google_boycott/
So from now on, every Wednesday, I will try different search engines, so I can learn what I miss out on when using Google or what I do not miss out on. It will broaden my knowledge of new and old search engines, and I feel that is the least a librarian can do!
I have made a note in my Outlook calender saying "Non-Google Day" and also made my colleagues aware of my new activity.
I will try and update this blog on the search engines I have used, also it will remind me of what I have used and still have to try.
Karen Blankeman's list on search engines will be quite useful: ttp://www.rba.co.uk/wordpress/index.php
I would also like to try this one which I heard about at the Online Information conference in 2008: http://www.exalead.co.uk/search
