|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Library Leadership Network Peer Panel: January 2006 Welcome to the premier performance of the LLN Peer Panel! Each month, we will be asking our panelists to comment on one or more important issues facing library leaders today. LLN subscribers are welcome to participate in two ways: by commenting on the answers of the Peer Panel, and by suggesting questions they would like to see discussed. The Peer Panel members are supplemented by the LLN Advisory and Editorial Boards. The topic for this initial outing is the phenomenon that dominates many a conversation in information circles: Google. The questions we posed to the panel are: • As libraries plan for the future, what opportunities and threats are presented by Google? • Have libraries (including yours) changed anything because of the existence of Google? • In the future, what do you think will distinguish library services on the Web (vs. Google et.al.)? In answering these questions, some of the panelists make general note of the impact of Google vis a vis the library: Jamie LaRue: Google did two things right that most library “search” interfaces still do wrong. First, it offered a single box for search terms—a third generation approach to searching versus the second generation approach of library “expert” modes (searching indexes or matrices of entries for corporate authors, series, etc.). So Google looks simple. Second, it constantly sorts results dynamically. The more traffic that goes to a website, the more that site is weighted for the next person. The search tool itself works to expose the things that people are actually looking for. It learns. A different view from George Needham: Google puts into stark relief the fact that libraries have never been the most important source of information for most people. Libraries are way down the list, after friends, experts, family members, teachers, Jon Stewart, and, of yeah, the Web. Finally, David Kohl shares this perspective: The importance of Google comes from both its real and symbolic significance. The library which has always been a place, largely because it had a physical collection, is now seeing that role in housing a collection erode. Increasingly, an electronic collection is dependent on a connection, not a place. And that connection increasingly does not lead to a library. Google’s symbolic significance is that it is the main way of accessing the Web and so represents this shift to electronic information. Its “real” significance is that it is beginning to be the mechanism, rather than the OPAC, for providing access to library collections (remaining in the library). As for the questions: • As libraries plan for the future, what opportunities and threats are presented by Google? Jeff Horrell points to one of the overarching challenges presented by Google: Expectations of our various user communities have been dramatically changed by the strength and sophistication of search engines such as Google and others with their user friendly features. Users expect customization for their search inquiries and almost instant response. There is also a sense that their results are accurate. The latter is one of the greatest challenges—helping users determine the validity of the information. In agreement with Jeff, Mike Crandall states: Google has done at least two things that impact libraries and the services they offer—created high expectations from the public that one word questions will provide reasonable answers, and further blurred the distinction between well managed resources and piles of information. Because of the apparent ease with which “good” answers can be obtained, the public has less reason to have a need for assistance, and will probably be increasingly impatient with “expert” help because they think they already are experts themselves. So, a challenge will be to articulate the added value offered by those who understand the distinction between information that is accurate, timely, and authentic, and that which is unverifiable, out of date, or just plain wrong. This isn’t just a challenge for libraries, but for our educational system and any organization offering managed information. Danny Hales cuts to the “bottom line": I’m concerned about libraries losing even more of their perceived value by funders and by citizens, as patrons use the expanded searching strategies for information by Google. And with Google’s entry in a market of public domain books, where one can rent by the page, chapter or entire book, I see even more concern. Bill Crowe echoes concern about the Google threat, but also suggests some opportunities for libraries: The greatest opportunity for libraries is to learn from the approaches that Google takes in selecting, organizing, and presenting content, how that content is marketed, and how library people can teach folks in our communities to make effective use of that content. The threat is part of the larger challenge of how to help our communities recognize the values and "value-add" that a trusted third party, meaning, in this case, libraries, brings to these functions. We are often most effective in this arena when we matter-of-factly comment to a user that, "We Google, too," highlighting for what purposes we do this and with what understanding of the validity and reliability of the information dispensed! Loriene Roy reminds us of a very important factor, often overlooked: The ubiquitous nature of Google in our information-rich lives may obscure the fact that there are many without Internet access or with very limited access. There is a gap between those with ready access to Google and its expanded services and those without access. (Additionally) the pervasiveness of Google has led to a common misperception that everything is available electronically. Google-dependent patrons may not be willing or interested in using resources other than Google even if they are available in electronic format. Other patrons may place demands for increased access to Google that some libraries, including small and rural libraries, may be unable to fulfill. This also places a burden on library staff to continue to upgrade and renew their professional skills. The opportunities, according to Loriene: Libraries may be able to make a deep impact on these potential patrons in rural settings or those living in isolated circumstances in urban settings including elders and those with physical impairments. Libraries not only can provide greater access through facilities improvements and more workstations, but can also capitalize on Google demand by providing instruction, helping patrons expand their use of Google. Leslie Holt agrees: Google is useful both for library workers and library users and like the many other information tools that have been invented in the past 50 years, we need to integrate their effective use into library practice. We need to train library staff and provide training and direction for library users. This includes how and when to do a good Google search and how to recognize a bad search etc. Providing good, non-boring training is a real challenge but it is possible. She adds: In non-suburban, non-techie communities I suspect the public library role is to lead people to Google. Joe Janes provides a specific opportunity presented by the “non-search” side of Google: Let’s just assume that Google Book Search (nee Google Print) works and works out. Copyright issues get resolved, technology issues mastered, etc., and this becomes a day-to-day functioning product. The immediate opportunity this presents is likely to be increased circulation and interlibrary loan. As people find or run across books via Google, in many cases they’ll want the whole things. Some will want to purchase these; many others will want to borrow items (or be forced to if things are out of print, scarce, expensive, etc), so, loath as I am to predict anything these days, I’d anticipate a noticeable if not dramatic rise in ILL and circulation requests. Then what? Step back and think about this for just a second. Google is digitizing millions of books, back decades and decades and decades, presumably up to the present day. All that stuff would be there, accessible, searchable in full text (though I do still wonder how well the Google algorithm we know would work on straight, full text without hyperlinks, anchor tags and other Web- and HTML-based things that make PageRank work). That would be an extraordinary resource, unique in the history of human communication. I will abandon the prediction business totally here but I’ll guarantee you that if and when that becomes available all sorts of exciting and horrifying things will happen, as they do whenever more of the human record becomes available and accessible. It’s likely that most of those phenomena will be beyond our current vision (would you have thought of podcasting the first time you saw the Internet?), and even more likely that much of what is to come will have significant impacts on the info biz. The success of Joe’s scenario will of course be dependent on a number of factors, most notably how effective the library is at integrating Google and other resources with its own collection. As George puts it, Smart librarians have already woven the unprecedented resources that Google and other search engines offer into their practice. Brilliant librarians have coupled those resources with the proprietary services their institutions license, in order to give their users a much fuller infosphere. Danny agrees: There may be a great opportunity for libraries to use Google type systems in our own library electronic resources and catalogs. Time to go on to the second question: • Have libraries (including yours) changed anything because of the existence of Google? Jamie leads off: Roy Tennant does a great talk about this: try looking for "Shakespeare's Hamlet" in your catalog. Amazon (which uses the Google search engine) brings it right up. First page, first hit. My own catalog brought it up on 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 -- but all different formats. The first choice was "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead," because the summary notes say "The fringe characters from Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' take center stage at Elsinore." That's interesting, but it's also frustrating for the average patron. It certainly isn't the first thing that should come up. We're (thus) trying to take advantage of best thinking and practices in the presentation of our information (for instance, pulling all versions of Hamlet under one listing, and THEN breaking it out into editions and formats). We're (also) working on a redesign of our online offerings, with particular attention to simplifying the interface, and building in that dynamic rebalancing of displays. Our design effort will be based on the creation and targeting of "persona" -- personalities of (typical) online users. Bill’s observations in an academic setting: We have seen a rapid downturn in the number of requests for directory and like fact-based information retrieval ("What is the address for such and such?"), allowing much redeployment of staff to outreach and teaching, as well as processing of specialized collections and development of web-based aids for users. We also have seen a proliferation of students--in our community--who have been mesmerized by the seeming validity of so much suspect information found this way---an old, old issue, but more intense in this age of 24/7 speed. In a different setting, Leslie notes: At St. Louis (PL), we found that many of our users, including young people, could not use Google. We (thus) included it in user training and helped staff develop techniques to train individual users how and when to use it. (We) also trained new staff on using Google in reference. Danny’s anecdotal answer to the question: Of course. We encourage the use of Google in many instances, but also try to educate the public as to the limitations of just using access to the Internet through Google. This personal scenario happened just last night. At the conclusion of my sons high school soccer game, a parent approached the Coach to ask directions to the next "away" game at a new high school out of town. I was pleased to hear that the coach said, "Ask Danny, he'll know." In the past I would have said call the library, the desk will find that for you, instead, I said, that I had "googled" the high school website, and used their accompanying map for directions. Yes, Google is changing my library and it's services. Loriene looks at this from her viewpoint as a faculty member at the University of Texas School of Information: As an instructor of advanced reference classes in the humanities and social sciences, I have observed changes in how students approach answering questions. Many go to Google and then stop. Even in our residence graduate program, I am aware that a number of students will spend very little time in the physical environs of the university libraries. On the other hand, my students dislike e-books; simply making a resource available electronically does not mean that it will be used or enjoyed or that it is an improvement over a print format. The rigid presentation of most .pdf files also illustrates the limitation of another electronic format. My role, increasingly, is one where I help facilitate student exploration of sources other than Google and to encourage students to be better searchers and better instructors. In many instances, students find it difficult to imagine a reference scenario without Google; I have to encourage them to consider an information setting where Google is unavailable (e.g., the server is down and hand-helds are inaccessible) or where Google might not provide a correct and complete answer to a query. The students and I are spending more time considering issues such as the psychology of searching. I reach back and use Marcia Bates’ early work on information search and idea tactics, moves that good reference librarians make in conducting searches and approaches they follow when they are stumped. In my day-to-day teaching experience and those of my students, Google is not only another resource. The existence of Google has meant that we are rethinking how we define reference and how we prepare to provide such services to library users. Now on to the final question: • In the future, what do you think will distinguish library services on the Web (vs. Google et.al.)? George puts it succinctly: Dust. At least that’s the way it will turn out if we don’t do a better job of integrating the library’s services into the mainstream web. A slightly more expanded answer from Jeff: I believe research library sites will distinguish themselves not only by the unique materials from their collections made accessible, but also providing a level of authenticity. Libraries are certainly re-examining the navigation features of their websites, introducing federated searching across collections and formats, and developing "spaces" for users to assemble their own results from searches, notes, etc. The personalization of content results will be increasingly important. We will need to anticipate what users want more effectively and make it available when they want it and in what form. Leslie agrees with this latter sentiment: Library Web services have to be easier and more attractively designed to be used. Many library web sites are old and clunky and still librarian based rather than user focused. Google and other products push libraries to be better at Web services. I think in the future there will be more cooperative library web sites serving more than one library to pool resources to provide quality service. Many of the responses highlighted the strength of the “local connection:” Danny: We will continue to focus on the “community” and the specific needs and services that may be somewhat unique to our smaller communities, e.g., personalized service and attitude. The “localization” of our library, both technologically and in public services, may provide what the universal services such as Google may not. In other words, use the local library for access to all that local information and access it with a “Google-like” query, coupled with the personal service that many of the public may still want. Loriene adds: Libraries are at a point of opportunity, especially with regard to web-based services. Rather than contemplating one future, it is more probable that libraries will have multiple futures. In these futures, they can distinguish their services by providing increased access, especially to locally-held, unique resources…including those derived from cultural heritage digitization initiatives. Bill: We will see more opportunities to make more accessible the unique or unusual items almost all libraries hold or can provide access to and that are NOT in the commercial domain, e.g., the kinds of community-based image, sound and text collections many libraries always have assembled but which have not had wide exposure. No commercial entity can compete here, and the value of engaging people around specialized interests ("niche markets" that may not be commercially attractive but are very, very important to society's understanding of itself) should promote a renaissance among all kinds of libraries . . . if we can marshal library people's time and talent, with appropriate supporting tools / tool kits to act. Mike agrees, and has some advice for our friends at Google: Depth of content, focused collections, perhaps expert assistance tied to the offering. If Google is smart, they will use libraries to provide in-depth collections of information in high interest areas, and make it easy to get to them and use them through their own interface. Might be a way for libraries to make some money off what they offer—OCLC’s WorldCat on Google is a good first step in this direction. The finishing touch comes from Jamie, who reminds us that while everything changes, in a sense nothing changes: Librarians need to do what we have always done: examine, purchase, and integrate a variety of information sources that best matches the needs of our patrons. That will consist of a mix of free, locally created, and commercial offerings that has the potential of providing fast, friendly service that is better focused on local needs. Google, despite its billions of documents, still won't have as many integrated commercial options. In brief, then, our job is selection and customization, as well as a deep familiarity of our tools on the part of our staff. Editor’s note: Many, many thanks to the Peer Panel for this great kick-off discussion. We encourage all of our subscribers and those visiting the LLN site to share their experiences and comments concerning these important issues. Just click here to contact us. © 2005, Library Leadership Network, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
Article Options:   Printer
Version PDF Version |
