 |
 |
Yes, but the fact that the Web generation loves Google does nothing to dismiss the fact that the same generation can in fact be pretty annoyed when googlization when applied to libraries results in a decline in usability of a library system! In summary, I wholeheatedly agree that 'web 2.0' technologies offer many exciting opportunities for enhancement of catalogues and library services as a whole. In this I include possibilities such as collaborative development. These opportunities should be exploited! However, I think there is danger in attempting to imitate popular systems uncritically and inappropriately, especially when we're talking about essentially reducing or obscuring more effective search capabilities, to the extent where we may actually reduce the quality of our services. And that's it! I think that's about all I can really say about the topic. Best wishes Martin Kelleher -----Original Message----- From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Godwin Sent: 20 June 2007 09:23 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Find 0.0 I'm usually one of the "lurkers" on these lists but I must come to the surface on this one! The Web generation do love Google and will compare it with our complex OPAC interfaces. I think we have to work to make our OPACs simpler and more attractive, so we don't scare our users away. I agree totally with David Kane (WIT Libraries). This may include experiments with user tagging to enhance catalogue records. This will seem heretical to those worshippers of traditional library taxonomies but we should watch those libraries who trial these new approaches, and see if users do appreciate our attempts to involve them to make our catalogues more attractive. As for Google I am a supporter of its use as a starting point and part of our Information Literacy mission is to teach its appropriate use and show how little of the information on the Web that it actually covers, thereby promoting use of our databases. Finally I can also recommend David Weinberger's "Everything is Miscellaneous" I watched it a few weeks ago and it is brilliant and very thought provoking, as well as entertaining http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2159021324062223592&q=%22everything+is+miscellaneous%22&hl=en I'll submerge again! Thank you for reading this!! Peter Peter Godwin Academic Liaison Librarian University of Bedfordshire Park Square Luton LU1 3JU 01582 743248 >>> "Exelby Alan Mr (LIB)" <[log in to unmask]> 19/06/2007 13:36 >>> John, I think I agree with all this. There is a century's worth of experience in librarianship of information retrieval, including the understanding that the methods readers like and what is most efficient/effective are not the same thing, but a lot of this seems to be ignored in favour of the latest fads. The constant assertion that 'young people' know all about how to use computers is often extended to a belief that they know how to use them *effectively*, and that libraries should dumb down to their level of ignorance rather than teaching them the truth - an especially inappropriate belief for libraries in academic institutions. My own betes noires concern 1) the 'Google fallacy' - that readers like Google and think it is good (even though it is often staggeringly inefficient), so libraries try to make their OPACs like Google, relying on general-keyword searches when more specific searches, or list indexes, would be vastly more effective; and 2) the whole idea that the internet contains a significant part of the world's wisdom (it doesn't; except for a few subjects, most is still available only in print). Alan ============================== Mr A.V. Exelby, Systems/Databases Librarian. The Library, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Tel.: 01603 592432 E-mail: [log in to unmask] ================================ "Man, who'd have thought being a librarian could be so tough" Seamus Harper, in 'Harper 2.0', "Andromeda". >-----Original Message----- >From: A general Library and Information Science list for news >and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >Lindsay, John M >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:34 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Find 0.0 > >At an inaugural lecture last night, while the speaker was >enthusiasing about Web 2.0 someone asked the question, or made >the point, that searching isn't the point of the exercise, >finding is, and showed the National Record Office as a case. > > > >By accident, unless a tinzle fairy organises these things, I >had the catalogue for Internet Librarian International land on >my table the same day. > > > >This seems to me to be full of Web 2.0 stuff with just about >nothing obvious on the traditional skills and professional >competences which made libraries libraries. > > > >Is the plot being lost? > > > >In Librarians for Social Change I argued we had to improve the >political, historical, philosophical, cultural, aspect of our >competences, not throw them out entirely. > > > >With the computer industry forcing grep and search upon us, >with social tagging and social networking, it seems now that >re-asserting the essential competences is more important than >ever, but the profession is remarkably silent, like it has >given up, yet the ILI is badged with CILIP. > > > >Perhaps we need to reform the library association? > > > >Incidently, sorry for the 20= etc which appear in messages in >digest mode, I know it makes text almost unreadable, but is >beyond my control and imposed I think by the digesting software? > > >This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email >Security System. >