Google: Threat or Menace? or If Librarians Ran Google....

It's fair to say that librarians have a funny relationship with Google.

Is it:

a) the single greatest living searching tool the world over
b) a plot to put librarians on the unemployment line
c) something librarians and library users need to think about
d) a great place to invest our retirement nest egg

This is, of course, the kind of question that you can't answer in 0.05 seconds on a search engine. Even without using Google, you know the answer is c, possibly d & a, and most definitely (probably) not b.

Librarians use Google quite a bit. There, it feels good to say that. It's a great place to go for certain kinds of quick information (phone numbers, addresses, Twins scores) or to begin a search (especially if you have no idea where to start looking). But, it's not everything. Despite what you've read, not everything is available on the web. Even with your credit card. And even when something is available, Google may not be able to find it.

If you're looking for newspaper or magazine articles that are more than a few days old, good luck. Either you pay by the article, or, more likely, they aren't available online at all. However, we have access to hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles (both electronic and print) and can generally get things we don't have.

Anyone who has used Google to find genealogy information or try to find quality information about obscure topics (or wade through lots of bad information to find quality information on not-so-obscure topics) knows how hard it can be. And if you're looking for information about, say, nursing homes, there are plenty of sketchy-looking sites willing to sell you information, but you can't be assured of getting what you pay for. People who have a vested interest in selling you products do their very best to make sure their names come up first when you search.

Ah, there's the rub. Or at least a rub. As of this writing, a Google search of the word "failure" directs you to President Bush's page on the White House web site. No matter where your personal politics may be, that's not great information. When pranksters or salespeople are successful at rigging Google, you don't win.

And let's not talk about the sponsored links. (Hint: Librarians don't have sponsored links.)

If librarians ran Google, you can bet that there would be a whole lot more informative asterisks* alerting users to the credibility level of the information.

That's where librarians shine. In addition to having access to a lot of information that search engines can't find, we're web experts and have a sense of who has good, bad or slanted information. Or, if we can't determine that, at least we can help you find out who is providing information. Search engines can't do that. Google often uses a popularity test, not a sniff test.

And there's the matter of searching. There are good ways to use Google, and there are, well, severely less good ways to search with Google. We know some pretty good ways.

The Google logarithms are many things (ingenious, complicated, propriatary) but they are not tenacious. Librarians are tenacious like the Hanson brothers in Slapshot (but with far less blood). It bothers us if we can't find the information right away, and we keep looking. I can guarantee that Google won't think of one last creative, non-intuitive place to look and come up with an information goldmine. We keep digging until there's no dirt left to dig in.

That's what librarians do, and if we could get Google to think and act that way, we may have to consider letting it have an honorary membership in the American Library Association.



*like this one letting you know librarians are credible