Library Stuff

…has been very busy. One of the neat initiatives that she’s working on is being the administrator of the new blog for CALL (Canadian Association of Law Libraries) with one of my favorite bloggers, Steve Matthews.

Gary Price and I don’t agree on everything and tagging is always a hot topic when we hang out. I like to get his thoughts on tagging every so often to ascertain if he has changed his views. Well, apparently, he hasn’t. Take a look:

“Yes, tagging can be very powerful and useful for very individual or small focused groups like an eight grade class or a group of friends or co-workers. To be useful to the masses (if/when) it reaches mainstream/widespread is another matter. Is the point of tagging to make information retrieval more precise for a large group of users? Why? Synonyms, pluralization, etc. Also, spam and gaming the system. This is another topic NOT addressed in the article. What would stop someone reviewing the most popular tags and then including these tags in every item they post? I’m sure with several logins and a script this could be achieved quite easily. We all know what happened to the meta-keyword content tag. Aside from spamming, for tagging to save effort and make retrieval more precise, something I’ve called structured or fielded tagging (location field, author field, date field, etc.) is needed. The Catch-22 is that most people wouldn’t do it. Others would say that in some cases on the open web, a document or other item should speak for itself and let technology like dynamic clustering, audio transcription, content-based image retrieval, etc., do the work for the masses. Again — on a personal or small group level — it’s another matter. The same might also be true when it comes to small specialty or vertical databases. Librarians know that everyone isn’t a cataloger. Btw, standardization amongst tags and tagging services is needed.”

I personally love tagging as use it for ongoing research in diffeent fields of study (CI, book stuff, etc). But Gary is right on one thing. Tagging is not a “taxonomy”, using the strict sense of the term. It’s personal clasification. And it’s deeeel.icio.us!

Well, and I thought that I was on the ball with my post about EBSCO and RSS. It looks like the Distant Librarian was all over this news like white on rice. I’m always into giving credit where it is due, so props to Paul Rival.

EBSCO Does RSS
Originally uploaded by stevenmcohen.

I remember that this was supposed to be coming in Q1, but I forgot. I’m a big EBSCO Academic Universe user (my county has a subscription) and have been getting alerts sent via e-mail for 3 months for book research.

This evening, I saw that they turned on their RSS feeds for keyword searches. Suweeeeeet!

Pop the champagne!

Note: One reader sent me a note asking that I mention that I work for PubSub on this post. So, here I go. I work for PubSub.

I’ve had this post brewing in my head all day. This morning, after waking Hallie up (it’s been a week since we had seen each other!) and playing with her downstairs, I opened up Aggie and read the content from the overnight into the morning. I was shocked when I read Michael Stephens’ post on his session at PLA. To quote:

“Learn about Library 2.0. It replicates user-driven and user-centered services online. Google the term to find out more.”

Whoa! Google the term? Is he kidding us? There are plenty of (and better!) ways to learn about L2 (whether pro or con) besides defaulting to Google. How about a bit of collection development? How about providing us with that Reading List? How about some selection criteria? How about both sides of the story (the Google search displayed a disposition to one side). How about using other phrases that have been thrown around with the term (librarian 2.0 and Web 2.0 come to mind). How about using other engines that may be of more assistance? Technorati or PubSub come to mind because Library 2.0 is really only talked about in the blogging circles. Or, heavens forbid, how about using some advanced search techniques?

“Googling the term” just enhances our dependency on a tool that has brainwashed us from day one. It’s not the best search engine out there and by saying “Google This” or “Google That”, we are just buying into the hype (Irony noted!). Google is not the be all and end all and “good enough” is never the answer. If you want to be out of a job quicker than you can say “social software”, learn how to search and learn how to search well.

After posing that rant in my head, I happened across an editorial from the New York Times that appeared today. From the piece:

“Today, Google may have expedited such tasks, but the malaise remains. In the February newsletter of the American Historical Association, the reference librarian Lynn D. Lampert notes the prevalence of “ill-conceived (or often nonexistent) student research practices.” As another university librarian, Pamela Martin, observed, “Google’s simplicity and impressive search prowess trick students into thinking they are good all-around searchers, and when they fail in library searches, they are ashamed as well as confused.”

“Google can do more to educate users about the power — and frequent advisability — of its advanced search options. It would be a shame if brilliant technology were to end up threatening the kind of intellect that produced it.”

While in Boston, I had dinner at the Boston Atheneum with one of my mentors from my local library system. We were talking about our jobs (he is a professor a library school now) and he mentioned to me, “Steven, why can’t we just do what we do best: Provide great reference service and help our patrons enjoy the love of books?” I agreed, telling him that public librarians are great at recommending books, but their searching skills are not as good as they should be.

2% of all searchers do not look at results past the first 10 displayed. The average number of words entered into search engines is 2.6. If you provide reference service, are using one engine, typing in less than 2.6 words, and not look past the first page of results, you may as well shape up that resume and get out of the profession because anyone who walks into your building can do that.

So, what should we do about our profession not searching well? Here are a few thoughts.

1) Make online searching MANDATORY in library school. Make it a core course.

2) Keep up with search engine news and how to use these tools to their maximum capabilities.

3) Library school professors: Put a glass jar on your desk. Every time you say, “Google it”, put a dime in the jar (the same should go for your students) and take out an ad in Yahoo or Ask with the money collected over the course of the semester. Better yet, donate it to LII (although I don’t think that they can take private donations – Karen?).

4) Reference desk managers: Do the jar thing too, but buy your staff a book on how to search with the money collected. Either that or hire Gary Price to come to your library and teach search. Or, donate it to LII (Again, Karen?).

5) Do not make Google the default page at your reference workstations. If you are going to do this, at least use the advanced page.

6) Needs assessment time. What’s more important: Working on that library MySpace account, posting pictures of your book collection on Flickr, or brushing up on your searching skills? Prioritize.

7) Understand the invisible web and how it exists. Know about subject-specific engines and directories. Know the best person, home, and e-mail look-up tools.
Use your reference book collection. Not all answers are found in the glorified results of a word or phrase search on ANY engine.

9) Don’t enable. Not only should we teach better searching skills to our colleagues and users, we should practice what we preach. Don’t have a Google search box on your library web page or blog. Don’t have canned Google searches on your web page or blog that lead to atrocious results.

10) Don’t forget the importance of using the fee-based databases that your library (check that, your patrons) pays for. Remember that “free is as free does.”