Library Stuff

The latest search stats.

More people using Ask.com, which is always a good thing.

Query an engine, meet others who asked the same thing.

Interesting concept.

Stephen Baker – “[A]ny pedophiles dumb enough to use it would probably bump into a cop or two.”

Genie Tyburski – “Seeking out facts, and even basic information on a topic, is relatively easy. Enter 2 or 3 relevant keywords at your favorite search engine. But going beyond the basic, or conducting investigative research, often means using advanced search commands, not to mention additional or more targeted finding tools. This article examines the first issue – using advanced search commands to manipulate or improve search results.”

Paula J. Hane – “Over the last 2 months, my inbox has been deluged with story pitches, requests for briefings, and press releases—all about various new and updated people search tools. Apparently, it’s the new vertical search area that entrepreneurs have decided to tackle—all of them betting they can provide better and more accurate results for people queries than the general Web search engines. According to reports, 30 percent of all searches on Google or Yahoo! are for specific people or people-related information. Here’s a quick update on what’s been happening in this space.”

Verne Kopytoff – “Rather than scouring the entire Internet, these search engines troll only Web sites that are rich with personal information. The results they provide are individual profiles coupled with links to where users can find more details.”

5,000 Siskel, Ebert, and Roeper reviews. Searchable. (via)

BusinessWeek: “These people-search engines sound like a stalker’s dream come true. But Spock and other such sites contend they return information a Web surfer could eventually find anyway; they just highlight it more effectively. And they don’t list phone numbers and addresses.”

Epiar – “These phrases are bizarre enough on their own, but what really makes me shake my head and wonder is imagining the situations these poor, unfortunate, confused people must find themselves in the first place.” (via)

This is a no brainer for librarians (I hope), but a recent report comes up with the stats.

The LIB says:

“But we, as library folk, should care. It means we should be using metasearch engines. Or we should be using more than one engine at a time. We should try to educate our users about this. We should try to make it clear that if you’re looking for research, for comprehensive answers, one engine ain’t gonna do it for ya.”

Great advice. Despite the fact the report was commissioned by a metasearch engine which has a lot to gain from the results going in the direction that they did, I applaud it.

Librarians who put in one or two keywords into Google are unnecessary middlemen. Anyone can do that. We need to go beyond that.

One last point: In the past many metasearch engines did not incorporate the entire databases of the engines they purported to search. If you are going to use these engines, make sure you are getting results as extensive as those that would appear in a search of the engine on its primary site.

The NYT on human powered search. Mahalo gets a lot of attention. (via)