Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> The percentage of things that have decent LCSH assigned to them is
>> small
>> and shrinking for the simple reason that a fewer and fewer humans have to
>> manage more resources.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here -- that there are fewer headings
> being assigned, or that they are not as "good" as ones assigned in the
> past? Or is it that many of our resources aren't covered by library
> cataloging rules?
>

All of the above. The number of resources continues to grow, fewer people
assign subject headings, and the amount of training those people have
declines. The norm nowadays is for libraries to perform little to no
original cataloging themselves. Especially vendor created record sets are
full of records that lack any LCSH headings, let alone good ones.

.

> LCSH is relatively flat, the rules for constructing headings are so
>> Byzantine that they stymie even experienced catalogers (which contributes
>> to inconsistent application in terms of quality, level of analysis, and
>> completeness), and its ability to express concepts at all is highly
>> variable as it is designed by a committee on an enumerative basis.
>>
>
> ?? Sorry, what's this "enumerative basis"?
>

LCSH is based on literary warrant, meaning that a subject doesn't exist
until needed for an actual item in front of someone at the Library of
Congress or a SACO library. Rather than relate things in a conceptual
universe, LCSH expands on an ad hoc basis.
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/sacogenfaq.html describes the basic
process. LCSH isn't a bad general vocab, but it's not good in specialized
areas because neither the catalogers nor those creating headings have the
expertise to assign helpful subjects. Patrons and staff where I work regard
the headings as unhelpful noise so we don't display LCSH facets (MeSH is a
better fit for our needs).


>   Add to this that concepts in records frequently must be expressed across
>> multiple
>> headings and subheadings, any type of automated assignment is going to
>> result in really "dirty" relationships so I can't blame ILS designers for
>> limiting their use of LCSH primarily to controlled keyword access.
>>
>
> Well, actually, there's nothing at all "controlled" about keyword access.
> It's pretty much a pot shot, or, as I've called it before, a form of
> dumpster diving for information. There is a huge disconnect between the
> results of keyword searching and the expected functionality (read: user
> service) of controlled left-anchored headings, and I continue to be amazed
> that we've been living with this disconnect for decades without ever coming
> to an agreement that we need a solution.[1] Instead, great effort goes into
> modifying the descriptive cataloging rules, while no major changes have
> been made in subject access. I find this to be... well, stunning, in the
> sense that I'm pretty much stunned that this is the case.


People like the imagery of choosing from a browse list, but they're not
going to guess the left anchored headings because the preferred terminology
and word order often won't be the same as what they're thinking. When they
do type everything right, the absolutely insane numbers of unique
precoordinated subject strings returned would be overwhelming unless there
is little on the subject they seek.

I agree that using subject cataloging rules designed for for filing paper
cards in a computerized environment is insane. But even if the rules were
updated, fixing existing records or creating rich relationships between
LCSH terms would both be impossible. The most practical thing to do is to
do a keyword search on the headings and then return facets based only on
650 $a (i.e. and ignore the rest)   -- which is what most catalogs do.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Karen Coyle]

On 4/6/16 9:51 AM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:


... Libraries "do" it, but our user interfaces ignore it (honestly, does
anyone NOT think that the whole BT/NT relationship in LCSH is completely
wasted in today's systems?).  Google searches "work" best on proper nouns
that are nearly unique. You cannot do concept searches, and you cannot see
relationships between concepts. It's great for named people, organizations
and products, but not great for anything else.[1]...


Conceptually, I like the idea of using the relationships in LCSH. However,
I don't hold out much hope that anyone will make hay out of that.

The percentage of things that have decent LCSH assigned to them is small
and shrinking for the simple reason that a fewer and fewer humans have to
manage more resources.


I'm not sure what you are saying here -- that there are fewer headings 
being assigned, or that they are not as "good" as ones assigned in the 
past? Or is it that many of our resources aren't covered by library 
cataloging rules?



Automation could help (getting the needed data from
publishers might be tricky), but the only benefit I can think of for using
LCSH for automated applications is to maximize relationships with older
materials -- possibly at the expense of the "findability" of the newer
stuff.

LCSH is relatively flat, the rules for constructing headings are so
Byzantine that they stymie even experienced catalogers (which contributes
to inconsistent application in terms of quality, level of analysis, and
completeness), and its ability to express concepts at all is highly
variable as it is designed by a committee on an enumerative basis.


?? Sorry, what's this "enumerative basis"?


  Add to
this that concepts in records frequently must be expressed across multiple
headings and subheadings, any type of automated assignment is going to
result in really "dirty" relationships so I can't blame ILS designers for
limiting their use of LCSH primarily to controlled keyword access.


Well, actually, there's nothing at all "controlled" about keyword 
access. It's pretty much a pot shot, or, as I've called it before, a 
form of dumpster diving for information. There is a huge disconnect 
between the results of keyword searching and the expected functionality 
(read: user service) of controlled left-anchored headings, and I 
continue to be amazed that we've been living with this disconnect for 
decades without ever coming to an agreement that we need a solution.[1] 
Instead, great effort goes into modifying the descriptive cataloging 
rules, while no major changes have been made in subject access. I find 
this to be... well, stunning, in the sense that I'm pretty much stunned 
that this is the case.


kc

[1] See Lorcan Dempsey's approach in this slide deck: 
http://www.slideshare.net/lisld/irish-studies-making-library-data-work-harder 
. It has to do with "things", which is in good part what I first found 
interesting about LoD.


kyle


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Harper, Cynthia]

Amen to the need to help people narrow down, focus their searches; amen to 
BT/NT in LCSH.  I'm working in a smaller subject domain now than I used to, 
theology and religion. It makes the idea of projects like mining seminary 
reserve lists for recommended works, [I really wish ATLA would let us mine book 
reviews], or mst-cited-author lists, or other selection tools aimed at users, 
seem possible.  And how to combine browsing the the classification with what 
LCSH terms are linked there...
Cindy 

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Greg 
Lindahl
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:44 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you 
the right answers

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 07:42:11AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Also, without the links that fuel pagerank, the ranking is very 
> unsatisfactory - cf. Google Book searches, which are often very 
> unsatisfying -- and face it, if Google can't make it work, what are 
> the odds that we can?

Karen,

I wouldn't generalize so far for either web search or book search.
Pagerank is close to useless on the modern web thanks to webspam.
When Google first launched, its focus on anchortext was just as important as 
pagerank. On the books side, properties like publisher authority, book usage, 
and used book sales+prices make nice ranking signals. Book content also 
contains a lot of citations, which can be used to compute impact factors. 
Google Books has only scratched the surface of what's possible for book search 
and discovery.

-- greg

http://blog.archive.org/2016/02/09/how-will-we-explore-books-in-the-21st-century/

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> ... Libraries "do" it, but our user interfaces ignore it (honestly, does
> anyone NOT think that the whole BT/NT relationship in LCSH is completely
> wasted in today's systems?).  Google searches "work" best on proper nouns
> that are nearly unique. You cannot do concept searches, and you cannot see
> relationships between concepts. It's great for named people, organizations
> and products, but not great for anything else.[1]...


Conceptually, I like the idea of using the relationships in LCSH. However,
I don't hold out much hope that anyone will make hay out of that.

The percentage of things that have decent LCSH assigned to them is small
and shrinking for the simple reason that a fewer and fewer humans have to
manage more resources. Automation could help (getting the needed data from
publishers might be tricky), but the only benefit I can think of for using
LCSH for automated applications is to maximize relationships with older
materials -- possibly at the expense of the "findability" of the newer
stuff.

LCSH is relatively flat, the rules for constructing headings are so
Byzantine that they stymie even experienced catalogers (which contributes
to inconsistent application in terms of quality, level of analysis, and
completeness), and its ability to express concepts at all is highly
variable as it is designed by a committee on an enumerative basis. Add to
this that concepts in records frequently must be expressed across multiple
headings and subheadings, any type of automated assignment is going to
result in really "dirty" relationships so I can't blame ILS designers for
limiting their use of LCSH primarily to controlled keyword access.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Greg Lindahl]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 07:42:11AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Also, without the links that fuel pagerank, the ranking is very
> unsatisfactory - cf. Google Book searches, which are often very
> unsatisfying -- and face it, if Google can't make it work, what are
> the odds that we can?

Karen,

I wouldn't generalize so far for either web search or book search.
Pagerank is close to useless on the modern web thanks to webspam.
When Google first launched, its focus on anchortext was just as
important as pagerank. On the books side, properties like publisher
authority, book usage, and used book sales+prices make nice ranking
signals. Book content also contains a lot of citations, which can be
used to compute impact factors. Google Books has only scratched the
surface of what's possible for book search and discovery.

-- greg

http://blog.archive.org/2016/02/09/how-will-we-explore-books-in-the-21st-century/

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Karen Coyle]

On 4/6/16 4:04 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:

Instead, I think the problem to solve surrounds assisting the reader in using & 
understanding the stuff they find.


I'd like to see innovation a step before find, but I think in a sense 
we're on the same wavelength. My take is that bibliographic information 
should be the end of a process, not the beginning. Before arriving at 
bib data, there's a lot of understanding and context that needs to be 
clarified. Some of this involves authors and subjects, but not as they 
are currently represented (mainly as text strings, and without 
relationships). I think that one of the main questions a user has at the 
catalog is "Where am I?" - where am I in the knowledge universe, where 
am I in the collection of this library?


Note that Google does not give users an answer to this question because 
there is no larger context, no inherent organization. Google does not do 
knowledge organization. Libraries "do" it, but our user interfaces 
ignore it (honestly, does anyone NOT think that the whole BT/NT 
relationship in LCSH is completely wasted in today's systems?).  Google 
searches "work" best on proper nouns that are nearly unique. You cannot 
do concept searches, and you cannot see relationships between concepts. 
It's great for named people, organizations and products, but not great 
for anything else.[1] Also, without the links that fuel pagerank, the 
ranking is very unsatisfactory - cf. Google Book searches, which are 
often very unsatisfying -- and face it, if Google can't make it work, 
what are the odds that we can? We do have knowledge organization 
potential; it's a bit out of date, it hasn't been made truly actionable, 
but it's there.


kc

[1] Except where there's a Wikipedia article using the concept term. 
Basically Wikipedia provides the only knowledge organization that Google has


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Shearer, Timothy]

There is at least some new evidence that for at least some users...discovery 
patterns are moving toward library interfaces after having a steady decline [1].

It seems plausible to me that this shift may correlate to the change in tools 
and attitudes that has led to integrated discovery layers becoming the norm.  

I'm not suggesting that discovery is the end-all be-all, but think that 
providing helpful discovery to users that is targeted to the resources *they 
already can access* because of their affiliation(s) is still worthy of a chunk 
of our time, thought, and effort.  I think the tools are better and that's a 
good thing.

-t

[1] 
http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/ithaka-sr-us-faculty-survey-2015/#discovery



On 4/6/16, 7:04 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Eric Lease Morgan" 
 wrote:

>On Apr 6, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Jason Bengtson  wrote:
>
>> This is librarians fighting a PR battle we can't win. I doubt most people
>> care about these assertions, and I certainly don't think they stand a
>> chance of swaying anyone. This is like the old "librarians need to promote
>> themselves better" chestnut. Losing strategies, in my opinion. Rather than
>> trying to refight a battle with search technology that search technology
>> has already won, libraries and librarians need to reinvent the technology
>> and themselves. Semantic technologies, in particular, provide Information
>> Science with extraordinary avenues for reinvention. We need to make search
>> more effective and approachable, rather than wagging our finger at people
>> who we think aren't searching "correctly". In the short term, data provides
>> powerful opportunities. And it isn't all about writing code or wrangling
>> data . . . informatics, metadata, systematic reviews, all of these are
>> fertile ground for additional development. Digitization projects and other
>> efforts to make special collections materials broadly accessible are
>> exciting stuff, as are the developing technologies that support those
>> efforts. We should be seizing the argument and shaping it, rather than
>> trying to invent new bromides to support a losing fight.
>
>
>+1
>
>I wholeheartedly concur. IMHO, the problem to solve now-a-days does not 
>surround search because everybody can find plenty of stuff, and the stuff is 
>usually more than satisfactory. Instead, I think the problem to solve 
>surrounds assisting the reader in using & understanding the stuff they find. 
>[1] “Now that I’ve done the ‘perfect’ search and downloaded the subsequent 200 
>articles from JSTOR, how — given my limited resources —- do I read and 
>comprehend what they say? Moreover, how do I compare & contrast what the 
>articles purport with the things I already know?” Text mining (a type of 
>semantic technology) is an applicable tool here, but then again, “Whenever you 
>have a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail."
>
>[1] an essay elaborating on the idea of use & understand - 
>http://infomotions.com/blog/2011/09/dpla/
>
>—
>Eric Lease Morgan
>Artist- And Librarian-At-Large

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Apr 6, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Jason Bengtson  wrote:

> This is librarians fighting a PR battle we can't win. I doubt most people
> care about these assertions, and I certainly don't think they stand a
> chance of swaying anyone. This is like the old "librarians need to promote
> themselves better" chestnut. Losing strategies, in my opinion. Rather than
> trying to refight a battle with search technology that search technology
> has already won, libraries and librarians need to reinvent the technology
> and themselves. Semantic technologies, in particular, provide Information
> Science with extraordinary avenues for reinvention. We need to make search
> more effective and approachable, rather than wagging our finger at people
> who we think aren't searching "correctly". In the short term, data provides
> powerful opportunities. And it isn't all about writing code or wrangling
> data . . . informatics, metadata, systematic reviews, all of these are
> fertile ground for additional development. Digitization projects and other
> efforts to make special collections materials broadly accessible are
> exciting stuff, as are the developing technologies that support those
> efforts. We should be seizing the argument and shaping it, rather than
> trying to invent new bromides to support a losing fight.


+1

I wholeheartedly concur. IMHO, the problem to solve now-a-days does not 
surround search because everybody can find plenty of stuff, and the stuff is 
usually more than satisfactory. Instead, I think the problem to solve surrounds 
assisting the reader in using & understanding the stuff they find. [1] “Now 
that I’ve done the ‘perfect’ search and downloaded the subsequent 200 articles 
from JSTOR, how — given my limited resources —- do I read and comprehend what 
they say? Moreover, how do I compare & contrast what the articles purport with 
the things I already know?” Text mining (a type of semantic technology) is an 
applicable tool here, but then again, “Whenever you have a hammer, everything 
begins to look like a nail."

[1] an essay elaborating on the idea of use & understand - 
http://infomotions.com/blog/2011/09/dpla/

—
Eric Lease Morgan
Artist- And Librarian-At-Large

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Dave Caroline]

I think some should get off their pedestals and think how the unknown
to you patron is to find you, your library and your content.

To assume the user has come and ask you is to put too much burden on
the user to find and access what you have.

This weeks furthest patron for me was the other side of the world in
AU Google will find unique sources and send the users to that
resource.

Yes I hate the tracking and bias of ANY search including those talked
about on this list for academic libraries.

If the catalogue is not detailed enough, it cannot be found.

Dave Caroline

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Jason Bengtson]

This is librarians fighting a PR battle we can't win. I doubt most people
care about these assertions, and I certainly don't think they stand a
chance of swaying anyone. This is like the old "librarians need to promote
themselves better" chestnut. Losing strategies, in my opinion. Rather than
trying to refight a battle with search technology that search technology
has already won, libraries and librarians need to reinvent the technology
and themselves. Semantic technologies, in particular, provide Information
Science with extraordinary avenues for reinvention. We need to make search
more effective and approachable, rather than wagging our finger at people
who we think aren't searching "correctly". In the short term, data provides
powerful opportunities. And it isn't all about writing code or wrangling
data . . . informatics, metadata, systematic reviews, all of these are
fertile ground for additional development. Digitization projects and other
efforts to make special collections materials broadly accessible are
exciting stuff, as are the developing technologies that support those
efforts. We should be seizing the argument and shaping it, rather than
trying to invent new bromides to support a losing fight.

Best regards,

*Jason Bengtson, MLIS, MA*
Assistant Director, IT Services
K-State Libraries
414 Hale Library
Manhattan, KS 66506
785-532-7450
jbengt...@ksu.edu
www.jasonbengtson.com

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> On Apr 5, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>
> > Eric, there were studies done a few decades ago using factual questions.
> Here's a critical round-up of some of the studies:
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/25828215  Basically, 40-60% correct, but
> possibly the questions were not representative -- so possibly the results
> are really worse :(
>
> Karen, interesting article, and thank you for bringing it to our
> attention. —Eric
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Apr 5, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Eric, there were studies done a few decades ago using factual questions. 
> Here's a critical round-up of some of the studies: 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/25828215  Basically, 40-60% correct, but possibly 
> the questions were not representative -- so possibly the results are really 
> worse :(

Karen, interesting article, and thank you for bringing it to our attention. 
—Eric

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Karen Coyle]

Eric, there were studies done a few decades ago using factual questions. 
Here's a critical round-up of some of the studies: 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25828215


Basically, 40-60% correct, but possibly the questions were not 
representative -- so possibly the results are really worse :(


kc

On 4/5/16 1:11 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:

  I sincerely wonder to what extent librarians give the reader
(patrons) the right -- correct -- answer to a (reference) question.
Such is a hypothesis that can be tested and measured. Please show me
non-antidotal evidence one way or the other. --ELM


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Stuart A. Yeates]

"Google can give you answers, Librarians can help you reflect on your
questions"

cheers
stuart

--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

>  I sincerely wonder to what extent librarians give the reader
> (patrons) the right -- correct -- answer to a (reference) question.
> Such is a hypothesis that can be tested and measured. Please show me
> non-antidotal evidence one way or the other. --ELM
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Eric Lease Morgan]

 I sincerely wonder to what extent librarians give the reader
(patrons) the right -- correct -- answer to a (reference) question.
Such is a hypothesis that can be tested and measured. Please show me
non-antidotal evidence one way or the other. --ELM

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Bebe S. Chang]

"Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."

True, indeed, "right" is relative! And, while I may consider phrasing this
statement a little differently -- for the inconsistency thrown up by an
unnecessary modal verb, for a start! - perhaps, "librarians" should not be
interpreted too literally as they speak through the refrain of using
library resources for their information evaluation and literacy goals.
After all, students are already spending a lot for a university education,
so why not get them to use these exorbitantly-priced resources, organized
and made accessible by librarians?

The library resources, actually, are what, *with librarians' guidance*,
provide the answers.with "right" albeit relative, In agreement with you
all, let the discoverer of knowledge determine through his or her own
critical thinking the matter of right or wrong. The skills that research
databases and OPACs impart to users are transferable for mining the Web to
appropriate needs.

Bebe

Bebe S. Chang
Research & Instruction Librarian
Arts & Humanities – E250H
University Libraries – Norlin
University of Colorado Boulder
bebe.ch...@colorado.edu
(303) 735-8119


On 5 April 2016 at 13:20, Bebe S. Chang  wrote:

> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
>
> True, indeed, "right" is relative! And, while I may consider phrasing this
> statement a little differently -- for the inconsistency thrown up by an
> unnecessary modal verb, for a start! - perhaps, "librarians" should not be
> interpreted too literally as they speak through the refrain of using
> library resources for their information evaluation and literacy goals.
> After all, students are already spending a lot for a university education,
> so why not get them to use these exorbitantly-priced resources, organized
> and made accessible by librarians?
>
> The library resources, actually, are what, *with librarians' guidance*,
> provide the answers.with "right" albeit relative, In agreement with you
> all, let the discoverer of knowledge determine through his or her own
> critical thinking the matter of right or wrong. The skills that research
> databases and OPACs impart to users are transferable for mining the Web to
> appropriate needs.
>
> Bebe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 April 2016 at 07:41, Wilhelmina Randtke  wrote:
>
>> That statement is pretty old.
>>
>> Today, much of the internet is written for machines or by machines.
>> Poorly
>> written rehashed fluffy content dominates.  As time goes on, even though
>> search algorithms are getting better and the general public is getting
>> more
>> savvy about how to use a search engine, the problem is that lots of the
>> content is written mechanically.  Information literacy hardly helps for
>> some searches, because there are searches where every hit was written only
>> for SEO value with no agenda beyond SEO value.
>>
>> I think the way forward is a focus on how to push out quality content to
>> machines, rather than focus on how to sift through fluff or focus on how
>> to
>> purchase quality from monopoly vendors.  Librarians also tend to fall into
>> the rut of doing what they have skills and training to do, and years of
>> experience in information literacy training are easily rolled into more
>> information literacy training.
>>
>> -Wilhelmina
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Cornel Darden Jr. <
>> corneldarde...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right
>> answers."
>> >
>> > Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
>> >
>> > I've been hearing statements like this since I've been in the field.
>> > Tonight I saw a public library post on FB:
>> >
>> > Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"
>> >
>> > Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"
>> >
>> > Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons
>> caused a
>> > huge backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to the
>> irritated
>> > patrons.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Cornel Darden Jr.
>> > Chief Information Officer
>> > Casanova Information Services, LLC
>> > Office Phone: (779) 205-3105
>> > Mobile Phone: (708) 705-2945
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Bebe S. Chang]

"Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."

True, indeed, "right" is relative! And, while I may consider phrasing this
statement a little differently -- for the inconsistency thrown up by an
unnecessary modal verb, for a start! - perhaps, "librarians" should not be
interpreted too literally as they speak through the refrain of using
library resources for their information evaluation and literacy goals.
After all, students are already spending a lot for a university education,
so why not get them to use these exorbitantly-priced resources, organized
and made accessible by librarians?

The library resources, actually, are what, *with librarians' guidance*,
provide the answers.with "right" albeit relative, In agreement with you
all, let the discoverer of knowledge determine through his or her own
critical thinking the matter of right or wrong. The skills that research
databases and OPACs impart to users are transferable for mining the Web to
appropriate needs.

Bebe






On 5 April 2016 at 07:41, Wilhelmina Randtke  wrote:

> That statement is pretty old.
>
> Today, much of the internet is written for machines or by machines.  Poorly
> written rehashed fluffy content dominates.  As time goes on, even though
> search algorithms are getting better and the general public is getting more
> savvy about how to use a search engine, the problem is that lots of the
> content is written mechanically.  Information literacy hardly helps for
> some searches, because there are searches where every hit was written only
> for SEO value with no agenda beyond SEO value.
>
> I think the way forward is a focus on how to push out quality content to
> machines, rather than focus on how to sift through fluff or focus on how to
> purchase quality from monopoly vendors.  Librarians also tend to fall into
> the rut of doing what they have skills and training to do, and years of
> experience in information literacy training are easily rolled into more
> information literacy training.
>
> -Wilhelmina
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Cornel Darden Jr. <
> corneldarde...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
> >
> > Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
> >
> > I've been hearing statements like this since I've been in the field.
> > Tonight I saw a public library post on FB:
> >
> > Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"
> >
> > Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"
> >
> > Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons caused
> a
> > huge backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to the
> irritated
> > patrons.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cornel Darden Jr.
> > Chief Information Officer
> > Casanova Information Services, LLC
> > Office Phone: (779) 205-3105
> > Mobile Phone: (708) 705-2945
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Wilhelmina Randtke]

That statement is pretty old.

Today, much of the internet is written for machines or by machines.  Poorly
written rehashed fluffy content dominates.  As time goes on, even though
search algorithms are getting better and the general public is getting more
savvy about how to use a search engine, the problem is that lots of the
content is written mechanically.  Information literacy hardly helps for
some searches, because there are searches where every hit was written only
for SEO value with no agenda beyond SEO value.

I think the way forward is a focus on how to push out quality content to
machines, rather than focus on how to sift through fluff or focus on how to
purchase quality from monopoly vendors.  Librarians also tend to fall into
the rut of doing what they have skills and training to do, and years of
experience in information literacy training are easily rolled into more
information literacy training.

-Wilhelmina

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Cornel Darden Jr.  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
>
> Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
>
> I've been hearing statements like this since I've been in the field.
> Tonight I saw a public library post on FB:
>
> Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"
>
> Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"
>
> Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons caused a
> huge backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to the irritated
> patrons.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cornel Darden Jr.
> Chief Information Officer
> Casanova Information Services, LLC
> Office Phone: (779) 205-3105
> Mobile Phone: (708) 705-2945
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Michael Beccaria]

I would suggest that librarians are interested in, among other things, 
promoting information literacy skills to our patrons. According to ACRL's 
Standards for Information Literacy in Higher Education (2000 edition):
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf

An information literate individual is able to:
-Determine the nature and extent of information needed
-Access the needed information effectively and efficiently
-Evaluate information and its sources critically
-Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base
-Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose
-Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of 
information, and access and use information ethically and legally

The idea that Google can't provide the contextual nature of the information 
that it presents and people vary in their levels of information literacy, a 
librarian, presumably with an advanced skillset and knowledge base in this 
area, can help provide assistance and context to what a patron might need. In 
that sense, I think a librarian can often add tremendous value to a search.

Mike Beccaria
Director of Library Services
Paul Smith’s College
7833 New York 30
Paul Smiths, NY 12970
518.327.6376
mbecca...@paulsmiths.edu
www.paulsmiths.edu

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kyle 
Banerjee
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 2:00 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you 
the right answers

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Cornel Darden Jr. <corneldarde...@gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
>
> Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
>

There's nothing wrong with the statement. As is the case with all sound bites, 
it should be used to stimulate thought rather than express reality.

Librarians have a schizophrenic relationship with Google. We dump on Google all 
the time, but it's one of the tools librarians of all stripes rely on the most. 
When we build things, we emulate Google's look, feel, and functionality. And  
while we blast Google on privacy issues, human librarians know a lot about what 
the individuals they serve use, why, and how -- it is much easier to get 
anonymous help from Google than a librarian.

There are many animals in the information ecosystem, libraries and Google being 
among them. Our origins and evolutionary path differ, and this diversity is a 
good thing.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Andrew Anderson]

On Apr 1, 2016, at 0:31, Cornel Darden Jr.  wrote:

> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
> 
> Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"
> 
> Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"
> 
> Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons caused a 
> huge backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to the irritated 
> patrons. 

While I understand the motivation behind these statements, it also presents as 
“You’re doing it wrong!”, which is likely part of the reason for the backlash.  

Some of the more effective materials that I’ve seen created to communicate this 
concept effectively show sample search engine results with millions of hits of 
varying quality juxtaposed against commercial databases with dozens of high 
quality hits, letting the user draw their own conclusion that they would rather 
look through a few dozen relevant items than all the chaff from the search 
engine results.

Don’t tell them they’re doing it wrong, let them see that there’s a better way 
and let them chose the better option willingly.

-- 
Andrew Anderson, President & CEO, Library and Information Resources Network, 
Inc.
http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes | 
http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Cornel Darden Jr.  wrote:

>
> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
>
> Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
>

There's nothing wrong with the statement. As is the case with all sound
bites, it should be used to stimulate thought rather than express reality.

Librarians have a schizophrenic relationship with Google. We dump on Google
all the time, but it's one of the tools librarians of all stripes rely on
the most. When we build things, we emulate Google's look, feel, and
functionality. And  while we blast Google on privacy issues, human
librarians know a lot about what the individuals they serve use, why, and
how -- it is much easier to get anonymous help from Google than a librarian.

There are many animals in the information ecosystem, libraries and Google
being among them. Our origins and evolutionary path differ, and this
diversity is a good thing.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Leigh, Andrea]

To go further, I would say that librarians empower users to gain knowledge and 
do so by guiding users to reputable resources without bias, rather than diffuse 
knowledge or control it. 

Andrea



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Siân 
Evans
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:29 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you 
the right answers

Thanks for this discussion thread. I would argue that good librarians don't 
provide answers at all, they provide the means to ask thoughtful, critical 
questions.

Also, in adding to the reading list, I thoroughly recommend Astra Taylor's *The 
People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age*:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/peoples-platform-taking-back-power-and-culture-in-the-digital-age/oclc/761850064

Best,
Siân

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Goldsmith, Ivan Victor <ivang...@upenn.edu>
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> This is something I've been thinking about a lot in the past few weeks.
>
>
> I don't think librarians necessarily give people the "right answers" 
> (what does it mean for an answer to be "right", anyway?). Sure, not 
> everything on the Internet is true, but not everything that came from 
> a librarian's mouth or a book is true, either. Humans are frequently 
> wrong no matter which medium they're using to reach an audience.
>
> Libraries don't provide the "right" answers -- they provide 
> *different* answers through a different lens, and that's what's important.
>
>
> Quoting what I told a colleague earlier this week: There are major 
> perks to the fact that libraries are NOT Google. Our motivations are 
> vastly different from Google's, and this makes all the difference.
>
> We do not track our patrons. We do not record their every move and 
> sell that information to advertisers.
>
> We do not bias their search results based on previous behavior. We do 
> not filter or limit the information they can find based on what we or 
> our algorithms think they might like. We don't build profiles to guess 
> at their demographic and skew the materials we give them to reaffirm 
> their preexisting beliefs. Patrons can come to the library and search 
> for knowledge in peace, separate from the baggage of the Internet's 
> pervasive tracking data and invasive profiling.
>
> We are neutral in the services we provide, and that is invaluable in 
> the age of personalization.
>
>
> If you have the time for a quick read, you'll find Eli Pariser's "The 
> Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You< 
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10596103-the-filter-bubble>" to be 
> very relevant.
>
> Best,
>
> -- Ivan Goldsmith
> Front End Developer
>
> Penn Libraries Web Unit
>
> 
> From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of 
> Cornel Darden Jr. <corneldarde...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 12:31 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give 
> you the right answers
>
> Hello,
>
> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
>
> Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
>
> I've been hearing statements like this since I've been in the field.
> Tonight I saw a public library post on FB:
>
> Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"
>
> Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"
>
> Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons 
> caused a huge backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to 
> the irritated patrons.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cornel Darden Jr.
> Chief Information Officer
> Casanova Information Services, LLC
> Office Phone: (779) 205-3105
> Mobile Phone: (708) 705-2945
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>



--
Siân Evans, MA, MLS
Instruction Librarian, Decker Library
Maryland Institute College of Art
1300 West Mount Royal Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21217

tel: 410-225-2715
email: sevan...@mica.edu
http: www.mica.edu/library

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Siân Evans]

Thanks for this discussion thread. I would argue that good librarians don't
provide answers at all, they provide the means to ask thoughtful, critical
questions.

Also, in adding to the reading list, I thoroughly recommend Astra Taylor's *The
People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age*:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/peoples-platform-taking-back-power-and-culture-in-the-digital-age/oclc/761850064

Best,
Siân

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Goldsmith, Ivan Victor 
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> This is something I've been thinking about a lot in the past few weeks.
>
>
> I don't think librarians necessarily give people the "right answers" (what
> does it mean for an answer to be "right", anyway?). Sure, not everything on
> the Internet is true, but not everything that came from a librarian's mouth
> or a book is true, either. Humans are frequently wrong no matter which
> medium they're using to reach an audience.
>
> Libraries don't provide the "right" answers -- they provide *different*
> answers through a different lens, and that's what's important.
>
>
> Quoting what I told a colleague earlier this week: There are major perks
> to the fact that libraries are NOT Google. Our motivations are vastly
> different from Google's, and this makes all the difference.
>
> We do not track our patrons. We do not record their every move and sell
> that information to advertisers.
>
> We do not bias their search results based on previous behavior. We do not
> filter or limit the information they can find based on what we or our
> algorithms think they might like. We don't build profiles to guess at their
> demographic and skew the materials we give them to reaffirm their
> preexisting beliefs. Patrons can come to the library and search for
> knowledge in peace, separate from the baggage of the Internet's pervasive
> tracking data and invasive profiling.
>
> We are neutral in the services we provide, and that is invaluable in the
> age of personalization.
>
>
> If you have the time for a quick read, you'll find Eli Pariser's "The
> Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You<
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10596103-the-filter-bubble>" to be
> very relevant.
>
> Best,
>
> -- Ivan Goldsmith
> Front End Developer
>
> Penn Libraries Web Unit
>
> 
> From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Cornel
> Darden Jr. 
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 12:31 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you
> the right answers
>
> Hello,
>
> "Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."
>
> Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?
>
> I've been hearing statements like this since I've been in the field.
> Tonight I saw a public library post on FB:
>
> Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"
>
> Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"
>
> Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons caused a
> huge backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to the irritated
> patrons.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cornel Darden Jr.
> Chief Information Officer
> Casanova Information Services, LLC
> Office Phone: (779) 205-3105
> Mobile Phone: (708) 705-2945
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>



-- 
Siân Evans, MA, MLS
Instruction Librarian, Decker Library
Maryland Institute College of Art
1300 West Mount Royal Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21217

tel: 410-225-2715
email: sevan...@mica.edu
http: www.mica.edu/library

Re: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

[Goldsmith, Ivan Victor]

Hi there,

This is something I've been thinking about a lot in the past few weeks.


I don't think librarians necessarily give people the "right answers" (what does 
it mean for an answer to be "right", anyway?). Sure, not everything on the 
Internet is true, but not everything that came from a librarian's mouth or a 
book is true, either. Humans are frequently wrong no matter which medium 
they're using to reach an audience.

Libraries don't provide the "right" answers -- they provide *different* answers 
through a different lens, and that's what's important.


Quoting what I told a colleague earlier this week: There are major perks to the 
fact that libraries are NOT Google. Our motivations are vastly different from 
Google's, and this makes all the difference.

We do not track our patrons. We do not record their every move and sell that 
information to advertisers.

We do not bias their search results based on previous behavior. We do not 
filter or limit the information they can find based on what we or our 
algorithms think they might like. We don't build profiles to guess at their 
demographic and skew the materials we give them to reaffirm their preexisting 
beliefs. Patrons can come to the library and search for knowledge in peace, 
separate from the baggage of the Internet's pervasive tracking data and 
invasive profiling.

We are neutral in the services we provide, and that is invaluable in the age of 
personalization.


If you have the time for a quick read, you'll find Eli Pariser's "The Filter 
Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From 
You" to be very 
relevant.

Best,

-- Ivan Goldsmith
Front End Developer

Penn Libraries Web Unit


From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Cornel Darden 
Jr. 
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 12:31 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the 
right answers

Hello,

"Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers."

Is it me? Or is there something wrong with this statement?

I've been hearing statements like this since I've been in the field. Tonight I 
saw a public library post on FB:

Library: "because not everything on the internet is true"

Some people applauded the statement and were like: "yay librarians!"

Others thought it was a very ignorant statement. And many patrons caused a huge 
backlash. It was interesting as the library responded to the irritated patrons.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Cornel Darden Jr.
Chief Information Officer
Casanova Information Services, LLC
Office Phone: (779) 205-3105
Mobile Phone: (708) 705-2945

Sent from my iPhone