Libraries vs. Google in the 21st Century

What Google Offers Users

Users have sound and valid reasons for relying on the Internet for their information needs. Internet search engines offer information that is self-service, free, and available 24/7 in one’s own home (Anderson, 2005). The Google web browser has been a driving force in this perception. Anderson states that “Google has succeeded wildly at finding its users the information they want in return for a minimum investment of time and energy” (p. 32) and Timpson (2011) observes that for searchers Google offers a one-stop shopping experience and a very usable interface. Critics of the Google-style information search have countered that it returns too many results—and too many irrelevant results—and that most people lack the skills to form an effective search. Anderson argues that the same could be said for libraries. They also suffer from information glut and users have no better success formulating effective queries on library websites and databases. One could argue that they have even less success on these. What users do get from Google, however, is good enough quality information (Anderson, 2005).

What is quality information? How do we judge it? These questions of authority and credibility of Internet information sources have been the object of much debate and are central to whether we, as librarians, allow ourselves to embrace or reject this 21^st century reality. Perhaps no website has been the object of as much derision by the library community as Wikipedia, the online open source encyclopedia. Yet Wikipedia has proven, over time, to be at least as authoritative as mainstream published encyclopedias (Lankes, 2008). It is, in fact, verified for accuracy of its scientific articles against the science journal, Nature (Brindley, 2006).

Does Google Work Better Than Libraries?

Surprising—to we librarians, at least—is the popular perception that other sites have better information than libraries (Timpson & Sansom, 2011). Timpson and Sansom conducted a study comparing students’ perceptions and search performance of Google Scholar against library research discovery platforms and databases. In keyword searches—which were how students actually preferred to search—Google Scholar performed better than the library products. Students were biased toward the single search box and they were satisfied with the precision and recall of search results on Google Scholar. Although Google Scholar did not out-perform the library databases for relevance in subject specific areas, the authors noted that the trend in academic libraries seems to be toward the types of Google-like search interfaces that students feel comfortable with. They also noted that the students’ satisfaction with the Google results may reflect the kind of research documents they prefer.

Practical implications of this research can be drawn for libraries. Timpson and Sansom (2011) suggest that publishers put more effort into creating the kind of one-stop research experience that students prefer. Libraries can vote with their pocketbooks to effect these kinds of changes. Timpson also reflected that Google can be an effective search tool. Librarians must be proactive in teaching student researchers techniques for getting the best results from Internet searches, and to appreciate the power and the limitations of library databases (Regalado, 2007).

The kind of service Google offers to searchers differs from that of libraries as well. Beyond the obvious appeal of the convenience of providing search on demand, Anderson (2005) discusses ways in which Google’s search capabilities are superior. Google’s search is more granular because it can search at the article level. Libraries’ search engines are not so sophisticated—one can only search as deeply as the title of a book, for example. Google also has full-text search capability. Essentially, Anderson observes, Google can search the content. The library catalog can only deliver the container. But Google isn’t the only Internet information service that exceeds the online library catalog in granularity. Amazon.com has announced a new service to make books available at the page and chapter levels (Brindley, 2006). What does than mean for libraries? We need to design better search engines.

Strategies for Making the Library’s Online Services More Relevant to Users

Users’ confidence in Internet resources represents a crisis that needs to be met by libraries if they wish to have a presence and be competitive as the “go-to” resource for online research and reference queries. There are several avenues that libraries can take to respond to this challenge.

Embrace Internet Information Services and Technologies

Anderson (2005) observes the ambivalence of librarians toward services like Google’s. While publicly they disparage Google, privately they have adopted it in their own information seeking practices. That approach seems hypocritical and disrespectful to the vast majority of users who view the Internet as a self-service cafeteria for finding the information they need.

Web 2.0 technologies have introduced a number of different tools that are preferred by Internet users and can be adapted by librarians to improve service to their patrons. These include using instant messaging tools for reference, wikis for pathfinders and subjects guides, and blogs and RSS feeds for library news events (Regalado, 2007). Libraries have also begun to embrace social networking technologies such as Facebook and Twitter as effective and free communications tools. All of these tools operate on the conversational principle that has proven to be an important component for users to judge the reliability of Internet resources.

Re-Imagine Reference Services

Reference services are the main point of contact of libraries to information seekers. Popular and scholarly literature concerning reference services is replete with suggestions for luring patrons away from Google and Wikipedia and into library vetted online resources. Like many reference service providers, Arndt (2010) recommends helping users to navigate that vast information landscape they encounter on the Internet as a key service that libraries can provide. Arndt’s literature review reveals that younger users still desire and value the assistance of face-to-face reference services. Research concerned with keeping library reference services alive and relevant to users includes ideas such as services that require librarians to leave their desks and meet users at computer stations, in the stacks, in academic departments, in coffee shops, and through research skills workshops. Arndt concludes that researchers still desire reference services but that the way libraries provide these services must change.

Join the Internet Community

Lankes’ (2008) discussion on the importance of user input and conversation for verifying credibility of online resources hints at the need for libraries to employ these social technologies in the online services they provide. Although the ideals of authority and credibility are implicit in library-sponsored online content (and users recognize that), users have come to expect and prefer these resources that incorporate user feedback and context.

New technologies also allow libraries to link to outside sources. Newly emerging linked data technologies allow libraries to create a web of links that allow users to access library resources from outside of the library’s websites (Miller & Westfall, 2011). Thus, users may still begin information searches in Google, but they may discover answers within the library’s resources. Using linked data schemes libraries can position themselves in the center of Internet information spaces.