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 21st 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.
