Comments on: Good Experience vs. Google Experience http://acrlog.org/2005/12/05/good-experience-vs-google-experience/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rafael Sidi http://acrlog.org/2005/12/05/good-experience-vs-google-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-237 Rafael Sidi Thu, 08 Dec 2005 06:02:59 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/?p=89#comment-237 I would identify Google Scholar as "instant inefficieny". Thousands of search results are not enough for a knowledge worker or a student or a researcher. They need to get insights, intelligence from these search results. Until Google brings these kind of tools, I would stick with subscription databases like Engineering Village 2, Scopus or ISI I would identify Google Scholar as “instant inefficieny”. Thousands of search results are not enough for a knowledge worker or a student or a researcher. They need to get insights, intelligence from these search results. Until Google brings these kind of tools, I would stick with subscription databases like Engineering Village 2, Scopus or ISI

]]> By: stevenb http://acrlog.org/2005/12/05/good-experience-vs-google-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-231 stevenb Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:09:54 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/?p=89#comment-231 Good question, and to an extent Google is being "librarianized." I point to a trend I call Google Migration in which library resources are migrating to the web and allowing themselves to be indexed by Google and Yahoo. OCLC's open worldcat project is a good example. More recently Gale Group debuted AccessMyLibrary.com which places their database content on the web (for sale if you can't connect to a library that has it - and of which you are a member) and that content is being indexed by Google and Yahoo. One can only imagine that more and more traditional library database content will be available from a search engine. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it could be a way to connect users to the library even when they do start their search at Google or Yahoo. Good question, and to an extent Google is being “librarianized.” I point to a trend I call Google Migration in which library resources are migrating to the web and allowing themselves to be indexed by Google and Yahoo. OCLC’s open worldcat project is a good example. More recently Gale Group debuted AccessMyLibrary.com which places their database content on the web (for sale if you can’t connect to a library that has it – and of which you are a member) and that content is being indexed by Google and Yahoo. One can only imagine that more and more traditional library database content will be available from a search engine. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it could be a way to connect users to the library even when they do start their search at Google or Yahoo.

]]> By: Scott Walter http://acrlog.org/2005/12/05/good-experience-vs-google-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-230 Scott Walter Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:50:45 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/?p=89#comment-230 One question I've had over the past few weeks is how we reconcile the notion of "Googleization" (or federated searching) with the movement by Google to go in the opposite direction by providing specialized portals for scholarly information (Google Scholar), images, news sources, etc. (Google Image Search, Google News, Google Uncle Sam). Isn't that what we did with article indexes, etc., way back when? Is Google being "librarianized"? Do we know how people make use of specialized Google portals vs. the Google front end? My guess is that Google wouldn't devote resources to creating specialized tools if there were no demand, which begs the question if (and why) their specialized tools are perceived to be more user-friendly than ours. One question I’ve had over the past few weeks is how we reconcile the notion of “Googleization” (or federated searching) with the movement by Google to go in the opposite direction by providing specialized portals for scholarly information (Google Scholar), images, news sources, etc. (Google Image Search, Google News, Google Uncle Sam). Isn’t that what we did with article indexes, etc., way back when?

Is Google being “librarianized”? Do we know how people make use of specialized Google portals vs. the Google front end? My guess is that Google wouldn’t devote resources to creating specialized tools if there were no demand, which begs the question if (and why) their specialized tools are perceived to be more user-friendly than ours.

]]>