Impress Your Professor: Reviewing Reference

Reference is moving online. It's an obvious fact but one that cannot be stated enough. In the December/January 2008 ASIS&T Bulletin, Jeffrey Pomerantz discusses the need to evaluate online reference services. The article is a straightforward breakdown of how a library may go about evaluating their services. Instead of recapping the entire article, I'd like to discuss an important issue that Pomerantz mentions: privacy.

Pomerantz discusses evaluation from the position of the library. While the transition to digital services has caused problems, when it comes to evaluation, the librarian's job is half done. Online references have statistics making capabilities built into them already: there are timestamps and trackers, server logs and hit counters. A librarian merely needs to click on a file to know who, what, where, and when. Automatic logs of e-mails and instant messages can allow for a more in-depth analysis of reference interactions.

It is here that Pomerantz broaches the subject of privacy. These logs may be handy, but what do they mean for our patrons privacy and confidentiality? Libraries have tended to have a firm stance of privacy; they do not release patron records. In fact, it was a group of librarians in Connecticut who took a stand against privacy issues in the USA Patriot Act.

Patron borrowing records are one thing, but logged conversations are the start of a paper trail that could prove detrimental to our patrons' peace of mind. Person to person conversations all but disappear when they're done. Logged conversations last as long as the file is readable.

In keeping these records, are we librarians opening ourselves up to another level of privacy issues?

Impress Your Professor: Reviewing Reference

So many students and other researchers are now looking for their information online. It's an obvious fact but one that cannot be stated enough. While their are upsided to this migration to the digital reference, the downsides are what drives librarians nuts. In the December/January 2008 ASIS&T Bulletin, Jeffrey Pomerantz discusses the need to evaluate online reference services.

The article is a straightforward breakdown of how a library may go about evaluating their services. Instead of recapping the entire article, I'd like to discuss an important issue that Pomerantz mentions

Pomerantz discusses evaluation from the position of the library. While the transition to digital services has caused problems, when it comes to evaluation, the librarian's job is half done. Online references have statistics making capabilities built into them already: there are timestamps and trackers, server logs and hit counters. A librarian merely needs to click on a file to know who, what, where, and when. Automatic logs of e-mails and instant messages can allow for a more in-depth analysis of reference interactions.

It is here that Pomerantz broaches the subject of privacy. These logs may be handy, but what do they mean for our patrons privacy and confidentiality? Libraries have tended to have a firm stance of privacy; they do not release patron records. In fact, it was a group of librarians in Connecticut who took a stand against privacy issues in the USA Patriot Act.

Patron borrowing records are one thing, but logged conversations are the start of a paper trail that could prove detrimental to our patrons' peace of mind. Person to person conversations all but disappear when they're done. Logged conversations last as long as the file is readable.

In keeping these records, are we librarians opening ourselves up to another level of privacy issues?

Impress Your Professor: There's No "I" in "Team"

Google is like The Blob out of one of those early horror movies. It just grows and grows and grows, consuming everything in its path. Soon, nothing will be safe from its evil clutches. The Google Blob will just continue to grow until it covers the planet in its amoeba like form.

Or at least that's what most people think. And, with Google's current efforts to scan every book known to man, that is what many librarian's think.

What does Google think about all this: Meh. They're ambivalent.

In this month's Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, author Sawne D. Miksa breaks down the Googlization of the world (or at least how it impacts libraries) in her article "Them! Google’s Ambivalence toward Library and Information Science." She states that, "It is a bit extreme to paint librarians and Google locked in the same battle." When Google set out to create their Book Search, they were not seeking to put libraries and their caretakers out of business. In fact, Google does not even consider libraries their competition. Google states, "We consider our primary competitors to be Microsoft and Yahoo."

So why the disconnect? If Google is not trying to swallow up the job of libraries, why are librarians so afraid?

It looks like another case of popularity versus relevance when it comes to cataloging material. Librarians have typically relied on human judgment to create a top down hierarchy of classification for their materials. Google, on the other hand, churns everything through an algorithm that spits out which pages are most popular. Google's theory is that "a page is important if it is pointed to by other important pages."

Librarians fear that such a popularity contest is not the best method of information organization. Just because a page is popular does not mean that it is the best resource available.

So we've found the disconnect, now what are we going to do about it?

Google is not going to disappear anytime soon. Libraries are not going to disappear anytime soon. Instead of butting heads, the two groups should work together. Cooperation would be beneficial to both parties.

Google writes: "Much of the highest quality information in the world may be found in tens of millions of books tucked away in libraries and on publisher's shelves. These books can be tremendous assets - but only if people know that they exist."

As an example, I've been looking to get my hands on Paul Watson's Where War Lives. The university library does not have a copy, the WRLC consortium does not have a copy, my local library system does not have copy. But, I know where to find a book (at a library!) thanks to Google books. Google has worked with OCLC WorldCat to offer a "Find this Book in a Library" feature. Now I know that I just have to go through the Prince Georges' County Library system to get my greedy little hands on Watson's book.

Google is not "out to get us." Libraries should work with Google to make their materials more widely and easily accessible. And maybe, find a way to incorporate some good ole classification rules to the material while their at it.

YouTube Tuesday

Search the World
What if you could search everything from everything at anytime?



Mullen Looks Easy in Comparison
And you though the "A" floors were bad...