[Sigia-l] re: the future of search

[Michael Fry]

Ziya asked:

> Would you want a librarian who may *not* have heard about urinating rats or flying mexicans to help you or, say, a search engine that can parse 5 billion docs a la Google to get you into the ballpark in less than a second?

One of the myths surrounding librarians is that their value derives from
what they *know* (because, of course, they're bookish, like to read,
love books, etc.). In fact, librarians aren't taught or trained to
*know* everything, they're trained to know where to *look* for it, how
to conduct effective and efficient searches, and how to evaluate the
validity and authority of the various resources and results. 

Thus, it doesn't matter whether the librarian knows anything about rat
urine and its relevance to archaeology. S/he knows enough about the
available resources (e.g., books, journals, dictionaries, encyclopedia,
gazeteers, indexes, databases, almanacs, directories, the Web, and so
on, all of which can be highly domain-specific) to know where to find
appropriate answers to the question, whatever 'appropriate' happens to
mean for any given information need. 

In terms of which is more efficient, that's entirely subjective. It
depends on the context, the question, the kind of answer you need, and
much more. In any case, I can make several arguments that librarians are
a more efficient resource than search engines (even if they can't search
5 billion documents in a second).

For one, search engines don't care if what you've asked for is what you
really want or need. They respond to the search query, period, however
poorly articulated it might be. A librarian, on the other hand, will
attempt (through the reference interview Karl Fast described earlier) to
determine the true nature of the information need. In this way, they
help identify, define and focus the user's information need. This, in
turn, helps define and focus the nature of the search. 

Search engines don't do that. They simply take the user's query at face
value and spit back what they have according to their internal rules.
They might return results faster than a librarian can, but that often
has little to do with whether or not the results are useful over the
long haul.

Search engines don't differentiate (from a qualitative standpoint)
between kinds of resources. They return whatever they have, period. 
Librarians, on the other hand, are trained to determine through the
reference interview what kind of resources--what kind of answers--are
appropriate to the inquiry. Does the patron need a quick paragraph or
two, or is this the beginning of a full-fledged literature review? Is
this a trivia question or an initial foray into an extended research
project? Will an encyclopedia entry suffice, or should we be assembling
the beginnings of an exhaustive bibliography and, therefore, exploring
bibliographies, journals, etc.? Does the user have a base of knowledge
in the field, or does the answer need to be basic enough for the
lay-person to understand? 

In short, a search engine might search through 5 billion documents in
one second, but a librarian will pick a select handful of resources that
are specifically intended to satisfy the user's complete needs based on
an informed understanding of what that need really is.

Search engines don't help users identify other potential sources of
information, and often don't help them learn the intellectual and
literary landscape of the domain in question (a process that often has a
lot to do with how users understand and conceptualize their information
need in the first place). So even if librarians don't know precise
answers to every question, the process of interacting with them can do a
lot to help users identify their real needs from the start. 

Moreover, if those needs change, or if users don't find what they need
on the first attempt, a librarian can help identify other resources that
might be valuable. Search engines don't do that. They don't wait to see
if you've found what you were looking for, and they certainly don't hang
around to see if what you were looking for was what you really needed.

Finally, notice that many of the resources I mentioned aren't even
available on the public Web--to my knowledge search engines generally
don't index academic journals, encyclopedia, dictionaries, etc--so the
most appropriate resource for the question at hand may not be part of
the 5 billion documents available to a search engine. The corollary is
also true--there's a ton of information that'll never be indexed by
search engines--but the competent librarian considers the Internet to be
one of many potentially appropriate resources, not simply the only one. 

Ziya argued that a search engine would "get you into the ballpark." I'd
argue that it will probably get you into *a* ballpark, but won't do
anything more than that. A good librarian, on the other hand, will--to
continue with a crude analogy--determine if you're in the *right*
ballpark, show you around the ballpark, point out where the restrooms
and concessions are, and take you to whatever part of the ballpark will
give you the best available view of the game, even if that's not the
same as the seat printed on your ticket.

This isn't to say that librarians are the end-all, be-all, or that a
good search engine will always pale in comparison. I love Google and am
consistently impressed with how well it performs. I also know that not
all reference librarians are created equal--some know the resources
better than others, and some are better at identifying their patrons'
real needs, etc. Still, I would argue that the question of "efficiency"
is not nearly as clear-cut as Ziya seems to imply.

mf
-- 
Michael Fry

==================================
"How you go from a woman with a degree in library sciences to me, I
can't explain."
--Courtney Love, on her divorced boyfriend