A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.
–George Patton
I finished reading a post by a fellow classmate on the ACRL blog, “Convenience and its Discontents: Teaching Web-Scale Discovery in the in the Context of Google” and though I certainly understand where she’s coming from, I fall more on the opposite side of her argument as well as the argument of Pete Coco’s post. The premise is that Google though nifty, is inferior to a library’s resources and discovery tools and that we need to teach users to be better users. I agree with this premise, library search tools are better, and it’s always good to learn things (particularly when it gets you a cookie). The problem is that Google is just easier and often it’s “good enough”. I think one of the problems I have noticed is that library professionals are standing off to the side screaming at the world “You’re doing it wrong!” People using commercial search engines don’t really care if they’re doing it wrong, if they find the information they need (Including scholarly material) and it suits the needs of what they want than it works. It’s not hard to understand when a librarian pitches the arcane rules for using a library’s clumsy, bloated, Rube Goldbergian database and e-catalog, why a user would reply “No Thanks”.
It’s also not productive for blaming the user for not wanting to learn the arcane rules of using a library’s resources, particularly when there is a easier (albeit poorer) alternative. For example, one of the reasons people slam Microsoft is for building an overly complex OS. Personally, I like Windows, I can build and configure my own machines and a lot more (Not trying to start a Win/Mac debate, bear with me). I’ve built gaming machines that can run circles around a Mac. With that said Mac’s are easier to use and they require very little maintenance. They’re designed for people who don’t want to be bothered with the tedium of maintaining a computer. That’s why Apple is so successful, and that same simplicity is why Google is so successful.
So the solution if possible is to produce discovery tools that are simple, easier and INTUITIVE. In other words libraries need to develop tools that are more Google-like.
I completely agree Chris. Users (and students) take the path of least effort to satisfy their needs. And Google searches do that for them. (I’m one of those Mac users who doesn’t want to be bothered with maintenance, though for some things I really prefer being on a PC desktop. Also, Macs are shiny…)
If we can adapt our library search tools to become more streamlined and user-friendly, patrons might be less inclined to only conduct quick Google searches.
I also agree, and tend to dislike literature that engages more in pointing out how google is wrong, rather than trying to recognize the aspects of if that make people like it so much. I think a lot of our readings DO show us that many librarian professionals are looking to incorporate better and faster into their discovery tools, which is hard to do when dealing with resources that are “behind a wall.”
That being said, I’ve learned that “good enough” to me several years ago, is different to me now, simply because I didn’t have knowledge of the richer searching and discovery experiences that were possible (looking back, I know they were possible). I don’t know if it’s possible, or even relevant at this point to try to figure out who is to “blame” for the assumptions users have when using google, or using a library opac, or anything, but I think this is where the resentment lies in some of the literature, and it gets misdirected sometimes at users or at tools that have gained, perhaps erroneously, a reputation for completeness or authority. I don’t have any resentment personally, but I do wish at times that I had “known about this” (debate? field of study?) at an earlier date, as there WAS more I could have gotten out of my searches, had I known how to do it.