Libraries and Google

Citation

Smith, A.G. (2007), "Libraries and Google", The Electronic Library, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 790-791. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710837209

The relationship between libraries and Google is a complex one. On one hand, it is very easy to be threatened by the way potential customers turn automatically to the simple search interface of Google, and increasingly find what they want. On the other hand, librarians are among the most enthusiastic users and promoters of Google as a search tool. Libraries and Google explores the implications for library services of Google (conscientiously marked as a registered trade mark in this work).

As Rick Anderson points out in this work, it's hard to remember what life was like B.G. (before Google). Google's strengths – service on demand, service at the article level, and full text searchability – challenge traditional library service.

In “Disruptive beneficence”, Mark Sandler identifies Google's print digitisation programme as a disruptive technology that will make the printed book no longer the only major vehicle for scholarly communication (although in the sciences the printed book has not been the major vehicle for some time). It's easy to overstate the virtues of our library collections – Mark Sandler says “at best, Goggle [sic] Print will be a massive collection of undifferentiated books”, but this description probably describes most libraries. But he's right that Ranganathan's Five Laws are a good justification for moving forward on the mass digitisation of library collections. Much of our library collections languished unused (in discussing Oxford University's participation in the Google Print project, Ronald Milne mentions that 20 per cent of the Bodleian's 1800s publications have not had their pages cut), let alone read! Digitisation projects such as Google Print may increase the usage of these collections, and in the long term the viability of the collections themselves.

As well as Google Print, several articles refer to Google's challenge to the traditional research databases such as ISI – Google Scholar. Burton Callicott and Debbie Vaughn look at how “Schoogle” compares with standard subscription databases and the library catalogue.

Google of course is not omnipotent. Francine Egger‐Sider and Jane Devine point out the importance of the “invisible web” to, for example, competitive intelligence. Google, by definition, does not access the invisible web, and librarians have a responsibility to make their users aware of this.

The real question is how Google should be integrated into existing search behaviour. Mike Thelwall (a mathematician, rather than a librarian) provides a sensible view of how Google, and in particular its linking tools, should be integrated into research students literature searches.

Mark Sandler implies that librarians embracing Google are a bit like “those foolhardy souls who guess on multiple‐choice exams”. We should probably remember that in multiple choice it's better to guess, than to give no answer at all. For all librarians looking for an answer to the Google question, Libraries and Google has some thought provoking reading.