Mooers' Law had actually come up in discussion in 557 last week, so it was great to read the original article that has influenced all facets of library & information science. Mooers' Law is simple and seems obvious once it's been pointed out, but is crucial for information professionals to keep in mind. Most people who choose library science as a career do so because they love information and see the benefits it brings our society, so it is hard for us to understand the reverse point of view.
Before reading this article, I had trouble thinking of examples of how information could be troublesome, which goes to show how much I need to keep Mooers' Law in mind. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common truism, but this usually applies to people who are unaware of harsh facts of life, or of the dark pasts of people around them. This sort of information is unlikely to be encountered in a library search. I thought that a person researching information on a disorder they've been diagnosed with could be troublesome or painful, but surely remaining ignorant would be more trouble or pain for them ultimately.
The example given of workplaces where speed is valued over accuracy is a more realistic setting for Mooers' Law to occur. One takeaway message is that librarians need to understand the community they serve; is access to information too difficult or is there a larger cultural problem to be overcome?
Discussion question: Do you think companies are less likely to regard information as troublesome and painful today than in the 1960s?
M. Cutts (2005). "How Does Google Collect and Rank Results?" Google's Newsletter for Librarians.
This article was fascinating! It was described at a beginner's level, including suggested student activities, but it still assumed intelligence on the reader's part. I've read articles in newspapers and magazines about why and how Google is so good as what it does, but it was great to hear Google's own take on it's methodology.
Certainly a lot has changed since 2005: the proliferation of Google mail, reader, documents, + and other similar features, and the autocomplete ability of the search bar. I was surprised that the user's preference didn't factor into PageRank, perhaps that has also been introduced more recently than 2005. I wish I remembered more clearly if different results were returned 6 years ago.
One take away message is that Google uses some similar methods to searchable databases: giving higher rank to articles containing the search term in higher frequency or in the title. However, the page rank index and the incredible speed are only possible because of the tremendous computer power owned by Google (at least to the best of my understanding.)
Discussion question: Did you know that Google had a newsletter for librarians? Does that mean they see us as allies in the information age? Did librarians ask Google so many questions they decided to answer us en masse?
Tito Sierra, Joseph Ryan, and Markus Wust (2007). Beyond OPAC 2.0: Library Catalog as Versatile Discovery Platform. Code4lib.
As Web 2.0 features, such as rss feeds, user feedback, and search corrections, become more commonplace, some technology experts are trying to predict what's coming next. One emerging trend is mobile technology, and I was happily surprised to see that libraries were keeping up with technology, to the point that a library catalog was designed for cell phones 4 years ago. This article did a good job summarizing some of the issues with Mobile catalogs: smaller displays, bandwidth restrictions, compatibility with various platforms.
This article also challenged some of my basic assumptions about library systems, suggesting that libraries should have two different systems for searching, one for known items and another for browsing. This idea had never crossed my mind; because libraries have always had one catalog, I thought there was likely a reason for it. Perhaps it would be confusing for some patrons to learn two different search systems which need to be used at different times, but if the catalogs were designed with usability, it should be possible.
One takeaway message was the difference between platforms and applications; that is, platforms are adaptable to specific needs where applications need to stay as the designers release them. As technology changes at increasing speeds, platforms will become more cost-effective and necessary.
Discussion question: What is an issue you often encounter with library catalogs you would like to see addressed?
No comments:
Post a Comment