Libraries and Google

Miller, William & Pellen, Rita M. Libraries and Google. 209p. Haworth Press, Binghamton, 2005. ISBN 0-7890-3125-6. £24.95

Quite by chance and for different purposes three statistics passed over this reviewers screen on the same day as the review copy of this fascinating book arrived:

- 57% of online teens create content for the internet;

- 62% of content viewed by online users under the age of 21 is generated by someone they

know;

- 73% of college students use the internet more than the library.

Rather as with climate change, the evidence of our own experience mounts daily. In both cases persuasive naysayers argue that this is a blip, that we’ve seen it all before, or that there is even more evidence to support the counter-argument. But in both cases the evidence is all around. This book is a perfect reflection of that debate. Although focused on Google, the arguments and responses would fit in almost any debate on the Web 2.0 world. It is a good mix of the befuddled, the besieged, the messianic and those who just don’t get it.

The first two papers by Sandler from the University of Michigan and Milne from the Bodleian Library describe the massive Google digitisation project as seen from their respective libraries, in Sandler’s case dwelling on how libraries should respond to disruptive technologies.

This is followed by Rick Anderson who produces a wonderfully well written but doom-laden piece on the changing information environment facing libraries and how most librarians are failing to respond. This is immediately and by contrast followed by Herring’s view that we should resist the hype of enthusiasts who think libraries no longer important and raises the banner for book-filled libraries and print on paper.

Taylor reports an analysis of federated searching undertaken at the University of Nevada, which demonstrates the limitations of the Google Search Appliance. Lackie next evaluates the impact of Google Scholar followed by Callicott and Vaughn who compared Google Scholar search results with those from subscription databases and the library catalogue at the College of Charleston, concluding that the former is unsophisticated but has potential.

Egger-Sider and Vine champion the role of the reference librarian in adding value to what they admit is the users’ tool of choice, while Phipps and Maloney see Google not as the Wolf in Red Riding Hood but as a cuddly teddy bear to be cherished and incorporated into our existing toybox of services.

York has an intelligent and perceptive analysis of how US libraries have responded to Google Scholar, considers user needs and concludes with the chilling challenge “The opportunity is ours to lose.”

Adlington and Benda analyse Google Scholar and are scathing of its deficiencies but want to keep testing it, while Donlan and Cooke think that despite its shortcomings it might steer users back to the library’s catalogue and databases. Thelwall sees the possibility of teaching students how literature review can be enhanced for new topics.

The pedantic will be amused by Cathcart and Roberts article on information literacy whose first sentence uses a plural verb with a collective noun. They seek ways to beat Google at its own game and use the sophistication of the librarian to advantage. Dawson then shows how to beat the system by optimising publications for Google by managing resource description and indexing.

Piper worries about privacy and how Google might use – or be made to use – the information it has collected about users, while Force considers how Google manages its brand image. Krasulski and Bell offer advice on how to at least keep up with the endless stream of new products, beta sites and analyses of services from Google.

All in all this is a worthwhile book. It gives a good introduction to the Google phenomenon and its effect on libraries and offers a spectrum of responses from the bullish to the terrified. It has a huge range from the very service focused practice pieces to the rabble rousing of apocalyptic millenarianism; it has a broad and international – or at least Anglo-American set of authors; it is generally written with clarity. All three features are uncommon enough in this kind of collection to be worth remarking with approbation.