EDITORIAL Editorial

Giving way to Google

G.E. Gorman
School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, 97
Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to look into why there is an increasing number of library clients that are
deserting their traditional knowledge store for something that is much more user-friendly – Google.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on the author’s own knowledge and
expertise.
Findings – Opines that there is no contest in the head-to-head battle for information services
supremacy and that Google Scholar, with its information “now” and “fast” beats others hands down.
Originality/value – This paper will be of interest to researchers and academics and those in the
information field.
Keywords Libraries, Search engines

Is it true to say that researchers and academics might be expected to make regular use of
their university library? Perhaps in the old days when “regular use” meant wandering
across the Quad to a great Victorian pile, or even to a Basil Spence-designed glass and
chrome incubator, to spend time looking through the latest journals in monastic peace and
quiet, the afternoon sun slanting though long windows; or browsing tidy rows of books in
the stacks, relying on serendipity to throw up an unexpected treasure. Those days are long
gone, and anyone who wanders into a university library today may wonder at the
supermarket feel, with name tags and “have-a-good-day” smiles decorating often untrained
frontline staff who are unable to offer more than the merest assistance. The noise level is
atrocious – people talking, keyboards clicking, Violet Crumble wrappers crinkling
(beneath the “No Food or Drink Allowed” signs); seats are few and far between, as reader
space gives way to storage space; journals are is some disarray because of staff shortages.
Does this encourage one to make that journey across the Quad these days? Not likely.
Ah, but we don’t need to; we can do our library business online; it is as simple as
going to the library web site and locating what is required and then completing the
necessary transaction. It does sound idyllic, and in these days of highly professional
web design it is even achievable – until one looks at a typical university library web
site. Now, let’s see: I have a choice of Catalogue, Databases, E-books, Journal finder,
Online reference collection, Other library catalogues, Special collections, Audiovisual
suite . . . And this is one of the less complicated web sites.
More likely than not, one will end up wandering about in one of the library’s
databases, looking for current journal literature on a very specific topic. As our
colleague Peter Jacso regularly points out in his Savvy Searching column, this is the
dangerous tip of the iceberg, and many a searcher goes down Titanic-like, holed by
Online Information Review
confusing use of terminology across, and within, databases. A lovely example of this Vol. 30 No. 2, 2006
lies in answering the question, “What population-identifying terms should be used in pp. 97-99
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
an investigation in the area of developmental disabilities?” Sandieson found that 62 1468-4527
OIR terms were used in ERIC, PsychInfo and MEDLINE to denote persons with
30,2 developmental disabilities/mental retardation (Sandieson, 1998; cited in Sandieson
et al., 2006). And he also found the usual sort of issues raised by other searchers: slight
variants of the base term produced significantly different numbers of hits, and a term
not in general use by researchers (“mental retardation”) was in fact frequently the most
relevant term in the databases. Federated searching notwithstanding, this is the
98 unpleasant reality for most users.
So here we have the present situation with regard to the library, that traditional
warehouse and “where-house” of knowledge: physically visiting one can be an
unpleasant experience for anyone who dislikes the supermarket or shopping mall
ethos; remaining in the comfort of one’s office, with personally selected music playing
in the background, and connecting remotely to the library is hardly more satisfactory
– too many choices to be made in terms of where to search, and then when searching
the terminology becomes a stumbling block for all but the most expert searcher.
Is it any wonder that increasing numbers of library clients are deserting their
traditional knowledge store for something that is much more user-friendly, and
increasingly able to deliver the needed information? Yes, we are speaking of Google. Little
wonder that so many information managers complain about “Googlisation”! Take a look
at the professional press, and you will see ongoing diatribes about how “quick and dirty”
Google is, about how it does not allow for sophisticated searches, about how it misses so
much important literature. Typical whinges from an uncreative, losing side . . . .
If we take a cold, hard look at reality, there really is no contest in a head-to-head
battle. Here is Google, a corporate giant with a market value of US$80-130 billion
(depending on the day’s market), quarterly earnings in excess of US$300 million and a
plan to spend 30 per cent of its earnings on new product development (Stein, 2006).
Here is a typical university library with severe budget restrictions, constant
subscription-cutting exercises in place, and limited ability to fund new information
services expected by increasingly demanding clients. With this sort of financial power
Google can do what no university library or consortium can do, and do it much faster.
Libraries create mission statements, strategic plans, and user satisfaction surveys
because some bureaucrat demands it, and they waste precious time and energy doing so.
Libraries form committees and sub-committees to think about, discuss, and perhaps some
day implement, new ways to store, package and deliver materials. In the meanwhile,
Google actually gets on with the job and actually does it. Two years ago there was no
Google Scholar; now I use it almost daily – and this is the key to success as an
information provider: most of us want information now, and we want it fast. And yes,
increasingly we want it to work like Google – quickly, simply and without complication.
Taking “information literacy education” as an example, a search on Google Scholar
retrieves about 300 items in less than a second – books, articles, conference presentations,
working papers, white papers, the lot. No, of course this is not comprehensive, but it is
certainly a time-saving and accurate option. The same search in my university library
takes me through several databases and a catalogue or two, using a variety of terms; and
at the end of the day at least 85 per cent of the citations are not even held by the library.
Libraries are as old as history; Google is in its infancy and already has libraries
running scared – this should tell us something about the future. As Google spreads its
wings – Google Scholar, Google Print, Google Book Search, the database will grow
exponentially while retaining its advantages of speed and simplicity. A typical
library-based digitisation initiative, such as the Internet Archive (2006) collaboration Editorial
with selected Canadian institutions (www.archive.org/details/toronto), will digitise
perhaps 2,000 titles annually – a drop in the ocean compared with Google’s
capabilities. Remember that Google Print is meant to be digitising the collections of
several major universities, and at the same time is inviting publishers to include their
current lists in the project (Sullivan, 2004). Yes, there has been much copyright-related
smoke since that announcement, yet publishers are beginning to participate; again the 99
phrase “information literacy” brings up a number of very useful references in the
spin-off service, Google Book Search.
From the perspective of Online Information Review, it looks very much as though
Google is set to win in any head-on clash with libraries for “market share” is terms of
access to and use of information resources. Libraries simply cannot compete, nor
should they try to. Rather, gladly cede the generalist role to Google, allow it to become
the most extensive virtual library imaginable. And in place of being all things to all
users, the library should become an enclave of specialisation, providing
labour-intensive, in-depth search and research services for smaller numbers of users
who require such care.
As John Wilkin at the University of Michigan says:
A digital library would exacerbate the paradox of “library as place”. Libraries with digital
collections, or access to digital collections can move a lot of unused materials out, transform
physical library space to adapt to new emerging roles. Libraries can facilitate “specialization”
(ceding “generalist” role to Google) (Wilkin, 2005).
Exactly what shape or form this specialisation might take is anyone’s guess, although
some information services – parliamentary libraries stand out as a particular example
here – seem to be forging ahead with great success. It is time for the traditional
information professions to stop wittering and to grasp the opportunities that Google
and its ilk are creating. They may be pleasantly surprised to find that, while we users
continue to rely on Google for our run-of-the-mill requirements, we will also start
returning to libraries for those special skills that only creative information
professionals can exercise. One day, I may even wander across the Quad . . . .

References
Internet Archive (2006), Welcome to Canadian Libraries, available at: www.archive.org/details/
toronto (accessed 20 January 2006).
Sandieson, R., Hourcade, J. and Sharpe, V. (2006), “Designing effective online educational
searches: procedures for content analysis and validation”, in Mann, B.L. (Ed.), Selected
Styles in Web-Based Educational Research, Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA,
pp. 190-201.
Stein, G. (2006), “Google surpasses role model berkshire in stock value”, International Herald
Tribune, 10 January, available at: www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/09/business/bxgoogle.
php (accessed 20 January 2006).
Sullivan, D. (2004), “Google Print opens widely to publishers”, SearchEngineWatch, available at:
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3417941 (accessed 20 January 2006).
Wilkin, J. (2005), John Wilkin Talks Google Print and Digitization, available at: www.blyberg.net/
2005/11/11/john-wilkin/ (accessed 20 January 2006).