Google Gab

Google is often the fodder of much discussion among librarians. The vast majority of librarians I know love and use Google frequently (I use Google Reader, iGoogle, gmail, gtalk, Google maps, Google Scholar and Google Books). Librarians have often struggled to figure out the relationship they have with Google – some see great potential while others see Google as a threat. Google sought a partnership with libraries for their Google Books project and suggested they would like to continue the relationship, even starting a newsletter for librarians. As Steven Cohen and others have pointed out, they have not kept up this relationship. The Chronicle of Higher Education has since picked up this story. There is some great discussion occurring on the story, so take a look and consider what you think of the matter.

Google has also become the talk of librarians thanks to the release of Lively, Google’s virtual world. I’ve already jumped in and started looking around (I’m Darrwyn if you happen to be in Lively). At first glance, it seemed to be more like IMVU, a 3d chat room, than a virtual world. It wasn’t as intuitive as I thought it might be either. I found it a little odd that you choose your room before creating your avatar. I found it interesting that you can be in multiple rooms at once (simply tab between rooms). Rooms do show who is visiting, which will result in less empty world syndrome, a phenomenon that is commonplace in Second Life. It is also Windows only at the moment – I’m hoping this will change soon. I think there is potential though. I will be spending some time in there for the next while, learning the ropes, creating rooms and seeing how it compares with Second Life. One of the nice things is that Lively rooms can be put on a webpage – could this be a new step for virtual reference (I’ll have more on this idea later, so stay posted). We already have meebo widgets on our webpages, perhaps there will soon be a Lively room as well.

Update – It’s much easier to move around when using a mouse with my laptop. If I had started out this way, I may have felt the interface was a little more intuitive than I originally did.

Find it here!

There’s a radio commercial that I heard this morning for the yellow pages (I think, I’m still waiting to hear the commercial again to confirm this). They are advertising themselves as the Find Engine. This got me thinking about our library catalogues again. The debate has been raging about how our OPACs suck and there is a lot of merit in the arguements for this. The biggest question is whether our students can Find It; are we a Find Engine, should we be? The number of students who come to the research help desk looking for materials in our catalogue, I’d say we are not a great find engine.  I’m not going to wade too deeply in the catalogue debate but perhaps we need to think of ourselves as Find engines.

Our library is presently undergoing transformation, a very exciting time as we start surveying all of the exciting opportunities we could be a part of. Part of a discussion at a meeting today turned towards blended librarianship. By considering learning theory, how students and faculty learn, rather than straight librarianship we may be able to move towards a catalogue that acts more as a Find engine. By considering how people learn, how they search, we can design more intuitive catalogues and help simplify the process. I’m interested on how this way of thinking would affect all aspects of the library, especially for instruction. A thought I think I will mull on for a while.

Merger

For those of you who may not know, OCLC and the Research Libraries Group (RLG) are thinking of merging together. As two of the biggest non-profit library groups, this is big news. You can read more about this merger and possible implications (loss of jobs, integrated database, etc) in the Chronicle of Higher Education (requires subscription, sorry).

Update: For those who can't access CHE, here's a link to an ALA tidbit on the merger that doesn't require a subscription (as far as I can recall).

The Future?

Take a look at this post from A Zulu in Silicon Valley. It looks at a search engine called Quece that actually searches by chat. They call it Conversational search. You search like you think. Simply type in your search, get results, and then you are asked another question, thereby refining your search. This sounds awfully like a reference interview. I haven't tried it out yet but it is certainly added to my to do list. I'll be keeping on eye on this one.