contributed by Michael G. at 02:04 PM on April 30, 2004.
Someone on one of the list-servs I subscribe to brought up this very interesting article, re: Google and the value of libraries:
"Without an IPO price, or even an accurate number of shares, it's hard to say how much Google is worth. But based on the information provided, analysts predict that Google will be valued at $22 billion to $28 billion." [ article ]
"My guess is about 300 years until computers are as good as, say, your local reference library in doing search," says Craig Silverstein (Google director of technology). [ article ]
So, Google is worth $22 billion to $28 billion, but it will be about 300
years before they are as good as your local library and its librarians in
doing research.
So, what are libraries worth? What is a librarian worth?
Comments
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your stance) "your local reference libarian" cannot advertise products through a set of "sponsored links," your local librarian does not offer services world wide (see google.it,) nor does your local librarian have the ability to offer services for a corporate intranet, also your local librarian probably does not have the market cache to advance into wireless websearching, the commericial implications of the Froogle tool, Gmail (1 gig free accounts?) and the fantastic Google News service, all really point to one deduction, Google is all about money, and your local librarian is not.
That is not a bad thing, I just don't think we need to compare web services to human beings, there advantages and disadvantages to both. I don't think Google is bitter that it can never experience human emotions, so librarians should not be bitter about not being able to search and browse 4,285,199,774 web pages
Posted by: t_l | May 1, 2004 09:53 AM
I agree with you completly. Personally, I think that libraries/librarians could compete with Google/Yahoo at their own game. OCLC, for example, has really droped the ball in thinking about the future. I'm not one of those people who look at Google and try to come up with all the things that librarians/libraries do better. Rather, I'm one of the (few) who look at Google and think about what they do that librarians/libraries don't. If librarians simply saying "We find more relevant and more appropriate information for your needs" was an arguement against using Google, no one would use it. Repeating that mantra over and over again now isn't going to change much. So what is the value in the internet and search engines that librarians aren't currently bringing to the equation? Convenience, ease of use, ubiquity, etc. Focus on improving your services, not on trying to knock down other's service - thats how you win users back.
Posted by: michael | May 7, 2004 12:46 PM
Due to the proliferation of comment spam, I've had to close comments on this
entry. If you would like to leave comment, please use one of my recent
entries. Thank you and sorry for any inconvience caused.
Comments
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your stance) "your local reference libarian" cannot advertise products through a set of "sponsored links," your local librarian does not offer services world wide (see google.it,) nor does your local librarian have the ability to offer services for a corporate intranet, also your local librarian probably does not have the market cache to advance into wireless websearching, the commericial implications of the Froogle tool, Gmail (1 gig free accounts?) and the fantastic Google News service, all really point to one deduction, Google is all about money, and your local librarian is not.
That is not a bad thing, I just don't think we need to compare web services to human beings, there advantages and disadvantages to both. I don't think Google is bitter that it can never experience human emotions, so librarians should not be bitter about not being able to search and browse 4,285,199,774 web pages
Posted by: t_l | May 1, 2004 09:53 AM
I agree with you completly. Personally, I think that libraries/librarians could compete with Google/Yahoo at their own game. OCLC, for example, has really droped the ball in thinking about the future. I'm not one of those people who look at Google and try to come up with all the things that librarians/libraries do better. Rather, I'm one of the (few) who look at Google and think about what they do that librarians/libraries don't. If librarians simply saying "We find more relevant and more appropriate information for your needs" was an arguement against using Google, no one would use it. Repeating that mantra over and over again now isn't going to change much. So what is the value in the internet and search engines that librarians aren't currently bringing to the equation? Convenience, ease of use, ubiquity, etc. Focus on improving your services, not on trying to knock down other's service - thats how you win users back.
Posted by: michael | May 7, 2004 12:46 PM