In the recent Cites & Insight I see there is some confusion over a rant I posted. I'm sure there was more as these 5 minute emails aren't as well fleshed out as they should be. Here's the applicable section:

Placing too much faith in Google? Consider the mixed messages in Ryan Eby’s contribution. In the first paragraph, Eby says he uses Google “nearly exclusively (for web search) ever since [around its inception]. In that time I don’t think I’ve ever had a completely failed search…” Eby “never go[es] past two or three pages” and regards wanting deeper results as something “spammers would love.” Later, after saying he uses Google nearly exclusively and it always works, Eby comes up with this: I personally, and everyone I know, know that Google is not the one stop shop for all research (nor would I want it to be), though it does a damn good job at some things.

Rereading it I can see how some may see a mixed-message, but I still don't. I use google exclusively for web searches while using other tools for research (online but not public web). Searching the web can be part of research but is rarely the only source in research that I have done. I think this debate is often spawned by someone trying to use a search engine as a complicated research tool which I just don't see them as. Yes, in both cases your trying to find information but the way it's approached can be quite different. Simple vs Indepth, I suppose.

I can see the fear that some have in these debates on google and other web searches being used as sole research tools. I agree that this is a problem and should be addressed in courses and any outreach. No course I took would allow me to only use web pages but I can see as more primary source material becomes available online this becoming a problem. Analyzing search engines as tools they aren't can be constructive as it highlights things that should be in such a tool and shortcomings of various areas. Part of me still doesn't think these engines should be changed to be a tool they're not meant to be. I believe if Google became the perfect research tool as outlined in the discussions that something else would take it's place for the simple stuff.

I suppose I fall too far outside the mindset to take part in such discussions. I don't see libraries being replaced by Google like some. I also don't see the argument of making libraries exactly like google. There are, however, plenty of lessons to be learned for both sides. To think the OPAC was perfect I think would be a mistake. But I also think the polarized view of it's Google or the OPAC is also wrong. Some questions require complex tools to find the answer while others do not. The majority of my questions are simple and web based. I try to choose the right tool for the job.

There will always be people that would prefer help over finding it themselves. I personally do my best to solve it myself as I enjoy learning on my own. This is one reason I like to take online courses. I think people should have the choice, though. I like not having to call a reference desk to look up a phone number or find the contact for a company. I still get calls asking for this information and gladly give it (after a quick google search), but I don't think it should be required. I'll leave the information wants to be free debate for some other time though.

There's more thoughts on the debate from Bill Drew, who I agree with and gives some examples of lessons from google instead of the often polarized library vs google view.