Google, If Built By Librarians
What would Google look like if it was built by librarians? We're about to find out. A project called "Reference Extract," has a goal of building a web search engine where the weight of the search results aren't determined by any sort of algorithm like PageRank, but rather by the expertise and creditability judgments from librarians around the world. In other words, it's smart people-powered search.
The Reference Extract project is being developed by the Online Computer Library Center and the information schools of Syracuse University and the University of Washington. According to Wired Campus, OCLC is an international cooperative that shares resources among more than 69,000 libraries in 112 countries and territories. A $100,000 grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is covering planning costs.
In response to one of the questions posed on the homepage, project partner R. David Lankes explained the difference between this and an online directory like DMOZ.org. Instead of building out a directory of sites, the Reference Extract project will instead focus on answering "real questions around the world." By answering a lot of questions, the service scales up and generates a lot of "semantic richness" with which a search engine and other services can be built, says Lankes.
He also notes that the engine isn't really trying to compete directly with Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo as an everyday search tool. Although some people might begin searches directly from the Reference Extract homepage, the other search engines will end up returning results from the project and thus leading new users to click through for the answers they need.
That last bit sounds a lot like the model Wikipedia uses. Sure, you can search Wikipedia from its homepage, but you're more likely to Google something and end up on a Wikipedia page that appeared at the top of the search results.
However, unlike Wikipedia, Reference Extract won't simply focus on basic facts about people, places, or things, but will answer questions on a wide range of topics, just as librarians do today. In the end, the project may not out-Google Google, but it will lend something to search results that we've never had before: credibility.
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Something that is going to be closer to a traditional encyclopaedia has got to be a good thing. Maybe it doesn't apply to the audience of this blog, but there are problems with too many people believing that because something is found at the top of a Google search it is automatically true / correct, when unfortunately there is a huge amount of misinformation out there. The mainstream media could also probably do a better job of reminding people that search engines are a tool (albeit a good one), and not an encyclopaedia themselves.
Agreed... my doctor used to be so disgusted with the internet because people would come to her with all sorts of misinformation about the symptoms they had because they googled them and were convinced they had a disease that just happened to be at the top of the search results. Some things should not be left to Google results.
Thanks for this post, Sarah.
I hasten to add, though, that Google could not have earned billions for its shareholders if algorithm-based search results weren't credible. The recent news about a precipitous drop in UAL Corp's stock that was fueled by automated trading and an outdated report appearing in Google News is a great example of just how much faith we place in that search engine.
Reference Extract has a different kind of credibility, one that is lacking, to be sure. Google is not the last word in search. There's much more that can be done to improve and refine it.
This is an excellent idea. Too many times websites are optomised to appear at the top, or close to, of Google. And very often the content is awful.
I'm hoping a project such as this will ensure you and I get the best content available when we google something.
It really sounds interesting. The only question would be Would Google allow this to happen?
There is a company , ex-libris, with amazing products in this field.
my comments at http://www.commentino.com/orim
Surely Yahoo Answers is pretty much the same thing. I find myself ending up there from google on a regular basis.
For me it's the only reason to keep a yahoo id!
What would Google look like if it was built by librarians?
First, Googol would be spelled correctly.
And it would be made of wood. Because wood is strong and durable and withstands the abuse put upon it by the uncaring public.
Then it would be given a cute and silly name like "Good Golly, this is a great search tool!" This is so the librarians could brand their product because librarians are all bout the brand.
Googol would get weeded regularly so that all the old, unused, dusty web sites get discarded from the index.
Googol would close at 9:00 p.m. and all major holidays.
Finally, Googol would get hacked into oblivion and shut down because the librarians used the word "password" for the password.
This reminds me of Scholarpedia.
They offer the same capabilities as Wikipedia, but you have to be a scholar (i.e. have an active background in academics) in order to contribute.
Thus, a peer review system is supposed to improve the overall quality. But opposed to a "real expert" in one field, this project chooses a librarian, who should be able to make better connections between disparate fields of knowledge.
In general, one question remains: How do you qualify for being an expert on a topic? Is it your profession, your title, your experience our your peer group?
And does your experience with books and other "old school" media prove as useful in such a fast-changing medium?
Let's see what answer the librarians find.
Biomedical search engine VADLO (vadlo.com) would be a good reference resource for librarians.