Paul Courant has some insight into this question:
Paul Duguid’s comment on an earlier post of mine gets to important issues that I expect to discuss repeatedly (although not repetitiously) in this space. Among the big questions that he raises are these two: (1) How good a job will Google Book Search do? (2) What are the consequences that flow from the answer to (1)?I can’t answer the first question. Thus far GBS has not done well with multivolume works, sort of like iTunes with classical music. In both cases, metadata is thrown away, and the results are often more amusing than useful. Library partners, including Michigan, have been on Google’s case about this for some time. Duguid asks whether Google will learn from Michigan. My experience is that in general Google is very good at learning.
I have more to say about the second question. Here I am optimistic. Suppose Google never gets good at multivolume works, and in this and possibly other domains falls well short of good performance in delivering to users what they are looking for. I find it very unlikely that such a circumstance would be sustained, because Google has a strong interest in being responsive to its users. So the outcome will turn on how discerning the users will be, and on that subject colleges and universities and their libraries should have a great deal to say. What matters is whether academic libraries and their associated colleges and universities are able to teach their students well enough so that students can tell the difference between good search outcomes and misguided ones. (We also need to teach our students how to recognize sources with reliable provenance, and how to use such sources in order to make sense of their own and others’ arguments, but that is a longer discussion for another time.)
If we (academic institutions) do our job well, users will not tolerate unreliable search outcomes, and in that case I would expect Google to be responsive, not because libraries have told them how to catalog books, but because users will find books that are ill-cataloged to be less useful than books that are well-cataloged. By using the Google-scanned works well in our teaching and research, we can develop practices of scholarly literacy that use authenticated and reliable digital sources. GBS may be the direct source of the works, or we may rely on the library copies. Either way, the important job for academic institutions is to teach well (or, more precisely, to assure that their students to learn well) and that is exactly as it should be.
I like what Paul is saying here. His comments are very helpful and revealing.
But it still comes down to a matter for faith vs. commitment. Paul has great faith in Google because of its track record (which I actually think is a bit mixed) of responsiveness. I prefer commitment, which can only be guaranteed by negotiation and contract.
I have argued here and in other spaces that it was the responsibility of university libraries to demand certain levels of quality and accountability (not to mention transparency) before engaging in massive corporate welfare on Google's behalf. But I understand where this faith in Google's responsiveness comes from.
Google is a market actor committed to building its resources. Its chief resource -- what Google sells -- is us. But its chief resource also has free will. And in a truly competitive and fluid market Google risks alienating its resources. So Google has for some time included feedback mechanisms in its services and devoted energy to improving (from its point of view) the quality of results.
But here is the problem: in the information-seeking economy (or, if you prefer, environment), network effects matter. First movers and big movers have a major advantage. They can crowd out competitors with their gravitational forces. There is nothing deterministic about first movers and network effects. But gravity does matter and requires massive force to escape.
As it stands, Google has great gravity. That's why universities are so tempted to include their precious and valuable resources in the Google collection.
As Google continues to grow both in market capitalization and ubiquity as our window onto the world, it has less incentive to respect the needs of its resources.
Understanding that Google users are not its customers -- we are its cattle -- is the key to unlocking how this firm is likely to affect our lives for better (mostly) and worse (slightly) in the years to come.
So again, I ask, should we continue to trust Google to improve its services when it's the only game in town?
RSS Feed
Comments (5)
I read this blog quite often (I have subscribed to it) and it always seems to me to have a "conspiracy theorist" tone to it. What in the past 10 years or so (based on when you want to say Google was founded) have you seen them do that makes you so worried?? I have seen them stick up for the right (correct) things, even under intense pressure. There are other companies out there that have failed on many levels and you don't even glance at them.
Just about all of the applications that they (Google) has made are of extremely professional quality. And my experience has been that if a Google product isn't great now, give it some more time and they'll work out the kinks. They have also been very open about the things that they are trying to accomplish and have set admirable goals for their company and are taking a great view of the world and their place in it (trying to leave as small of a footprint, while still being a BUSINESS). While we're on the subject, do understand that businesses are out to make money and they are out to maximize profit (almost every individual is also), this isn't brain surgery. But Google also seems to want to make a positive impact as opposed to many other corporations which just stop at the profit making motive and don't really care about the positive or negative consequences of what they do. I could understand suspicion if they have done something to deserve it and I can definitely understand being cautious because we should all be cautious to a certain extent.
I'm not a Google employee and I certainly can't speak for them, but I do know this, that they have never, ever proven to me anything other than their willingness to try new things, to give things away for cheap or free and attach advertising to them (a different business model than companies were willing to try in the past) and to be straightforward about their goals and ambitions. That to me sounds like a company that has it together, compared to the many scheming enterprises in today's society. Still I do understand you have a blog/book to write and this stuff is interesting and gets lots of attention, but honestly try to cut down on the conspiracy theory crap.
Dear Nick,
I hope I have not come across as one who would spread conspiracy theories. That's certainly not how I think.
Everything you wrote above about Google is correct. I have said as much myself.
I like how you describe Google as "a company that has it together."
That could not be more true and accurate!
I am more interested in whether we have it together. I suspect we do not. Google is doing everything it should do to serve its stockholders and consumers.
I just want us to realize that we are neither. this is a new and fascinating relationship between a firm and the public.
So my fundamental goal (blog, articles, talks, book, etc.) is to understand the nature of that relationship and account for all its positive and negative externalities.
And if I get a bit sloppy or angry, I hope you and others talk me down and correct my excesses. That's why I chose to do this blog. Left to my own devices and the privacy of my own writing room I could go too far.
As far as the book search project, I am much more critical of the public university libraries that have chosen to give away so much to Google without asking hard questions or making firm demands.
Generally, though, I am critical of the unabashed worship of this company and its role in our lives.
That's not conspiratorial. It's critical.
Frankly if there is not some alarm at the intrusion of Google into areas of life there are other concerns that should be raised. It's not Google as a company that concerns me; it's Google as a lifestyle that concerns me. As an example, people no longer search the internet, they google it. The word has become synonymous, at least in my experience, with the idea of searching the web for information via a search engine. This is neither good nor bad. On the other hand, Google's massive marketing campaign and tracking of users is a fairly scary thing especially when China's or our government asks for that information. Who is then protecting our information that has been reaped in the name of marketing?
The need for criticism at this point is tremendously important and I appreciate your balanced view.
"Google as a lifestyle"!
I love it!
Thanks.
You wrote:
"As far as the book search project, I am much more critical of the public university libraries that have chosen to give away so much to Google without asking hard questions or making firm demands."
Maybe I misunderstand the subject, but what have university libraries such as Michigan, e.g., given away to Google?
Maybe you're saying that if Michigan does GBS, then once they have a Google search system in place, they might never feel compelled to do create another search system (one that is perhaps better, or more attuned to their institutional wants/needs). Or, that if Michigan spends its time on a sub-par GBS, then that's opportunity cost not spent on another more optimal system. Is that what you're saying?
Again, it's not clear what these libraries have "given away" that they couldn't later correct or improve by performing another book-search/&c; process in the future.
Best regards,
Michael