Federated Searching: Put It in Its Place

Federated search, the new technological kid on the block, and the venerable library catalog should have some sort of relationship with each other. On that, few will disagree. But what should that relationship look like? The online catalog has long been a sensitive subject in the library world, with conventional wisdom placing it at the very center of the library universe. This being the case, it is only natural that many think federated search should start with the catalog.

The user's perspective is a bit different. Users have questions. They need answers. Roy Tennant, Calfornia Digital Libraries manager and LJ columnist, repeated a common observation at the recent American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in San Diego: "Only librarians like to search; everyone else likes to find." Users want a "black box" to which they can pose their questions and get answers.

To many, Google has become that black box, simultaneously searching millions of sources in a simple, convenient, user-friendly way. One of those sources is Amazon, which has become the de facto catalog of the masses. The overwhelming success of Google offers powerful evidence as to which search model users prefer.

Is the catalog the appropriate place to execute a federated search? One could go to Amazon to execute a Google search, but that is hardly intuitive to the untrained user. While it is certainly technologically possible to start a broad information search while looking for a book or DVD, is this the most sensible approach? The answer is found in your view of the catalog. If the catalog is the primary source of information, then it's logical to access federated search through the catalog.

However, the universe of available content is no longer limited to that stored within the library walls. Moreover, the type of content required by users is often not cataloged by most libraries. As such, viewing the catalog as the library's primary source of information does not reflect the 21st-century library. Today's libraries are much more than book depositories; they are vast information centers, offering access to, and navigation of, terabytes of articles, technical papers, patents, poetry, photographs, and more. Providing books and other cataloged material is only one aspect of the modern library's charter.

Given the proven success of Google, when building a federated search engine, it makes sense to embrace this model. Which would you use as a one-stop shop for information, Google or Amazon? Most non–information professionals would find the question silly. If users want to find a book, they go to Amazon. If they need information, they go to Google. We shouldn't force users to predetermine the information source as a precondition to asking their question.

Google has taught us, quite powerfully, that the user just wants a search box. Arguments as to whether or not this is "best" for the user are moot—it doesn't matter if it's best if nobody uses it. Moreover, as both Google and Amazon have demonstrated, users have a funny way of determining for themselves what is best for them.

Knowledge is power. This is true not only for the library patron but for the library as well. The more that libraries enable and fully engage their information, the more central they become in the lives of their constituency.

To many laypeople, the information locked within library walls is an extraordinarily well-kept secret. Former U.S. Senator Wendell Ford said, "If information is the currency of democracy, then libraries are the banks." The problem is that our information depositories have been made too secure, with arcane information navigation tools unwittingly insulating users from their vast intellectual currency. The paradox demonstrated so elegantly by Google is that the most powerful information access approach also happens to be the simplest and easiest. The most complex and least intuitive interfaces wind up securing information, not facilitating information access.