Google Gains with Librarians

The Google statistic most impressive to librarians at the Public Library Association (PLA) conference in Boston came from Ben Bunnell, an engaging librarian on Google’s Book Search team. As of March 22, Bunnell announced, there were 24,000 sign-ups for Google’s librarian newsletter. Google’s library outreach team first appeared last June in Chicago at the American Library Association (ALA) annual conference; when the newsletter launched in 2005, some 3000 librarians signed up in one week. Given that most librarians in attendance at the PLA session hadn’t heard of the service, the number likely has grown even more.

Some librarians are already using Google Book Search to answer reference questions, but not everyone is pleased. One librarian groused that a search does not result in subject subdivisions. Bunnell responded that Google ranks by relevancy, “but it’s a very interesting idea.”

On the day Bunnell spoke, March 23, Google added a button on the Book Search page to allow users to search only books available in full text. He also said that Book Search results are beginning to be integrated into regular web search results.

Academic implications

David Ferriero, director of New York Public Library’s (NYPL) Research Libraries, told a PLA audience that “Google is really tuned in to how people are gathering information, in the way libraries wish they were.” Google’s effort “has huge implications” for collection development, especially for research libraries, and raises questions about whether such libraries need to store similar collections.

Ferriero acknowledged that NYPL board members, as well as some in the publishing community, had warned of a worst-case scenario in which a small college axes its library and uses Google as a substitute.

Bunnell scoffed, saying it would be easier to scan a physical book than to hack Google’s system. Would Google change its business model and wind up charging for subscriptions? “Contextually relevant advertising is very useful,” Bunnell said. “We’re very confident, but we are looking at other things.”

Library links still pending

There was a slight snag in the happy mantra that librarians and Google share the same goals. Only books in the public domain get a “Find it in a library” link on the Google Book Search page (see News, LJ 1/06). “We’re rolling [links] out over time,” Bunnell said vaguely. Asked directly, he acknowledged that no technical problem exists. (Translation: publishers may think a library link would cut into sales.)

Meanwhile, Internet consultant Edward Vielmetti, a member of the Technology Advisory Board of the Ann Arbor District Library, MI, and founder of the Superpatron blog, has devised a solution to insert a link to his library’s holdings on the Google Book Search screen. It requires use of the Firefox browser and the Greasemonkey extension.

Book sales launch

Google also announced its long-anticipated sales function for those publishers that have signed up for the Google Book Search program. Google said books will only be available to users who sign in, and they won’t be able to be saved.

Ben Vershbow of the Institute for the Future of the Book was critical, noting that “ebooks will not be full digital editions, at least not in the way we would want: with attention paid to design and the reading experience in general.”

Google vs. government

Also, U.S. district judge James Ware in San Francisco ruled that the company must share some information with the government about searches conducted by users. Google had resisted a Department of Justice (DoJ) subpoena, saying that such a fishing expedition would erode confidence in privacy protections for users.

Lawyers for the DoJ argued, however, that they were requesting no personal information among a random selection of web addresses and search requests. They slashed their Google request from millions to 5000 randomly chosen search terms and 50,000 web site addresses. The DoJ hopes to study the prevalence of pornography on the Internet and will use the information to argue that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) should be upheld.