Feedback

While certainly there is justification to question the future status of libraries in our society (Eric C. Welsh, “Creating irrelevance,” Feedback, LJ 8/06, p. 12), I see no signs of impending irrelevance for the librarian. Although the brick-and-mortar structure of libraries might become obsolete, the people inside of them will not. Similarities of physical incarnation notwithstanding, libraries have very little in common with a retail warehouse. Libraries are not distributors of product; they are repositories of information, access to which often requires skilled navigators. As such, librarians are more relevant than they've ever been. The general public just doesn't know it....

We must market our expertise and services so that we remain vital and viable alternatives to the shot-in-the-dark, knee-jerk, free-for-all experience of the common Internet search engine. Universality of the Internet search engine, spearheaded by noun-to-verb behemoth Google, has led to mass misunderstanding of the purpose and usefulness of directed searches.

Google and its ilk are highly useful tools. Like millions of others, I use them daily. They can bear fruitful ends and are often the instigator for exploration of tangential subject matter. However, when a pointed question requires the retrieval of precise and reliable facts, I am not inclined to google it.

Rather, I will carefully select a reputable database that provides clear paths for information retrieval. Sometimes that database will require specific knowledge and skills for effective use. That is where librarians of the future enter the picture—as guides through the maze that is the information superhighway. When “sophisticated” search engines take over the world, who will teach everyone to use them effectively? Librarians...I hope.—Eric Pasteur, Peoria P.L., IL

I did a little checking on the different results from Google and Ask.com on the population question (Greg R. Notess, “Need Info? Just Ask.com!” Reference BackTalk, LJ 7/06, p. 110). I found that searching for “population estimate,” which is the way I would search, not only brought up the Census site as the first hit, the Fedstats site was also on the first page of results, as were sites on estimating populations of whales and bison. I have noticed that with Google, the order of the words you input makes a difference. That said, I do like the new Ask.com and usually use it as an alternate to Google.—Sheila W. Bankhead, Head of Reference/Information Svcs., Northwest Regional Lib. Syst., Panama City, FL

In the article “Drafted” (LJ 8/06, p. 34–37), John Carlo Bertot et al. say public libraries need more support if they are to meet the increasing expectations that they will function as a primary e-government service. The article does not begin to portray the huge burden that has been put on small public libraries by the continually rising bar of computer technology and public demand for diverse Internet, web site, library automation, online database, e-government, and other services.

Beyond the obvious costs of hardware, software, database subscriptions, and Internet access is the much bigger cost of technical support, usually taken for granted. Today the difference between a large library and a small library can be defined by whether the library has at least one or more computer technicians on its payroll. If it does, it is a large library (or a rich small one).

For thousands of small public libraries, the article's assumption that some extra training and some added funding will enable them to provide the same level of technology services as large libraries is just wishful thinking. Providing the technical support staffing that any library, large or small, needs in order to provide today's or tomorrow's expected level of technology services is going to take big bucks compared to the shoestring funding upon which small libraries currently struggle to survive.

The Gates Foundation has already made this mistake. Let's not encourage the state and federal governments to repeat and compound it. Either fund technology services in public libraries at a much higher level, or stop dumping these unfunded mandates upon us.—Wayne Hanway, Southeastern P.L. Syst., McAlester, OK

We are in the midst of formulating the newest version of our strategic plan, and one of the objectives is entitled “Informed Citizens.” This idea grew from the comment of one of our patrons who was a member of our citizen planning committee. He mentioned (almost in passing) that he wished our county residents were a more informed electorate, and the idea grew from there. Now the staff committee is refining the idea and working on ways the library can help our local citizens be “informed.” Thanks for your encouraging words (“More Missions Are Better,” Blatant Berry, LJ 7/06, p. 10).—Ann Miller, Dir., Coshocton P.L., OH