Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Applebee (2002)
Academic Research on the Internet: Options for Scholars and LibrariesOnline Information Review, 26
(2002)
Searcher's voice: Google: (v)
Joanne Devine, Francine Egger-Sider (2004)
Beyond google: the invisible web in the academic libraryThe Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30
T. Saracevic
Relevance reconsidered
Jillian Griffiths, P. Brophy (2005)
Student Searching Behavior and the Web: Use of Academic Resources and GoogleLibr. Trends, 53
H. Xie (2004)
Online IR system evaluation: online databases versus Web search enginesOnline Inf. Rev., 28
Howard Greisdorf (2003)
Relevance thresholds: a multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate informationInf. Process. Manag., 39
C. Tenopir
Is Google the competition
Karl Fast, D. Campbell (2005)
"I still like Google": University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the web
(2005)
Access by Google
(2003)
Google calls in the language police
Javed Mostafa (2005)
Seeking better Web searches.Scientific American, 292 2
L. Robinson, I. McIlwaine, P. Copestake, C. Anderson (2000)
Comparative evaluation of the performance of online databases in answering toxicology queriesInt. J. Inf. Manag., 20
S. Bell
The infodiet: how libraries can offer an appetizing alternative to Google
R. Tennant
Digital libraries – the convenience catastrophe
(2004)
Is Google the competition The Library Journal, 1 April, available at: www. libraryjournal.com/article/CA405423 (accessed 3
Library Journal News
Google guy: reference librarians can keep jobs
M. Herring (2001)
10 Reasons Why the Internet Is No Substitute for a Libraryamerican libraries, 32
D. Bawden (1990)
User-Oriented Evaluation of Information Systems and Services
Hao-Hua Chu, M. Rosenthal (1996)
Search En-gines for the World Wide Web: A Compara-tive Study and Evaluation Methodology
C. Tenopir (2005)
Google in the Academic LibraryLibrary Journal
(2004)
Is Google good enough? A study comparing a major search engine with academic library research”, unpublished MSc dissertation, Department of Information Science, City
Helen Laurence, William Miller (2001)
Academic Research on the Internet: Options for Scholars and Libraries
(1996)
Relevance reconsidered Information Science: Integration in Perspectives, The Royal School of Librarianship
L. Robinson (2000)
A strategic approach to research using Internet tools and resourcesAslib Proc., 52
C. Stoffle, R. Renaud, J. Veldof
Choosing our futures
Carol Barry, Linda Schamber (1998)
Users' Criteria for Relevance Evaluation: A Cross-situational ComparisonInf. Process. Manag., 34
Denise Agosto (2002)
Bounded rationality and satisficing in young people's Web-based decision makingJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 53
Candy Schwartz (1998)
Web Search EnginesJ. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 49
(2001)
Digital libraries – the convenience catastrophe 15 December, available at: www.libraryjournal.com/article
R. Cancho, R. Solé (2003)
Least effort and the origins of scaling in human languageProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100
(2004)
The infodiet: how libraries can offer an appetizing alternative to Google The Chronicle of Higher Education
(2001)
Children’s use of the yahooligans! web search engine: II. Cognitive and physical behaviours on research tasks
J. Brophy
Is Google good enough? A study comparing a major search engine with academic library research
C. Borgman (1996)
Why Are Online Catalogs Still Hard to Use?J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 47
Purpose – The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings – Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications – Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications – The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the “Google phenomenon”. Originality/value – This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in‐depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.
Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives – Emerald Publishing
Published: Dec 1, 2005
Keywords: Academic libraries; Search engines; Information retrieval
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.