Google as a vast online storage library

I just came across an insightful article by Michael Calore of Wired News that describes his attempt to transition away from desktop-based office applications in favor of Google’s web-based applications. Mainly this involved switching from tools like Microsoft Word in favor of Google’s Docs & Spreadsheets web application. See the link at the bottom of this post to read the article in full.

One snippet of Calore’s that particularly caught my eye was that he “began to use Google as a vast online storage library”.

I highly recommend reading this article because it highlights many of the issues that those who try Google’s approach need to grapple with, especially in the workplace. There is a lot of discussion, for instance, about the issues of privacy, security, and accessibility, and of how our experiences with Google’s approach are colored by decades of using desktop PC-based software like Microsoft Office. I was intrigued with the point that we need to re-program ourselves in some ways in order to make effective use of Docs & Spreadsheets. It’s very much like how I felt when I first started using GMail. I was so used to spending time sorting through emails, conscientiously deleting those I no longer needed, filing others into folders, etc., that GMail’s totally opposite approach (store everything, delete nothing) was quite disconcerting at first, so much so that I was reluctant to make the switch. After a while, though, I became used to it and I realized how liberating Google’s approach to email really is.

Similarly, I have played around with Docs & Spreadsheets every once in a while and I have not quite gotten over the hump in terms of adopting it as a replacement for Word and Excel. I have run into many of the same problems that Calore describes in his article. Calore mentions the announcement from Google earlier this week about adding in a Powerpoint-like application to the mix in the near future. I think I will have to concentrate some time like the author did on making a cold turkey switch.

Many people feel distrust when it comes to Google and the storage of their email and other personal information. I think such distrust is well founded and healthy, not just with Google but with just about all online, web-based applications. There was mention made in the article about how people inherently trust their email systems without understanding how very insecure email is, by its very nature. This point helps to put such fears about Google into perspective.

Link to Livin’ la Vida Google: A Month-Long Dive Into Web-Based Apps -

Reality distortion field

Along with what I wrote about Apple’s new iPhone, I wanted to point out the existence of a Wired article that does a good job of articulating what I hope for and what I think might eventually be possible with a device such as the iPhone. Check out this article at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/gizmos/0,72477-0.html. I especially like the reference near the end to the “reality distortion field” that surrounds MacWorld.

iPhone: iWant1

Many people have said that handheld computing is going to be huge; that cell phones or so-called “smart” phones will become increasingly powerful and feature-rich. But I have been much less than impressed with what I have seen thus far. That is, until I read about the iPhone introduced earlier this week by Apple. I know, I know, dismiss me as yet another delusional-Apple-can-do-know-wrong sycophant. This device, at least on first impressions, fits almost exactly with what I have wanted to see in terms of possibilities for “smart” phones. More than that, it pushes the boundaries of possibility for what this kind of device can do and how it can do it.

I have a Motorola cell phone and I used Cingular as my carrier. Aside from using it as a phone, the features that I use the most heavily include SMS to query Google for information that I need while travelling or going somewhere to shop, eat, etc. Thanks to Google, who designed a nifty Java-based email client that I think makes the best of a difficult situation, I also use my cell phone to check my email. I do not use my phone to compose or send emails, though, because I just find it almost useless to type using the standard cellphone keys. I may send my wife a photo that I took using the built-in camera, but that is a feature that is very rarely used (as is the video capability).

So what would I like to have? Well, basically a full-featured mini-computer in my hand. One that I can use to do a variety of things, and do them easily and without hassle. On paper, iPhone fits the bill. I am amazed by the simplicity of the packaging, and what I can see of how it is shaped, how it fits into the hand, etc. Of course I am also amazed by its many interesting features. I especially like the 3.5″ screen. So yes, iPhone: iWant1. I see some negatives, though. First, to me the price point puts it beyond my reach. Second, I think the visual keyboard looks difficult to use for easy, efficient typing. Third, I am already a Cingular customer and I know how slow the connection speed is with that carrier. Of all of the negatives, I think the biggest one is the visual keyboard, because if I can’t type easily and quickly with minimal need for corrections, then the device is useless for composing email, and I really, really, rely upon that capability. David Pogue of the New York Times mentions this in his review, and states something about those who use Blackberry might want to stick with them. But frankly, Blackberry’s thumb keys don’t interest me at all, either.

Will I or should I plan to some day buy an iPhone? I will just have to W8tNC.

A quick conference trip to Washington, D.C.

For the past few days I’ve been on a quick conference trip to a meeting in the Washington, D.C. area. The meeting was organized by NISO and was entitled “From Discovery to Delivery: Solutions to Put Your Content Where the Users Are.”

While there was nothing new or startlingly different about the content of the meeting, for me, at least, I think it was a worthwhile trip overall. The best part of the whole workshop was attending Dan Chudnov’s presentation on “COinS, unAPI, and a Plan for Zero Configuration Service Discovery.” Dan is a great speaker; humorous yet thorough, with an ability to easily explain some pretty technical stuff in a way that most people can understand. I was not surprised to see that he uses a Mac (way to go Mac lovers!) and I liked his use of Keynote for his presentation. The transition theme he used seemed to bother a few people and one person loudly remarked with a sneer, “Looks like a Mac application.” (Get a life, Windows lovers.) What I particularly liked about the approach Dan took with his talk was that he made it Lego-like, that is, piece built upon piece built upon piece, until he reached the (pardon the pun) piece-de-resistance, zero configuration service discovery. His vision for making things completely simple for users, with no configuration necessary for them and no need for them to know about the technical magic that lies behind the user experience, is truly invigorating. The basic focus he had was on using OpenURL and combining it with several other “off-the-shelf” standards to make it dead easy for users to navigate to resources they need. One of the technologies he highlighted was Apple’s excellent Bonjour application for auto-discovery of networked resources such as websites or printers. He also brought up the example of Apple’s iTunes and how it easily allows users on the same network to discover and then play shared music libraries. Overall, this was a great presentation and I am very thankful we have someone of Dan’s caliber to push the technological boundaries in our profession. I wanted to introduce myself to him but didn’t get to do that before the end of the meeting.

Andrew Pace of the Technically Speaking column in American Libraries and author of the Hectic Pace blog, was also in attendance and it was the first time I had seen him in person and heard his by now well-travelled talk about what NCSU has done with its Endeca-powered online catalog. Andrew also is an engaging speaker. I didn’t learn much that I didn’t already know about the work he and others have done but it was interesting to have it presented in person anyway. I wish that I could have spoken with him and others there about the work I am involved in regarding integration of my library’s online catalog with another commercial search engine, work that I think might be interesting to others because it makes new uses of library data that are different than what I have heard is being done anywhere else.

A third highlight of the event was a presentation from someone from the National Academies Press who talked about the challenges and changes they have implemented in providing improved resource discovery for materials they publish. Michael Jon Jensen gave the presentation and he is their Director of Web Communications for the National Academies and Director of Publishing Technologies for National Academies Press. Under his direction this entity has done some really interesting experimentation and development of ways to improve access to the 3,600 books they publish, including development of their own clustering results. One of the things he said that most stood out to me was that National Academies Press provides their books for free in HTML form but they charge for PDF versions. The reason for charging for PDF is that, as he put it, our society still values and treasures the framework and “ethos” of the printed book. Those aren’t his exact words but I think it captures the idea he put forward. He said that a printed book is worth more than the individual pieces, it is bigger and better as a whole collection contained in one package. I thought this to be a very interesting perspective that has important ramifications for how we present and deliver information in an increasingly e-only world.

Jane Burke, former CEO at Endeavor and someone with whom I have always gotten along, was also there as a presenter and it was nice to chat with her for a while and to hear how she is doing in her job leading Serials Solutions.

Finally what made the trip special was the chance to catch up with old friends, Janet Lee-Smeltzer and Tom Wilson. Janet works at UMBC and Tom worked until recently at University of Maryland, College Park. Each night they picked me up from my hotel and we had dinner together and talked far into the evening about librarianship, Web/Library 2.0, library politics, and many other topics.

It’s about customer service, folks [Updated]

[Update: I forgot, dumb me, to link to the original post. Fixed.]

In a Slashdot posting read this a.m., entitled “Why Everyone Loves Apple,” I found some words that I think are very relevant to libraries, technology, debates about Library 2.0, Web 2.0, you name it. Here is the particular sentence I found to be so “right on the mark”:

“It’s regrettably amusing that Apple competitors are working hastily to develop iPod clones to reap in success, but what many of them fail to comprehend is that it’s not necessarily the iPod that makes Apple successful, but rather its customer service.”

Moving this into the library realm, what this basically is saying is, It’s all about customer service, folks! We can (and I think we should) investigate and implement relevant new technologies in libraries as much as possible. But if these new technologies or technology services don’t really enhance customer service, then we are deluding ourselves. Sure, it is cool and hip to have iPods available for checkout, or to encourage gaming, or to develop RSS feeds for everything. But are those things really, truly enhancing customer service? In many cases, I’m sure the answer is, Yes. But not in all cases. Library users aren’t all dissatisfied and turned off about technological backwardness, poor OPACs, or whatever. Don’t forget the users who use libraries for, um, books. Print books. Print journals. Print newspapers.

Let’s not forget that while the energy and excitement currently displayed in the biblioblogosphere (boy, I hate that word) over new technologies is generally very positive, it needs to be critically assessed in light of local library user needs.

Oh, and by the way, there are many people who don’t like Apple. And Apple has not done everything right; they’ve made many big mistakes. But I think libraries can learn from the Apple lesson that libraries are largely about the user experience, and that the single most important factor in user satisfaction is the perceived level of service they receive.

Library online catalogs and relevancy ranking [Updated]

Karen Schneider’s post on the ALA Techsource blog, “How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It),” is a rant by a librarian who either presents a foregone conclusion due to incomplete research, or one who reaches a conclusion out of misunderstanding. Unfortunately such rants are fairly common. Karen complains about the lack of relevancy ranking in most online catalogs, something that most search engines routinely employ. She sums up the result of her research with the following statement:

“Relevance ranking is just one of many basic search-engine functionalities missing from online catalogs.”

Be sure to read the post as well as all of the comments (28 so far).

So why do I find this post problematic? Well, first of all, Karen makes a blanket statement like the one quoted above, without qualification. The fact is that library online catalogs do include relevancy ranking, and they have for years. The online catalog for Endeavor, for example, called WebVoyage, has had relevancy ranking for just about all of its existence (about nine years). It has never been “perfect” but it has been there. No, it doesn’t work in the same manner as, say, Google’s Pagerank algorithm. (It predates that technology, anyway.) And I don’t think it should be expected to, either. I agree that the ease of use and the transparency of the results for library online catalogs should be close or very similar to Google’s but comparing library online catalogs to Google in this way is like comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, the underlying data and databases for library online catalogs is almost entirely different than the data and database(s) underlying a major search engine. See screen shots here that illustrate this capability in WebVoyage.

Another problem I have with this post is that it blames vendors of library online catalogs for the fact that relevancy ranking isn’t apparently present in many instances. There is no consideration given by Karen to the possibility that relevancy ranking may not appear to be available because libraries themselves have chosen not to implement it or make it readily available to their users. The perspective here is very one-sided. Let’s all blame the vendors for inhibiting us librarians from properly serving our users and meeting their expectations. Vendors are by no means blameless, but neither are librarians. Just once, I’d like to see Karen and others of her ilk acknowledge that situations like these are not as black and white as they may like to believe. Sometimes I think it’s a matter of convenience because many librarians have long since cast “the vendor” as the bogeyman (“how dare they actually care about making money?!”). I say, look at both sides of the issue and especially do not be so quick to lay blame without truly understanding the reality of what vendors provide and what vendors do. Here is another quote from Karen’s post:

“But the interesting questions are: Why don’t online catalog vendors offer true search in the first place? and Why we don’t demand it? Save the time of the reader!”

OK, so what is “true search,” Karen?! (I don’t believe that is defined anywhere in the post.) What you define as “true search” isn’t necessarily how another person might define it. This is just common sense. If “true search” is meant as relevancy ranking, as I’ve already pointed out, vendors HAVE offered and DO offer “true search.”

But I’m beginning to see that that kind of answer doesn’t fit the simplistic, librarians-as-hapless-victims paradigm Karen has preconstructed so it wouldn’t count. It wouldn’t be relevant.

P.S. In one of her comments responding to another person’s comment, Karen talks about how vendors don’t offer field-weighted searching in online catalogs, either. I can’t wait to read “the facts” she will present. [Updated 3/20/2006: Especially since Endeavor's WebVoyage does already provide field-weighted searching.]

Christmas is over

Well, Christmas is over. I’m tired out and so is Michele. We are still in our PJs and it’s almost noon! The kids are playing with their new toys on the living room floor, recovering from late nights, sugar highs, and excessive excitement. I’m listening to some of the songs I bought with a gift certificate to iTunes. I’ve never bought so many songs before in my life. I’m thrilled with the ability to buy just the songs I like, many of whom have special meaning or move me with their sentiments. Among my purchases are Johnny Cash singing “I Walk the Line” and “Ring of Fire” as well as LeAnn Rimes singing “Unchained Melody” with a voice that gives me goosebumps. Oh yeah, and I’m downloading the rest of the episodes of the tv show “Lost” that I don’t have already.

Keegan is staying at his grandparents’ house for the next few days and will go hunting with his grandpa today for the first time. He is very, very excited about this. Tonight he and his Uncle Bryan and his grandparents are going to see “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

Tomorrow I go back to work and back to the daily grind.

Guys day out with Keegan

Keegan and I are at home by ourselves this weekend because Michele and the younger kids went with her family to her uncle’s funeral. Uncle Donny died last week from an unknown form of cancer. I wish we could have gone to the funeral but Keegan had a test at school yesterday morning and I couldn’t take another day off of work on Friday to be able to go. Yesterday was a guys day out for the two of us. We had a lot of fun. Yesterday afternoon we drove downtown to the big Apple store on North Michigan Avenue in Chicago. I weakened my resolve and allowed Keegan to buy a Star Wars game, which he is currently deeply engrossed in playing on our iMac downstairs. After that we had supper at Heaven on Seven, a Louisiana/Cajun eatery that I like. Keegan was dubious about going (he’s not really fond of trying new foods) but he ended up liking it a lot. After that we bought tickets to see Wallace & Gromit and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit. It wasn’t showing until about an hour later so we killed time by walking down to the Borders next door to the historic Water Tower. After we saw the movie we both agreed that it was definitely worth watching and that we really had a good laugh. I like the movie a lot except that it seems to be taking the Shrek approach to kid’s movies by slyly incorporating many adult-themed jokes here and there. I don’t remember previous movies doing that so much. It was late by the time we got home but we had had a really fun time together. I am glad we were able to do this — we don’t often get time to spend together, just the two of us. It seems like lately we have been in constant conflict with each other. Spending time together helps us reconnect.

New iTunes includes video download

I was excited by the news today that a new video iPod is now available from Apple. I can dream of some day being able to own one of them. I still like the one I’ve got (a 4 Gb iPod Mini), but I’d like to have the battery life and storage capacity in the latest version.

Another part of today’s big news from Apple was the release of iTunes 6.0. This is a major update to the software. The main new feature is the ability to download video. In particular, you can download all of this season’s episodes of ABC’s hit drama, Lost, or some other Disney-owned shows, as well as some short movies from Pixar.

I’ve never seen a whole episode of Lost and it is one of the only shows on TV that I think might be worth watching, so I was intrigued by the possibility of downloading the season premier episode for $1.99, with no commercials. (I think that is a great price, btw, for 40+ minutes of video — remember, with no commercials to disrupt it). So I gave it a whirl. I just finished watching it on my PowerBook G4 using the new iTunes and thoroughly enjoyed it even though the resolution wasn’t that great. I hope this whole concept put forth by Apple today succeeds and that there will be more interesting content made available for download for a reasonable price in the near future. So far, I like what I see. Now, I wonder if I can get away with putting that 60 Gb video iPod on my Christmas list…

Google Desktop

At the risk of sounding like a mindless Google-ogue (because I like Google Reader and Gmail), let me write some good things about Google Desktop. One good thing is that it provides me with a quick way to find files on my PC and any shared network drives that I specify. That’s an obvious “good thing.” Another is that it enables me to use plug-ins in a way that is similar to Firefox, so that, e.g., I can add in a plug-in to see Google News in a sidebar of my screen if I choose. I can also link directly to photos in my Flickr account from this sidebar, and see the current weather in my area at a glance. This sidebar can be set up to automatically disappear, which I like. The Google News plug-in is supposed to become smart enough to bring me the news I really am interested in. To quote from the About information for this plugin: “For example, if you read lots of sports news, you’ll see more sports articles. If you read technology news less often, you’ll see fewer of those articles.” As some others have noted, this doesn’t seem to be happening to me, or if it is, it isn’t obvious. This plug-in remains pretty dumb and doesn’t appear to be learning much from my browsing habits. Overall, though, Google Desktop is an invaluable tool for me in the Windows world that is my workplace. At home, I rely upon Mac OS X Tiger’s built-in (and far superior, in my opinion) Spotlight technology.