Link: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lxh&AN=33957864&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live
Mann, T. (2008). Will Google’s keyword searching eliminate the need for LC cataloging and classification? Journal of Library Metadata, 8(2), 159-168. doi:10.1080/10911360802087366
Thomas Mann takes a stance against keyword search, which is emerging as the default for many journal databases and OPACs. He is mostly focusing on the Google Book project, which he refers to as Google Print, and how keyword searches within that system will be much less efficient than would subject searches. He recognizes that keyword searches are good for quick known searching for a particular word, but goes on to say the main weaknesses are inability to supply extra useful terms, synonyms variant phrases and different languages. He also notes that Google lacks the power of Boolean search mechanics, such as nested parenthesis, wildcards, and proximity operators.
I think Mr. Mann raises some good points about the differences between keyword and subject searching. For one highly skilled in subject searching, that method is very powerful. Inclusion of metadata along with the books in Google books would make them more more findable. However, Google doesn’t seem to be implementing this as of yet, thus making it difficult to find books within the project as easily as one would in a library with high quality subject searching.
Mr. Mann is using this example to highlight the continuing need for subject cataloging, to the point that the article seems like a response to a proposal to cut funding to subject cataloging. The final paragraph is more concerned with making a case for subject cataloging in the Library of Congress’s budget than with the downsides of keyword search. To a degree, it’s this kind of tone that makes this article harder to read. The author has an obvious bias towards old school cataloging, with a distaste for digitization and keyword search. He compares Google Books to the Tower of Babel on multiple occasions and uses strong language such as saying Google is “hamstrung by poor search software” (p. 160). I think he makes good points, but they’re taken away by the obvious bias and strong anti-digital language. With all of the metadata that has been added to items through catalogs, it is indeed very important to use this when it comes to refining the way we search. Keyword search, in my opinion, does have things to offer though.
