• Picking the right search terms
• Understanding search results
• Narrowing a search to get the best results
• Searching for evidence for research tasks
• Evaluating credibility of sources

This video includes two librarians talking briefly about the transformation of their jobs, and the importance of overcoming the digital divide: those who can versus those who cannot search effectively.

While these lessons are aimed at primary and secondary school students, Google’s Search Education could also be incorporated in to college freshmen level courses, especially those that everyone is required to take.

Pros and cons

On the positive side, this package of lesson plans could be incorporated into any school’s curriculum, perhaps with testing to assure students are reaching certain levels of proficiency. If students moving from one level of education to another (primary to secondary to higher ed) bring sufficient levels of search proficiency, this provides opportunities for them to take these skills to the next level, creating and contributing new content. If librarians and other educators embrace this curriculum and can clearly demonstrate its value (grant-funded study, anyone?), it will eventually become required learning.

On the negative side, what if the librarian’s Masters of Library Science degree was replaced with a “Bachelors in Education with Search Certification” degree? If using Google and a few selected credible resources is all that’s needed for primary and secondary education, why would anyone spend the extra time and money to get an MLS? Colleges and universities may still need Information Specialists (i.e. librarians) to teach how to use specialized databases for a time. But what if Google decided to weigh in on the subscription database business, setting up a single standard for organizing data for searching? Google could become a single-point of access to any and all publishers’ content. This could make or break a publisher or other content provider. While major vendors such as EBSCO and LexisNexis could find the resources to adapt, smaller publishers could be pushed aside, and ultimately be absorbed by their larger competitors.

Could this happen? Why or why not? Tell us (in the comments)!

Here is Google’s video describing this new service:

While Google does not share its trade secrets, the ReadWriteWeb blog reports that, in part, this system relies on Freebase, “a structured database of semantic information. It maps synonyms to help Google understand the meaning of words.” It also incorporates content from Wikipedia, Google Books and the World CIA Factbook [1], which means it is seeking to be more authoritative. This has implications for online content providers. As the EverSparkInteractive blog notes:

Because Google is providing this information to users, you can bet your bottom dollar the search engine will expect the sites it top ranks to provide information like this. So, when you are writing content for your website, remember to include verifiable facts. [2]

While libraries specialize in providing authoritative content via free and subscription databases and other resources, will Google’s new approach recognize this and increase their visibility? Librarians wear many hats, and it can be quite easy to slap up web content without proper metadata, let alone add important links “above the fold.” The structure and organization of information on a library’s website — its information architecture — may or may not be carefully planned and executed. How will this affect its ranking by Google now?

Have you used the new KG? Have you found it helpful? Tell us!

Reference:

1.         Mitchell, J., Google Goes Back to What It Does Well: Finding Things. ReadWriteWeb, 2012. 2012(May 29): p. Online article or blog post about changs to Google’s search interface, and the addition of the Knowledge Graph, with Wikpedia-like content.

2.         Baumwell, A., Google Knowledge Graph: Will It Change the Face of Search? EverSparkInteractive, 2012. 2012(May 29): p. Online article or blog post about changs to Google’s search interface, and the addition of the Knowledge Graph, with Wikpedia-like content.

73 percent of users said they would not be OK with an online search engine keeping track of their queries even if the data provides personalized results in the future. And 68 percent said they were not OK with targeted advertising because they don’t want their online activities tracked and analyzed.

Google is the preferred search engine for most online searching, though people surveyed don’t want information about their searches tracked. Yet unless you take steps to make sure this information is not collected, Google tracks it. And its search algorithms that include this information are what provides users with  the results they like. In a sense, we want it both ways: quality search results and privacy protections.

This is an area ripe for research: if we could define and control what information search engines and other online service providers can collect, would end users’ satisfaction with search engines change?

What do you think? Tell us!