duh

[luciab]

I am so totally not ever going to be a good reference librarian. I'm taking Humanities Resources this semester online, and she has posted lists of questions we are to answer, one list per week. We're supposed to read the text first, and I guess it's supposed to give us ideas how to look this stuff up. Actually, it has in some cases. It's just that most times I look at the questions and my first instinct is Google. Honestly, I think that with decent query-formation and some intelligent skepticism about source selection, that'd be the easiest way to answer lots of these. Except, we're supposed to be learning other ways to find things. More efficient ways. But really, now. If you wanted to know about Kokopelli, would your first instinct be to seek out some esoteric religious source, or would you just go to Google? Duh.

Comments

[luciab.livejournal.com]

Well, Google really ISN"T the best way to find a lot of stuff-- it's just that's what I can remember to do. There are a ton of better, more targeted ways to find specific information. Lots of them are online, and it's true they come and go with depressing regularity.

Last night was a case in point-- I wanted to find the contact info for that attitudinous doctor I posted about a day or two ago. I remember from my class last semester that there is an online resource that has info about physicians, but I hadn't bookmarked it and thus had no idea how to find it. I had to resort to Google, and 411, which took a while since I only had a last name and it turned out I was misspelling that. I finally found her, though.

All I'm saying is, it's good to use the right tool for the job, and Google isn't always it, even when it's the first one I think of. Which is usually is.