I'd say google books is considerably more than a card catalog -- even with recent books, the content is searchable (you just can't read the whole thing straight through unless it's public domain). And even when online catalogs don't make me beat my head against a wall until it bleeds, they're still only searching the metadata; that's a pretty profound change for how people search, or even what information they think they're searching for.
But I still think "changes everything" is just a stupidly broad statement.
Hey Jilli...I was talking to my friend last night and asked me if "emo" meant anything to me and I laughed and said, "yeah". Then she asked if "cutter" meant anything. I said, "Well, the peolpe that cut themselves to feel pain etc etc etc." and she said no that it was a goth thing. I'd never heard of it. Have you? Can you shed light?
Aimee, it sounds like you were not the one misunderstanding the various terms under discussion.
I don't think it changes Everything. But it does change some things. It makes discovery much easier for people without training in library skills. I imagine it will reduce the use of ILL for older materials. I think it will allow libraries to justify putting more older books off-site, if they are available as pdfs for free online.
Depending on how things go as Google deals with publishers (in negotiations and in court) it has the potential to change more.
And if I were still a field archaeologist, for example, to be able to look at important books - that are in some cases fairly rare and only held in a few selected libraries - while actually in the field, to have pictures from old publications available to compare with the artifacts I'm digging up, without xeroxing the indexes to 40 books before taking off for the middle of nowhere? Coooool.
It's especially stupid when you consider the quote is by Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress.
Aimee, it sounds like you were not the one misunderstanding the various terms under discussion.
Maybe, but she's psychologist so she knew what that term "cutter" meant and said it was different.
Hey Jilli...I was talking to my friend last night and asked me if "emo" meant anything to me and I laughed and said, "yeah". Then she asked if "cutter" meant anything. I said, "Well, the peolpe that cut themselves to feel pain etc etc etc." and she said no that it was a goth thing. I'd never heard of it. Have you? Can you shed light?
Oh for the love of Bela Lugosi, no, cutting is not a Goth thing. Or an emo thing.
(I'm not exasperated with you, Aims. Please don't think that.)
Cutting is pretty much what you said it was; people who do it usually do it so they can feel in control of expressing their emotions. Many people assume cutting is a Goth or emo thing, but it isn't. If someone is cutting themselves, it's not because they're part of a black-clad subculture, it's because they've got some issues they need to deal with.
(Woooh, rantycakes button!)
so she knew what that term "cutter" meant and said it was different
Maybe she's channelling librarian training and remembering that the Cutter is the part of the call number that comes after the main categorization number.
Or not.
Maybe, but she's psychologist so she knew what that term "cutter" meant and said it was different.
rolls eyes forever
She may be a psychologist, but that doesn't mean she's well-informed.
