Helen Georgas. “Google vs. the Library: Student Preferences and Perceptions When Doing Research Using Google and a Federated Search Tool.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 13.2 (2013): 165-185. Project MUSE. Web. 18 May. 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

Abstract

Abstract:

Federated searching was once touted as the library world’s answer to Google, but ten years since federated searching technology’s inception, how does it actually compare? This study focuses on undergraduate student preferences and perceptions when doing research using both Google and a federated search tool. Students were asked about their preferences using each search tool and the perceived relevance of the sources they found using each search tool. Students were also asked to self-assess their online searching skills. The findings show that students believe they possess strong searching skills, are able to find relevant sources using both search tools, but actually prefer the federated search tool to Google for doing research. Thus, despite federated searching’s limitations, students see the need for it, libraries should continue to offer federated search (especially if a discovery search tool is not available), and librarians should focus on teaching students how to use federated search and Google more effectively.

http://www.posterpresentations.com/html/free_poster_templates.html

In choosing which search tool (Google or Federated) is the best, student opinion is equally divided. In short, student preference for Google is due to familiarity and ease of use, and student preference for Federated is due to more scholarly results, and citations provided. Additionally, some other search tools of possible merit have been omitted from the research of student preferences surveyed.

Certainly both tools have their advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps combining the best features of both into one tool might be worthwhile. A feature that I would like to see added would be the ability to “vote down” a search result which is deceptive or fraudulent. At present, a researcher might click on a Google result, only to find that the page which loads has nothing to do with the subject desired. But the site has gained the “click” or hit on the page, and while the researcher may be angry that her time was wasted, there is nothing that she can do to remove the click and vote the site down in the search engine results. A similar situation is found where the click results in the loading of a page which offers the results only if paid for, usually at an exorbitant price. Again, the researcher’s time has been wasted, and the “payware” site has its click. I would like to see Google having a little pop-up window which would say, “Was this site helpful? Yes or No.” The researcher could then vote “no” on the fraudulent or payware site, and vote its search engine ranking down, until it no longer appears high in search engine rankings to waste the the time of busy researchers.

In terms of which tool students liked better, the two search tools came out exactly even, with sixteen votes for each. When asked to explain why, the students who liked Google better cited its ease of use (three students), its ability to easily help them identify a particular source (three students), their familiarity with the tool (two students), its speed (two students), and the fact that it gave better and/or more relevant results (two students) as the main reasons (Table 1).

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v013/13.2.georgas.html#tab02

Of the students who liked the library’s federated search tool better, they stated that it gave better and/or more relevant results (eight students), that it was better for articles (six students), that it gave more authoritative/scholarly results (four students), and that they liked its citation feature (three students) as the main reasons for preferring it (Table 2).