Today, information retrieval utilizing the Internet has become commonplace due to the availability of various search engines. Some of the initially created search engines have fallen by the wayside (e.g. AltaVista – one of my old favorites, Excite, Infoseek), and we’re left with the biggest and most popular search engines – Google, Yahoo, and Bing – that are constantly in use. There are less-utilized engines still in existence, such as Dogpile, Ixquick, etc. that specialize in certain aspects of research; Dogpile specializes in metadata, and Ixquick defines itself as “the world’s most private search engine” (ixquick). Even though the volume of data has increased at an enormous pace, the top 3 Internet search engines have been able to improvise and prosper.
Although
Google is the #1 search engine within the Web’s sphere, it has had its
discrepancies; the most recent issue deals with consumer privacy issues and
personal information. According to news
release, “EU court has ruled Google must amend some search results at the
request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called “right to be forgotten” .
. . links to irrelevant and outdated data should be erased on request” (BBC). Google’s defense is that it just connects to
data that exists on the Web/Internet, and deleting information would be an act
of censorship. However, the European
Union [Cour de Justice de L’Union Européenne] and
people who would like to have personal information deleted are not “buying”
Google’s excuse. Of course, this law
only applies to EU citizens – Americans who don’t like their personal
information compiled by Google are out of luck – no regress for us. This issue relates to “quality of data” on
the Internet, as there is “no editorial process. So, data can be inaccurate, plain wrong,
obsolete, invalid, poorly written or, as if often the case, full of errors,
either innocent (typos …) or malicious” (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 2011, p. 449). This is one of the challenging problems of
Internet searches, among others listed by Baeza-Yates: distributed data (over
huge networks), volatile data, increased volume of data (due to technological advancements),
unstructured and redundant data, search paradigms/filtering, and diversified
array of multimedia formatting to name a few.
These issues impact Internet retrieval by libraries and technologies, and
because of the complex nature of Web architecture, these issues are not easily
resolved. Many are working towards
resolving these issues, such as the International Semantic Web Conferences,
which are taking place “to provide researchers and industry with a forum to
showcase the best Semantic Web applications, to demonstrate practical progress
towards achieving the vision of the Semantic Web, and to show the value of
Semantic Web technologies within various application domains” (Harth & Maynard, 2014).
The
conceptualization of the Web as it exists today in all its characteristics is
known as Web 2.0 – the total collection of databases, electronic
structures/tools/techniques, and associated networks and connectivity. “All professions now need to be dynamic in
adopting these technological innovations in order to keep abreast and achieve
and sustain excellence. Librarians
clearly feel the challenging impact of these technological evolutions, as . . .
the Internet has continued to change over the years leading to new skills and
competency requirements” (Anyaoku & et al., 2012). With continual education and hands-on usage
of innovative and progressive Web technologies, we can face our challenges
head-on. “The global nature of the
Internet world is a step toward the realization of its potential, but it is
creating a major challenge for the field to become more international in its
research and cultural perspectives” (Ess & Dutton, 2013). New developments will be necessary to
integrate the old with the new, and the interjections of global communities
must all be assimilated into the Web of the future.
Chocolate
sooths the mind of mental provocations!
References
Anyaoku et al. (2012). Knowledge and use
of web 2.0 by librarians in Anambra State, Nigeria. African Journal of
Library, Archives and Information Science, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 31-40.
Baeza-Yates, & Ribeiro-Neto. (2011). Modern
Information Retrieval. New York: Pearson Education Limited.
BBC. (2014, June 25). EU court backs 'right to be
forgotten' in Google case. Retrieved from BBC News:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27388289
Ess, C. M., & Dutton, W. H. (2013). Internet
studies: perspectives on a rapidly developing field. New Media &
Society, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp 633-643.
Harth, A., & Maynard, D. (2014). Web semantics:
science, services and agents on the world wide web / the semantic web
challenge 2012. Elsevier, Vol. 24, pp 1-2.
ixquick. (2014, June 25). ixquick. Retrieved
from The world's most private search engine: https://www.ixquick.com/