Comments on 3 Geeks and a Law Blog: Google Scholar & Legal Research - Focus Remains on...

Charlie, for the record. The interview happened on...

2010-02-16T22:06:41.428-06:00

Charlie, for the record. The interview happened on the BlogTalkRadion show, The Law Librarian. Greg was a guest on the show. A great contributor, to be sure, but so was Roger Skalbeck! Check out the interview on iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=78809050&id=295317995

It's worth a listen!

Greg: Thanks for making this interview happen and...

2010-02-15T14:55:07.478-06:00

Greg:

Thanks for making this interview happen and posting the contents here, some great information. I agree, Google is not yet a direct threat to the old timers, but we can hope that it will go the way of Wikipedia as Richard suggested. As a "natural language search" it certainly is killer. Too bad its boolean "terms and connectors" is sorely lacking. Hopefully the small team on the project will take notice of the growing interest in a more comprehensive (more connectors and limiters) boolean type search for improved precision. The system would have a much broader appeal if this were done.

I would think that a full blown boolean search system would be much easier to implement than Google's complex stemming search algorithm technology. Maybe that would go against Google's grain, moving back towards early internet search systems? However, as far as I know, boolean searching is still the most precise and useful method for finding legal opinions due to the incredibly hierarchical nature of our common law case reporting system that is filled with language that has a very precise legal meaning.

The efforts of the staff are laudable, and I hope they keep up the good work. I'm rooting for Google, and hope they do force the old timers (Wexisberg as you put it) to become more competitive.

Oh, you're absolutely right. Look at what happ...

2009-12-10T15:09:50.786-06:00

Oh, you're absolutely right. Look at what happened to Wikipedia. We all scoffed at it, initially, but look at us now.... Google SLOJ will definitely have the same appeal. Whether we like it or not. Or whether it's the righto thing to use, or not....

Rich, First of all, thank YOU for pulling ...

2009-12-10T09:17:28.150-06:00

Rich,

First of all, thank YOU for pulling this interview together.

As for the comparison, this was really in response to the large number of attorneys, librarians, etc. that immediately started calling Google Scholar a "Wexisberg" killer. I've received a large number of questions from people concerning Google Scholar's entry into legal research and whether or not they could consider cancelling either Westlaw or Lexis and rely on Google Scholar. So, although it really is an apple to oranges comparison, there are folks out there that didn't initially see it as such. I'm hoping that laying out some of the details behind Google's SLOJ project will make people realize what it truly is, and appreciate it for such.

Interesting thoughts - and, once again, thanks for...

2009-12-10T08:50:39.416-06:00

Interesting thoughts - and, once again, thanks for being on the show. You and Roger contributed much to the discussion.

One thing, though, that struck me is that comparing it to Wexisberg is like comparing apples to oranges. Google SLOJ is more analogous to "natural language" searching than it is to straight full text searching. And this is partly how/why the results are so good, and, at the same time so weak. When we compare them to straight full-text Wexisberg searching, it's disorienting because they are doing much more analysis than we're used to.

I've been studying Google's search algorithms and methods and am beginning to appreciate that it's almost wholly different from what we're used to - or even need, as lawyers. However, I suspect that once it is fully developed and understood, it may become a very, very useful tool indeed.

And, since they're not really in the same ballpark as Wexisberg, I don't think that the "big three," have much to worry about.

I'm glad to see you're on the portmanteau ...

2009-12-08T15:21:04.628-06:00

I'm glad to see you're on the portmanteau bandwagon. And despite your attempts to keep folks focused on the very limited nature of SLOJ, I'm pretty sure that over the next year we'll be hearing anecdotes at the conferences (and maybe suggestions in CLE papers) about how lawyers are giving up high priced CALRs in favor of Google. I can smell new ethics opinions already.