In Defense of Stupid Users

Library Journal
In Defense of Stupid Users By Todd Miller -- 3/15/2005

At the American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in January, I attended yet another industry program—this one under the aegis of NISO on metasearching—where attendees in a packed room discussed various aspects of searching lots of databases at the same time.

I should have clocked the time it took before someone voiced the obligatory disparaging comment about the ignorant user searching "Britney Spears." Similar comments came on the heels of the haughty laughter ridiculing the typical unenlightened user's inability to craft beautiful search strings replete with wildcards, Boolean operators, and appropriate filter selections. It doesn't seem to matter the intended meeting topic; we just can't wait to dump on the user.

It then occurred to me that maybe it was not the user who was unenlightened.

Enter Google

What if carmakers sat around their boardrooms guffawing at the stupidity of their customers? Maybe this is precisely what American carmakers did in the 1960s and 1970s, laughing at the absurdity of the typical American car owner, who cheerfully towed the smoking station wagon to the service station on virtually every trip to grandma's.

The weekends dad would spend under the car, replacing plugs and hoses, preparing the car for another week. Until, after 50,000 miles, he'd give up and replace it entirely.

Then the Japanese came. They built cars that would last a quarter-million miles and always arrive at grandma's intact. Dad started driving a Lay-Z-Boy on the weekends. Suddenly, carmakers weren't laughing anymore.

Sort of like Google entering the library world.

We want our J Lo

Google doesn't proceed from the assumption that its customers are stupid. It proceeds from the assumption that customers want something, and it's Google's job to figure out what it is and how best to serve it up to them. Even if, God forbid, what they want is trivia on Britney Spears

One way this mindset is manifest in Google is in its emphasis on the back end instead of the front end of searching. In the library world, we spend a remarkable amount of time and energy larding up our search interfaces with umpteen filters, Boolean pull-downs, radio buttons, and so on.

After we've built the ultimate stretch Cadillac of search engines, we proceed to "educate" the user about constructing searches in native command languages. And we're incredulous when Johnny turns to Google instead of to the awesome nuclear engine we've constructed. Obviously, something must be wrong with Johnny if he doesn't fully appreciate and engage our console of the arsenal of knowledge.

No mechanics, just drivers

Google gives its users a pitiful solo search box. How can it compete? The answer from the old guard is that it's dumbed down. The reality is that Google gives its customers what they want: simple searching, powerful results.

I have no interest in auto mechanics. When my car breaks down (which doesn't happen because it's a Honda), I take it to a mechanic. I am content to confine my knowledge of the automotive process to pointing the car and stepping on the gas. My primary interest is arriving at my destination safely, with minimal hassle. Does that make me a stupid user? Could be, but I'm still not going to strap on a tool belt no matter how much I'm taunted by macho mechanics.

Get under the hood

Instead of jacking up the dashboard with extra knobs and switches, Google has invested under the hood and enriched its results with thesauri and links to related material. In addition to producing a surprising amount of relevant core content, Google provides news, maps, definitions, books, and more.

The net result is high content, low hassle, and happy users. This is not lowest common denominator; it is listening to the market and giving it precisely what it wants.

I feel the need to preempt a knee-jerk reaction regarding one engine fitting all sizes. I do believe there is a need and a place for the nuclear engine. The option should be available for users to search with laser precision.

Let's face it, though. This is only necessary for five percent or less of all searchers. This does not mean that the number of savvy users is limited to five percent. All users are savvy.

The job of information professionals is not to make all users into information professionals. Our job is either to give them the right tools for the job or do the job for them.

Todd Miller is President, WebFeat.