Now, this taught me how to phrase search strategies in my mind. I had to narrow down what I was looking for, think of alternate terms in case there was more out there to be found. I learned how to differentiate between a good, let's say "scholarly" source, and a not so good source.
I hear the phrase "Well, just Google it" quite a bit. I like Google. I don't really have a problem using the word "Google" as a verb, except for one thing. There is a difference between "Googling" something and "searching" for something. Using Google is great for phone numbers, directions, reviews...however, if you are trying to find good, reliable information, Google is good for that, too, you just have to know how to use it. Herein lies the difference between my generation and the generation that has come after me (and some of my generation have become complacent and have forgotten what it was like to actually search for something). Searching now takes little to no time. You want to know something, type it and hit enter and BAM there you go. However, how good is that information? Is it as good as going to the library of 10-15 years ago and looking it up in the card catalog? I'm going to guess, no. Did typing and hitting that enter button get you the information quickly? Yes. Would looking for that information in the library of time gone by be quick? No, but it's fast.
When I was working in a library, when someone would ask me a reference question, more times than not, if i didn't rattle the answer off the top of my head as soon as they asked the question, they would walk away. Yes, I could have given you the quick answer, but would it have been right? Same thing with the Internet. Yeah, it can give you a quick answer, but is it a right answer? If you spent a little more time looking around and digging into the material, would you have found a better answer? Probably.
I recently finished my comprehensive exam for my MLIS degree. I had to answer several questions about librarianship, one of which was about the reference interview. I see both sides to the reference interview. Yes, it is necessary in getting information out of the library user in order to properly ask the question, but most of the time, at least when I conducted reference interviews, it was like pulling teeth to get the actual question out of the user. For example, a question I got a lot of was "Do you have any books about nursing?" Now, I had to ask the first question: The profession or the act of breast feeding?" Most of the time it was the profession. Then, "What are you looking for, text books, overview, career guides...." then "What type of nursing are you interested in, pediatric, practical, registered, specialist...." Most of the time you know what the answers were? "I just want a book on nursing". Yes, that is all well and good, but I can't get you what you need until you tell me what it is you want. I usually end up handing them about a dozen books and then ask them what it is they're looking for. That usually startles and answer out of them. People think in generalizations, not in specifics. Librarians need specifics so we are trained to get them out of the user, but if the user isn't knowledgeable or doesn't know how to express themselves beyond the generalities, then perhaps Google is a good place for them to start. We can all work together to find good, reliable information, and we may be able to use Google to find it.
