Feature
Google
Answers Back Or How to Become an Ex-"Google Answers" Researcher
by Jessamyn
West• Proprietor, Librarian.net
In
the October 2002 issue of Searcher Magazine, I wrote an article about
Google Answers that was not overly critical, but not fawning either ["Information
for Sale: My Experience with Google Answers"]. In the Researcher Newsletter
I received from Google the following week, I saw this note:
EDITORIAL POLICY
Publishing Articles about Google Answers
It has been brought to our attention recently that Researchers have
published articles on outside sites without first notifying the Google
Answers Editors. Please note that Google's corporate communications
department must review all copy (press articles, web copy, etc.) regarding
Google Answers and/or your experience as a Researcher before it is
published. This is a very important matter that could significantly
affect the status of this service if we do not follow the proper approval
procedures. If a Researcher publishes an article prior to receiving
approval from Google's communications department, their privileges
will be revoked. If you have questions on this policy please write
to answers-editors@google.com. |
Of course, I'd forgotten this clause of my contract, if it ever existed.
Of course, I assumed that I still had the right to tell stories about my own
life as long as I didn't disclose corporate secrets or proprietary technological
information. I re-checked and am fairly certain that everything I discussed
was and is information available to a NON-Researcher as well as to me. I hadn't
done any work there since June, anyhow. Nevertheless, I figured the jig was
up, so I thought I'd spend a little time composing an e-mail to the GA staff
tendering my "official" resignation, in lieu of my probable firing, and tell
them what was up. I wrote this:
From: Jessamyn West
Subject: researcher jessamyn-ga
Hey there — I wrote an article about Google Answers without going
through Google's corporate communications department, I guess this
means that my Researcher status has been revoked. Just wanted to let
you know, in case you missed it. As much as I liked working for Google
Answers during my brief stint, I ultimately felt that it was more in
my best interest and in the interests of other Researchers that I tell
my story without trying to get it through "corporate communications," and
while I understand that technically this is against the rules, the
sheer numbers of Researchers who wrote me saying, "Yeah, that's exactly
how I felt" makes me think that this was worth doing. Perhaps I should
have resigned officially beforehand, but since I haven't answered a
question since June, I guess that can be considered my de facto resignation.
You guys have a good product, but for those of us in professional
information jobs [I am a librarian], it really denigrates the type
of work that we do as salaried, educated professionals. Perhaps Google
just has its own niche that is fully separate from the public libraries,
but I personally feel that we're sunk if people start to treat reference
questions and interactions as if they were supplier/consumer interactions.
Libraries are in enough trouble as it is.
Best of luck in all your endeavors.
jessamyn-ga
|
I expected a response somewhat along the lines of, "We are very disappointed
in you," or maybe just more relentless hype-machine talk like all the other
stuff we get from them in their newsletters, including [amazingly and insultingly]
lots of "how to use Google" tips. I checked my login status a few hours after
I sent this note and, sure enough, I was no longer a researcher. I could ask
questions now but not answer them. Perhaps I hadn't been one for weeks, I honestly
didn't know.
What I didn't expect from Google was this:
| Hello Jessamyn-ga,
Thank you for your e-mail.
We are interested in your remark that Google Answers denigrates
the work of librarians and other information professionals. Many
librarians like the fact that Google Answers helps people get the
information they are looking for and, in fact, use Answers as a resource
themselves.
If you have further thoughts or information that you believe would
be helpful for us to know, we would greatly appreciate hearing from
you again.
Best regards,
The Google Answers Team
|
Here is my best guess as to what exactly was going on: One, they have no
idea that I was one of their Researchers, even though my subject line clearly
stated that. Two, they barely read the e-mail sent to them and use even more
form mail replies than I had previously thought. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure
being a Google Answers editor is not the world's easiest job, and I'm sure
with 400-500 researchers, they can't keep track of all of them, but to be singled
out [I assume] in a recent newsletter and then not even get a personalized
reply to my e-mail surprised even me, the cynical librarian.
I sent another e-mail to them asking what was up, whether I was fired and
what the policy on publishing articles was, anyhow. Upon checking, the clause
in the newsletter did not appear in any of the published documents I agreed
to or signed when I began working for them. I never heard back. Of the two
other Researchers who had published articles about Google Answers, one had
been fired and then re-instated once he agreed to the errors of his ways and
because he had "media affiliation[s]." His original article is still available
online at http://www.geek.com/features/silicon/071702.htm.
My second message to them got a reply in which they indicated that, despite
the fact that I broke no current policy, I had broken a pending "no publish" policy,
one that would apply to all current and future researchers, but now currently
appears only in the "Don'ts" section of the training manual. Despite the fact
that our contract states that we are not employees and may not call ourselves
employees, we are still required to clear our published communications [including
Weblog entries] through Google's corporate communications department, via the
Answers editors.
One small change occurred in this new policy between the time it was published
in the newsletter and when it became official policy. In the newsletter, it
states that if a Researcher publishes an article without permission "their
privileges will be revoked." This sentence has changed to "their privileges
may be revoked" in the manual. Perhaps the present tense language concerning
the editorial policy was premature?
They continued in their note to me:
| If any Researcher does not want to adhere to this addition to the contract
between Google Answers and the Researcher, he/she can e-mail us ... to
discuss the issue. As a side note, the Researcher Guidelines, part of
the Google Answers contract with Researchers, will be updated shortly
on the Answers Web site to include this addition. |
I had asked if I could be reinstated, since my "resignation" was clearly
premature and not entirely intended, and was told I would be welcomed back
if would agree to the "new" contract, as all Researchers would be required
to do.
I decided against it; I think I have one more article left to write. Do you
think "many" librarians use Google Answers as a resource themselves? Where
do you suppose cash-poor libraries would even get the money to do this? How
would Google even know this "fact" considering that most of their users are
at least somewhat anonymous?
I understand how and why all this fracas happened, and I'm sympathetic, to
a point. But I still think information wants to be free, no matter what Google
Answers says, and that includes being able to talk about your job without losing
it.
Jessamyn West is a freelance librarian and researcher.
She runs the librarian.net Web site. You can reach her
at www.jessamyn.com/mailme.html.
|
