DOCSLIB.ORG

Google Scholar Vs. Traditional Commercial Library Databases Julie Arendt Southern Illinois University, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Google Scholar Vs. Traditional Commercial Library Databases Julie Arendt Southern Illinois University, Jaarendt@Vcu.Edu Against the Grain Volume 20 | Issue 2 Article 10 April 2008 Imperfect Tools: Google Scholar vs. Traditional Commercial Library Databases Julie Arendt Southern Illinois University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Arendt, Julie (2008) "Imperfect Tools: Google Scholar vs. Traditional Commercial Library Databases," Against the Grain: Vol. 20: Iss. 2, Article 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.2737 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Using Google in Technical Services from page 24 against thepeople grain profile and other Google products continue to develop, the usage of Google by Technical Services may increase or decrease, depending on the Instructional Support Technician, University Libraries assessed value of the product. Much remains University at Albany, State University of New York to be seen. It would be interesting to conduct LI B35, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222 future surveys of this type to find out what other Phone: (518) 442 3628 • <[email protected]> interesting and creative ways there are to use Google in Technical Services. BORN & LIVED: Born in Brooklyn, NY, and lived in Chapel Hill, NC, and upstate New York. FAMILY: Partnered with one daughter. Rumors PROFESSIONAL CAREER AND ACTIVITIES: Cataloging, subject access, and from page 16 disability issues. IN MY SPARE TIME I LIKE TO: Making and listening to music, laughing, and FeedYourPlayer.com. Reported in the Post movies. & Courier (Charleston, SC), March 12, FAVORITE BOOKS: Anne of Green Gables and anything 2008, p.13B. by Rumer Godden. Talk about against the grain! Borders PET PEEVES/WHAT MAKES ME MAD: I hate it when Group Inc. plans to reduce inventory in order people fail to use their turn signals! to increase the number of titles it displays PHILOSOPHY: “Inner beauty” with the covers “face out.” Apparently, this H. Jewell Carol MOST MEANINGFUL CAREER ACHIEVEMENT: Earning is an approach that Wal-Mart has taken as my MLS while being a single parent, working full time, well. I wonder if libraries should follow and not knowing how to drive! continued on page 32 Imperfect Tools: Google Scholar vs. Traditional Commercial Library Databases by Julie Arendt (Morris Library, Southern Illinois University) <[email protected]> ike every other resource that a li- between publication and appearance in the da- to find special brary might offer, Google Scholar has tabase. These same faults could be pointed out materials that Lstrengths and limitations. Instead of for Web of Science, a venerable subscription could not be rejecting Google Scholar because it does not database. Another criticism of Google Scholar found through do everything that the library or librarians do, was that its definition of “scholarly” includes Google Schol- Google Scholar should be accepted or rejected materials that have not undergone peer review, ar, but library based on how well it assists in a particular step so it may lead users to this unvetted material. patrons are in information seeking. That step traditionally Again, this criticism also could be leveled not librarians. has been assisted by indexing and abstracting against a subscription database. For example, Simply having resources. In some circumstances Google book reviews, editorials and commentaries a controlled vocabulary or special materials Scholar is a better tool than the indexing and regularly appear in search results from Aca- is not good enough for a novice user. If users abstracting resources; in other circumstances demic Search Premier, even when the search cannot figure out the controlled vocabulary or it is not. This article examines the strengths is limited to scholarly (peer reviewed) journals. find the special materials, they cannot experi- and weaknesses of Google Scholar compared Instead of comparing Google Scholar to the ence these supposed advantages. For there to to subscription indexing and abstracting data- ideal resource, a fairer comparison would be be a clear advantage of a subscription database bases. It critiques college and university librar- to actual subscription databases. over Google Scholar, novice users should be ies’ continued use of subscription databases Some evaluations have explored whether a able to complete their work more easily with that fail to provide a clear advantage over subscription database produces better results the subscription database than they can with Google Scholar. than Google Scholar. When librarians conduct Google Scholar. Many subscription databases When Google Scholar was introduced, it test searches using advanced search features provide a clear advantage by simplifying ac- initially met with some praise and a fair amount in library databases, they get somewhat better cess to special materials or by leveraging their of criticism from the library world. Both the results with the database than with Google controlled vocabularies. The interface designs praise and criticism generally were deserved. Scholar.3-5 When college students conduct that highlight subject terms next to results sets, Unfortunately, early responses sometimes the searches, the advantage for the subscrip- such as those in EBSCOhost and Engineering compared Google Scholar to the library as tion database evaporates. The sources students Village, should be commended for their effort a whole1 or to an idealized vision of library find from Google Scholar are as good as or to guide novices to controlled vocabularies databases2 rather than to the real, imperfect better than those found through the library’s without interrupting users’ searches. Some indexing and abstracting databases offered databases.6,7 For these novice users, often databases and interfaces simplify users’ work in through the library. Some of the faults that subscription databases do not provide a clear other ways. For example, Web of Knowledge early commentators found in Google Scholar advantage over Google Scholar. provides citation assistance through EndNote included lack of a controlled vocabulary, lack Librarians may be able to use controlled Web, and full-text resources like JSTOR pro- of authority control, incomplete or uneven cov- vocabularies to produce more precise results vide easy access to complete documents. erage depending on discipline, and time lags from a database than from Google Scholar or continued on page 28 26 Against the Grain / April 2008 <http://www.against-the-grain.com> Imperfect Tools ... from page 26 against thepeople grain profile It has been argued that the subscription database is better than Google Scholar after a user learns how to use it.8 For most students, Reference Librarian, Sciences/Assistant Professor especially undergraduates, this amount of Morris Library; Southern Illinois University Carbondale database knowledge is unrealistic. Often 605 Agriculture Drive; Mail Code 6632; Carbondale, IL 62901 the end users of the library’s databases have 9 Phone: (618) 453 2779 • Fax (618) 453 5706 not had any formal training. If they receive <[email protected]> training, it often is a one-time guest lecture by a librarian or informal instruction at the http://www.lib.siu.edu/index.html reference desk. Because one-shot instruction sessions and brief instruction during reference BORN & LIVED: I was born and grew up in Neenah, Wisconsin. I have lived in encounters are the norm, there rarely is time Madison, Wisconsin; Bochum, Germany; Tucson, Arizona; Ann Arbor, Michigan; for most users to thoroughly learn how to use and Carbondale, Illinois. a database. Typically there is only enough IN MY SPARE TIME I LIKE TO: Bicycle, run, read and time to transform a complete novice database cook vegetarian food. user into a slightly-less-than-complete novice. Even when there is more time, the time spent GOAL I HOPE TO ACHIEVE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW: teaching a database reduces the time avail- I hope to have successfully earned tenure! able to teach information literacy skills. The HOW/WHERE DO I SEE THE INDUSTRY IN FIVE Information Literacy Competency Standards YEARS: In a lot of ways, the industry will be like it is for Higher Education from the Association today. Online access to materials will still be growing. Julie Arendt Julie of College and Research Libraries lists five The end of print will still be far from reality. Libraries capacities of an information literate person.10 will still be struggling to afford all the materials and Only one of those capacities deals directly with services that they would like to provide. searching techniques. As suggested by Diane Zabel, perhaps it would be better for librarians to have regular, ongoing collaboration with faculty to integrate or to find a way to purchase short-term access database requires several additional clicks, I information literacy throughout students’ disci- to a database, the time, effort, and expense wonder if the core message will get buried in plinary studies.11 Perhaps it would be better to involved are substantial barriers that should the procedures. Every minute spent teaching teach the broader information literacy concepts not be ignored. Doesn’t it make sense to in- these mechanics is a minute less spent on teach- in a separate, mandatory course and to use one- troduce students to appropriate free resources ing general concepts in database searching. shot instruction sessions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Notice-And-Takedown to Notice-And-Delist: Implementing Google Spain
    FINAL KUCZERAWY AND AUSLOOS 4.5.16 (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/16 11:51 AM FROM NOTICE-AND-TAKEDOWN TO NOTICE-AND-DELIST: IMPLEMENTING GOOGLE SPAIN ALEKSANDRA KUCZERAWY AND JEF AUSLOOS* INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 220 A. Media Storm ........................................................................... 220 B. Internet Law Crossroads ........................................................ 221 I. HOW DID WE GET HERE? .............................................................. 223 A. Google Spain .......................................................................... 223 1. Facts of the Case ............................................................... 223 2. Scope ............................................................................... 224 3. Right to be Delisted .......................................................... 224 4. Balancing .......................................................................... 225 B. Implementation of Google Spain ............................................ 226 1. Online Form ...................................................................... 226 2. Advisory Council .............................................................. 227 3. Article 29 Working Party ................................................. 228 4. Emerging Body of Case Law ........................................... 228 II. HAVE WE MET BEFORE? ............................................................... 229 A. Dazed and Confused: Criticism of Google
    [Show full text]
  • When in Rome, Beijing Or Brussels
    When in Rome, Beijing or Brussels: Cultural Considerations of International Business Communication By Colin Gunn-Graffy A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Department of Communication Boston College May, 2007 Copyright, Colin Gunn-Graffy © 2007 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements To my family, for their continued support, no matter what continent I’m on TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO: Things Go Worse for Coke: The Coca-Cola 12 Contamination Crisis in Belgium CHAPTER THREE: The Magic’s Gone: The Marketing Mistake 31 of Euro Disney in France CHAPTER FOUR: Looking Ahead: The Digital Age 55 and the Rising Markets of the East CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusion 69 REFERENCES 74 1 CHAPTER ONE: Introduction Globalization and the Rise of Multinational Corporations Even before the Dutch sailed to the East Indies or Marco Polo traveled to China, people have been interacting with other cultures in numerous ways, many of them for economic reasons. One would imagine it was quite difficult initially for these people to communicate and do business with each other, but even today obstacles in international business still exist. Although our world has certainly become much smaller in the last several centuries, cultural and geographical contexts still play a large part in shaping different societies and their methods of interaction with others. The term “globalization” is one heard of quite often in today’s world, particularly in economic terms, referring to the expansion of free market capitalism. There are many other aspects that fit into the globalization process, ranging from political to social to technological, that are a part of this increasing interconnectivity of people around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Mashing-Up Maps Google Geo Services and the Geography Of
    Mashing-up Maps Google Geo Services and the Geography of Ubiquity Craig M. Dalton A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy in the Department of Geography. Chapel Hill 2012 Approved by: Dr. Scott Kirsch Dr. Banu Gokariksel Dr. Kenneth Hillis Dr. John Pickles Dr. Sarah Sharma © 2012 Craig M. Dalton ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Abstract CRAIG DALTON: Mashing-up Maps: Google Geo Services and the Geography of Ubiquity (Under the direction of Scott Kirsch) How are Google geo services such as Google Maps and Google Earth shaping ways of seeing the world? These geographic ways of seeing are part of an influential and problematic geographic discourse. This discourse reaches hundreds of millions of people, though not all have equal standing. It empowers many people to make maps on the geoweb, but within the limits of Google’s business strategy. These qualities, set against the state-centeredness of mapmaking over the last six hundred years, mark the Google geo discourse as something noteworthy, a consumer-centered mapping in a popular geographic discourse. This dissertation examines the Google geo discourse through its social and technological history, Google’s role in producing and limiting the discourse, and the subjects who make and use these maps. iii Acknowledgements This dissertation was only possible with the help of a large number of people. I owe each a debt of gratitude. Chief among them is a fantastic advisor, Scott Kirsch. His patience, grace, and good criticism saw me through the trials of graduate school.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Prevails in Fair Use Case on Book Digitization Project
    CHICAGOLAWBULLETIN.COM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2013 ® Volume 159, No. 241 Google prevails in fair use case on book digitization project o o g l e ’s unofficial slo- braries would be a logistic im- reader, as well. The author gets gan “D o n’t be evil” p o s s i b i l i t y. her royalty on the sales. And sets a pretty low bar So Google addressed the prob- INSIDE IP LAW Google has taken a small step to- as a standard of cor- lem in a bold and controversial ward its mission of making in- porate conduct. way. Rather than seeking permis- formation universally accessible GMaybe that’s why the company is sion from publishers and authors and useful. so often the subject of criticism. to scan copyrighted books, Google C h i n ’s decision is an excellent The Google-haters are numer- scanned all the books and an- WILLIAM T. example of a ruling that achieves ous and the complaints are stri- nounced that if any copyright the ultimate goal of copyright law dent: Google invades our privacy, owner did not want its book in- MCGR AT H —to promote the dissemination it reads our e-mail, it allows cen- cluded in the project, Google of knowledge and the advance- sorship in China, it is unfair in its would gladly remove it. In other William T. McGrath is a member of Davis, ment of learning, while also pro- page rankings and it has inun- words, authors and publishers McGrath LLC, where he handles copyright, viding an economic benefit to the dated us with advertisements.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Overview Created by Phil Wane
    Google Overview Created by Phil Wane PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:03:55 UTC Contents Articles Google 1 Criticism of Google 20 AdWords 33 AdSense 39 List of Google products 44 Blogger (service) 60 Google Earth 64 YouTube 85 Web search engine 99 User:Moonglum/ITEC30011 105 References Article Sources and Contributors 106 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 112 Article Licenses License 114 Google 1 Google [1] [2] Type Public (NASDAQ: GOOG , FWB: GGQ1 ) Industry Internet, Computer software [3] [4] Founded Menlo Park, California (September 4, 1998) Founder(s) Sergey M. Brin Lawrence E. Page Headquarters 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, United States Area served Worldwide Key people Eric E. Schmidt (Chairman & CEO) Sergey M. Brin (Technology President) Lawrence E. Page (Products President) Products See list of Google products. [5] [6] Revenue US$23.651 billion (2009) [5] [6] Operating income US$8.312 billion (2009) [5] [6] Profit US$6.520 billion (2009) [5] [6] Total assets US$40.497 billion (2009) [6] Total equity US$36.004 billion (2009) [7] Employees 23,331 (2010) Subsidiaries YouTube, DoubleClick, On2 Technologies, GrandCentral, Picnik, Aardvark, AdMob [8] Website Google.com Google Inc. is a multinational public corporation invested in Internet search, cloud computing, and advertising technologies. Google hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products,[9] and generates profit primarily from advertising through its AdWords program.[5] [10] The company was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, often dubbed the "Google Guys",[11] [12] [13] while the two were attending Stanford University as Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Slams Google on 'Proper' Youtube App 2 January 2013
    Microsoft slams Google on 'proper' YouTube app 2 January 2013 the two tech titans and came as US and EU antitrust watchdogs were seeking to conclude probes into Google's conduct. Some reports said US investigators were preparing to settle for a voluntary agreement from Google without court enforcement. Google, which owns YouTube, said Microsoft was distorting the facts on mobile phone access. "Contrary to Microsoft's claims, it's easy for consumers to view YouTube videos on Windows phones," a Google spokesperson said in response to an AFP query. A man browses YouTube on his mobile phone on "Windows phone users can access all the features December 29, 2012. Microsoft stepped up its criticism of of YouTube... In fact, we've worked with Microsoft Google on antitrust grounds Wednesday, claiming the for several years to help build a great YouTube Internet giant refuses to allow Windows Phone users experience on Windows phones." "proper access" to the YouTube video service. Microsoft said it has raised its concerns both with the European Commission and the US Federal Trade Commission, which are investigation Microsoft stepped up its criticism of Google on potential abuses of market dominance by Google. antitrust grounds Wednesday, claiming the Internet giant refuses to allow Windows Phone users "You might think that Google would be on its best "proper access" to the YouTube video service. behavior given it's under the bright lights of regulatory scrutiny on two continents," Heiner said. "Despite government scrutiny, Google continues to block Microsoft from offering its customers proper "However, as we enter 2013, that is not the case..
    [Show full text]
  • Google Índice De Contenido
    Google Índice de contenido 1- What is google?................................................................................................................................2 2-History...............................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Financing and initial public offering................................................................................4 2.2. Growth...................................................................................................................................5 2.3. Acquisitions and partnerships................................................................................................5 2.4. Google Data Centers..............................................................................................................7 3- Products and services.......................................................................................................................7 3.1. Advertising.............................................................................................................................7 3.2. Search engine.........................................................................................................................9 3.3. Productivity tools.................................................................................................................10 3.4. Enterprise products..............................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Google, the Media Patron – How the Digital Giant Ensnares Journalism
    OBS-Arbeitsheft 103 Alexander Fanta/Ingo Dachwitz Fanta/Dachwitz – Google, the media patron the media – Google, Fanta/Dachwitz OBS-Arbeitsheft 103 OBS-Arbeitsheft 103 OBS-Arbeitsheft Google, the media patron How the digital giant ensnares journalism Google, the media patron How the digital giant ensnares journalism A project of the Otto Brenner Foundation (OBS) www.otto-brenner-stiftung.de Frankfurt am Main 2020 OBS-Arbeitsheft 103 Aktuelle Ergebnisse der Forschungsförderung ISSN-Print: 1863-6934 Die Otto Brenner Stiftung … in der Reihe „OBS-Arbeitshefte“ ISSN-Online: 2365-2314 ... ist die gemeinnützige Wissen- ... veröffentlicht die Ergebnisse schaftsstiftung der IG Metall. Sie ihrer Forschungsförderung in der hat ihren Sitz in Frankfurt am Reihe „OBS-Arbeitshefte“ oder OBS-Arbeitsheft 103 Publisher: Main. Als Forum für gesellschaft- als Arbeitspapiere (nur online). Ingo Dachwitz, Alexander Fanta liche Diskurse und Einrichtung Otto Brenner Foundation (OBS) Die Arbeitshefte werden, wie auch Medienmäzen Google der Forschungsförderung ist sie alle anderen Publikationen der Wie der Datenkonzern den Journalismus umgarnt Jupp Legrand dem Ziel der sozialen Gerechtig- OBS, kostenlos abgegeben. Über keit verpflichtet. Besonderes Au- die Homepage der Stiftung kön- Wilhelm-Leuschner-Straße 79 genmerk gilt dabei dem Ausgleich OBS-Arbeitsheft 102* nen sie auch elektronisch bestellt Wolfgang Schroeder, Samuel Greef u.a. D-60329 Frankfurt am Main zwischen Ost und West. werden. Vergriffene Hefte halten Bedrängte Zivilgesellschaft von rechts Tel.: 069-6693-2810 ... initiiert den gesellschaftli- wir als PDF zum Download bereit. Interventionsversuche und Reaktionsmuster Fax: 069-6693-2786 chen Dialog durch Veranstaltun- gen, Workshops und Koopera- ... freut sich über jede ideelle Un- OBS-Arbeitsheft 101* E-Mail: [email protected] tionsveranstaltungen (z.
    [Show full text]
  • The Google Antitrust Proceedings
    Briefing July 2015 Google antitrust proceedings: Digital business and competition SUMMARY Google holds around 90% of the market share for internet search services in most European Economic Area (EEA) countries, and several companies have complained to the European Commission about Google's market dominance. The European Commission has thus formally launched two separate investigations, one on Google's comparison shopping and the other on the company's handling of applications installed on Android operating mobile devices. In April 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Google, indicating that the company had abused its dominant position in the European Economic Area (EEA). Google admits that it is dominant, thanks to its innovative products and services, but does not agree that it has abused its position on the market. The Google case may provide an opportunity for the Commission to clarify some aspects of competition law with regard to certain digital practices, and to close the difficult gap between the rights of companies who dominate the market, free competition and consumer protection. In this briefing: Background EU competition policy and the digital economy The EU and the US: investigating Google Digital market: outlook EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Cemal Karakas Members' Research Service PE 565.870 EN EPRS Google antitrust proceedings Glossary Android: An operating system used by many information and communication technology (ICT) devices. Android, mainly developed by Google, is broadly based on open-source Linux software. Antitrust regulation: Legislation intended to promote free competition and to prevent monopolies, cartels and the abuse of a dominant position. In the European Union, these derive from EU rules and are enforced by the European Commission and national authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rhetorical Criticism of Google's European Identification Strategies
    A Rhetorical Criticism of Google’s European Identification Strategies Kristoffer Nordman Field of study: Rhetoric Level: One Year Master Credits: 30 credits Thesis Defence: Spring 2014 Supervisor: Mika Hietanen Department of Literature Master’s Thesis in Rhetoric Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Overall topic and motives .................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Rhetorics and Humanities and the linkages to Law, Politics and Technology ......... 5 1.2.2 Google speaking at the European Commission Innovation Convention................... 8 1.2.3 Background, The European Union and ideology conflicts in Innovation Policy ...... 8 1.3 Previous research................................................................................................................ 12 1.3.1 Rhetorical Criticism and its application to corporate communication ................... 12 1.3.2 Research on Google .................................................................................................... 16 1.3.3 Adjacent fields of interest ........................................................................................... 17 1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 19 1.4.1 General topic of inquiry ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Google Book Search and Fair Use: Itunes for Authors, Or Napster for Books?
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 61 Number 1 Volume 61 Number 1 (October 2006) Article 4 10-1-2006 Google Book Search and Fair Use: iTunes for Authors, or Napster for Books? Hannibal Travis Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hannibal Travis, Google Book Search and Fair Use: iTunes for Authors, or Napster for Books?, 61 U. Miami L. Rev. 87 (2006) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol61/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Google Book Search and Fair Use: iTunes for Authors, or Napster for Books? HANNIBAL TRAVIS* Google plans to digitize the books from five of the world's big- gest libraries into a keyword-searchable book-browsing library. Pub- lishers and many authors allege that this constitutes a massive piracy of their copyrights in books not yet in the public domain. But I argue that Google's book search capability may be a fair use for two inter- related reasons: it is unlikely to reduce the sales of printed books, and it promises to improve the marketing of books via an innovative book marketing platform featuring short previews. Books are an experi- ence good in economic parlance, or a product that must be consumed before full information about its contents and quality becomes availa- ble.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GOOGLE IPO by Eugene Choo
    BUSINESS LAW GOING DUTCH: THE GOOGLE IPO By Eugene Choo The initial public offering (IPO) by Internet search giant Google was arguably the most talked about IPO of 2004. In April 2004, Google foun- ders Larry Page and Sergey Brin announced their intention to take the company public. They surprised investors when they revealed that Google would use a Dutch auction1 process for its IPO, rather than a traditional, investment bank-led offering. Bidding for shares closed on August 18, 2004, and trading commenced on August 19, 2004. GOOG's debut at $85 per share was accompanied by plenty of public- ity and press coverage. The IPO price had dropped from an initial esti- mated range of $108-$135, yet Google still managed to raise $1.67 billion. Of this amount, $1.2 billion went to the company and $473 million went to Google executives and investors selling their shares. 2 Page, Brin, CEO Eric Schmidt, senior Google managers and directors, and long-term Google employees gained potential millions through the value of their stock and stock options. Driven by market hype and strong investor inter- est, the stock price surged in the following weeks, and traded as high as 3 $210.86 on February 3, 2005. © 2005 Eugene Choo 1. Dutch auction IPOs are fairly uncommon. At the time of the Google IPO, only ten U.S. companies had gone public using a Dutch auction process. Dutch auction IPOs differ from traditional IPOs in that the initial share price is determined largely through a pre-IPO bidding process, instead of being pre-set by underwriting investment banks.
    [Show full text]