Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Cause I agree that it's indisputable that our catalogs aren't
> currently working very well, and it's indisputable that we must "move
> toward the user." What this means is less clear and more disputable.
> I am skeptical of most attempts to "move toward" what (people
> believe) 'Amazoogle' does. I think it's often based on a
> misconception of what Amazon/Google/etc actually DO, as well as a
> lack of clarity about _which_ aspects of what they do work well, and
> how to translate that into the environment of a library catalog.
> Ironically, I in fact fully expect Amazon/Google etc. to move
> _toward_ certain things that the library catalog _used_ to be pretty
> good at, but isn't anymore, things that can't be done simply by
> 'dumbing down' the interface. We need to smarten up the catalog, not
> dumb it down. Our catalogs are already pretty dumb.
>
Why don't we smarten up the catalog back-end so that we can dumb down
the front-end interface and still have it work well?
What does Amazon do well? It provides relevance ranking for un-fielded
keyword searching. That's a first huge step that most of our library
catalogs don't accomplish. It means that I can go to the single search
box, type in some terms, and often get the item I'm looking for. Or
something about the topic I'm interested in. I don't have to worry about
what type of search I need to conduct or whether I need to use special
syntax. And because Amazon isn't limited to the collection at my local
library, I have this feeling that I'm getting a more total picture of
what's available anywhere.
Besides helping me quickly purchase the book, it helps me decide whether
I want to purchase the book by providing summaries, reviews, etc.
Has anybody else noticed that Amazon now provides a category facet post
search, as well?
-emily
--
Emily Lynema
NCSU Libraries Fellow
Research and Information Services
Information Technology
919-513-8031
emily_lynema_at_ncsu.edu
Received on Mon Jun 12 2006 - 23:41:56 EDT