Facets based on access sounds like a great concept. And why shouldn't
it work as long as the user can ID himself when doing the search.
Google Scholar already does this by letting users select an affiliated
library when searching. Why not allow the same thing for physical
libraries by zip code? If libraries can forward name and zip code to
search engines for their items then each nearby library could have its
own cluster and the user could select the library.
I'd break it down even more. Something like:
Free online
Affiliated online (Google Scholar model)
Need to pay online
Local library (with a sub-facet for each library that can be identified)
Of course, this means all the players would have to add/support this
metadata to enable the faceting.
Buddy Pennington
Serial Acquisitions Librarian
University of Missouri - Kansas City
University Libraries
www.umkc.edu/lib
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:25 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Finding your library catalogue via Google - was
Vendors, etc. (was "What LibraryThing means to OPACs")
> Quoting Karen Coyle:
> > >>returning searches in "folders" that separate actual
> content from metadata-only results could be a useful service. I also
> think that if we are adding library results then we need a way to
> localize the search results -- here are the results from libraries
near
> you. It's the difference between cyberspace and meat space, and they
> require different actions on the part of the searchers.
>
> Yes! Keep this. Plus, turning library results on and off, something
like
> the
> hot water tap (or Google Desktop results) as a parameter of searching.
With the standard disclaimer "this requires user testing," using faceted
results (KC says, folders-same?) to distinguish between "that which is
immediately, globally, freely available" and "that which requires more
work,
possibly meat-based, to get to." I wonder if easy/hard (fast/slow?) is
not
indeed the most significant distinction (like the full-text limiter in
databases). We're talking format, but what we really mean is convenience
and
speed.
Karen G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 14:03:49 EDT