True!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Relevance ranking: was Aqua Brow
>
> Lisa Pons suggests that our users don't find our catalogs useful.
>
> It also may be the case that potential users simply aren't
> *finding* our catalogs in the first place.
>
> Bernie Sloan
>
> "Pons, Lisa (ponslm)" <PONSLM_at_UCMAIL.UC.EDU> wrote:
> I've been staying out of this, but I can't stand it anymore...
>
> In regard to this discussion, which is better Google,
> catalog, this or that...really, doesn't it boil down to what
> our users find most useful?
> That is, our catalog interfaces are not being used because
> users are not finding the results of their searches useful.
> Useful also may have different definitions for different users.
>
>
> Karen Coyle:"I still maintain that Google search should be
> judged in terms of what it retrieves from Google, and library
> catalog search should be judged in terms of what it retrieves
> from the library catalog."
>
> I would agree with above: and then add, but people are not
> finding our results as useful as google. Why is that?
>
> Tim Spaulding wrote: "Not infrequently they are in direct competition.
> While
> it true they have different information behind them, and
> stand at a different remove from that information, they vary
> greatly in their effectiveness in searching the information
> they do have. With all due respect, the search matters, not
> just the resources behind it."
>
> The search matters to most users only as a means to finding
> useful results.
>
> When I did research for a graduate class, as well as for a
> book I authored with my husband, I found our catalog and
> other online resources virtually useless- as a starting point.
>
> I found google scholar, worldcat, google books much more
> helpful. Once I found a source there, I would use worldcat to
> see if we owned it, and if not which library around me had
> it. Simple, and easy.
>
> Lastly, I think libraries need to find a new term other than
> catalog. Or at least change the definition of it.
>
> As has been discussed on this list, and is the case in my
> institution, our catalog is considered by TPTB as "items we
> own". As such, many online journals and databases, and more
> are not added to the catalog, as we don't "own them", we
> simply have access to them.
>
> As a result, although according to ARL rankings we are #2 for
> online databases, one needs to search in at least 2 separate
> web pages (the catalog and our serials solutions listings)
> for a complete list of holdings.
>
> It gets even worse if you attempt to search by subject: We
> have separate listings (with different subject terminology)
> in our catalog, federated search, serials solutions list, and
> indexes/databases page. How is this useful?
>
> I bring it up, because I think it is symptomatic of some
> libraries: that they don't think enough of the users
> experience. Administrations need to put more resources into
> hiring information profesionals, coders, user interface
> experts and more to help.
>
> I know I'm over simplifying, but...
>
> So, I believe to move beyond talking to implementation, at
> least one thing the library world needs to do is first move
> away from organizing our resources in ways that suit the
> staff, to embracing some best practices and new standards for
> making and presenting our results so they are more useful to
> users. I think many libraries are doing this- but it is difficult
>
>
> Lisa Pons-Haitz
> University Libraries
> University of Cincinnati
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> > [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Eric Lease Morgan
> > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 7:30 AM
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Relevance ranking: was Aqua Brow
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2008, at 6:02 PM, B.G. Sloan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > OK...so how do we move from talking to creating? How do we
> > as a group
> > > overcome the inertia and stop talking things to death? We've been
> > > doing that for 18 months now (i.e., NGC4LIB is 18 months old).
> > >
> > > How do we get some innovation started? (Not a rhetorical question)
> >
> >
> >
> > Above are two separate questions.
> >
> > First, IMHO, to move from talking to creating we need to understand
> > that we have only discussed 1/3 of the problem -- description/
> > organization. A library "catalog" contains "stuff". What is that
> > stuff? This is a topic centering on collections which has
> been sorely
> > lacking here. Is it only stuff we own? It is stuff we own
> and license?
> > What are the qualities and characteristics of the stuff in the
> > "catalog" Second, to think that a library "catalog"
> > should only support search is anemic. What are you going to do with
> > the stuff once you find it? I suppose you want to read it, duh, but
> > what else? Get it. Annotate it. Review it.
> > Compare & contrast it. Extract all of its images. Cite it.
> > Purchase it. Add it to a personal list. These are issues of
> public...
> > services, and these issues have not been discussed here
> either. This
> > list's discussion is not balanced, yet.
> >
> > Second, innovation does not happen across a large group of
> people such
> > as this mailing list or a profession. Innovation is an intimate and
> > creative process sprouting from the work of self-motivated
> individuals
> > and small groups. To foster innovation on the issue of "next
> > generation" library catalogs, all that is needed time and
> commitment
> > to change.
> > Everybody on this list is empowered in this regard.
> > Identify the problem. Brainstorm solutions. In a small, inexpensive
> > way gather together the resources (time, talent, stuff, etc.)
> > necessary to create prototypes. Understand that many
> prototypes will
> > be necessary before the best solution presents itself. It
> will not be
> > perfect the first time, and it is not a waste of time to
> try and try
> > again. When you do have a solution in place, then rest for
> a bit and
> > return to Step #1 -- identify the problem. Innovation is a never-
> > ending process.
> >
> > P.S. Regarding innovation. It does not hurt when leadership/
> > administration expressly blesses the innovation process. It is not
> > necessary but it does make things easier.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Lease Morgan
> > Head, Digital Access and Information Architecture Department
> > University Libraries of Notre Dame
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with
> Yahoo! Search.
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 08 2008 - 11:28:47 EST