> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:44 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Browsing percentages / analytics
> > As to the question of how often people click on a link in a bib record,
> the
> > answer is less than 7% overall. And, interestingly, the public more
> > than library people.
>
> Thanks so much for adding this information--although I confess I find the
> results dismaying. As I mentioned, the catalog was designed to allow for
> keyword searching followed by browsing, e.g. I find one book on Roman
> history during the time of Cicero with the heading Rome--History--Republic
> [date], and I should be interested in all books with that topic (and I
> have always believed that these results could be displayed and sorted in
> all kinds of interesting ways that are not done today).
For those who remember this thread, I decided to dig out the searching
statistics in my own catalog (very difficult at the moment in Koha), and
found some interesting results. My stats date for a much longer period of
time (since mid-2006), and my users are primarily undergraduates, reflecting
our institution as a four-year undergraduate college serving primarily US
students studying abroad.
Search
%
Author browse:
8.7
Title browse:
0.8
Subject browse:
65.7
Keyword:
22.6
Classification browse:
1.9
Total
99.7
The rest were more specific author, title, or subject keyword searches.
Originally, since these numbers are so far off what others had, I thought
these statistics were incorrect so I checked and rechecked them. But they
are correct. They also demonstrate what I mentioned above, since I can
assume that nobody will be able to put in a subject heading/subject
subdivision search, so I conclude that my users are searching originally by
keyword, then clicking on the subjects or authors that they see. (Titles are
only series, so this is minimal)
At this point, I thought: why? Although I am happy with these results, why?
As a preliminary suggestion, I propose that it may be due to my catalog
interface of an individual record, which is different from others. An
example of my record display is at:
http://www.galileo.aur.it/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?bib=20765
1) Most important, on principle I *do not have* a brief display. I have
never understood why libraries have instituted these displays and feel that
this is one of the most detrimental things that has ever happened to library
catalogs. The entire power of a catalog lies in its heading searches
(otherwise, it's just a list of books) and in a brief display (which is the
default display-even worse), many people never click on "full display" and
therefore, they don't even know of the headings, which is where the real
power is.
2) I have also used a display that is based on ISBD: the old card
display. Instead of saying "Title: ..." "Publication info.: ..." I have just
followed the (in my opinion) rather elegant ISBD display. I have asked
students and others repeatedly if they have any problem understanding that
something is the title or the author, or the place of publication, and there
is never a problem. They reply that they have to understand citations, and
this is just another form of citation.
3) The change I made from the old card display is that on the cards, the
power of the catalog was more or less hidden from everyone: i.e. the
tracings at the bottom of the cards. (e.g. See from the Princeton card
catalog: http://tinyurl.com/37n3bc where there is "European War,
1914-1918-Aerial operations" etc.) I humbly confess that I personally didn't
know about tracings until library school, and had always figured that this
was just "library information"! I don't think I was the only one who thought
that way. In my catalog, I have brought up the tracings "front and center"
and left the notes, additional titles, etc. for the bottom of the record.
Few patrons really care about the note "Includes bibliographical references"
or "At head of title:" or standard numbers. So, I have tried to order it by
importance to the user: 1) the body of the entry, followed by the 2)
tracings and finally, 3) Notes and everything else. I also display contents
and summary notes before other notes.
So, it seems as if my concerns are met in my own catalog. In this case,
somebody can search as a keyword "forensic anthropology" and find the record
I give above, where they can see and search the additional subjects that
would never occur to them
* Facial reconstruction (Anthropology)
* Archaeology -- Methodology.
This is far from perfect: getting a workable subject browse with masses of
cross-references would be very nice-something my system won't do yet, but
the first thing is to get people just to know about the headings searches
and click on them. I do have my "Extend search" mechanism, but that is
another topic.
Other thoughts would be appreciated. Am I misreading something here?
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Feb 14 2008 - 03:42:39 EST