Resending as this hasn't show up from last week:
====================================
Thank you, Kyle Banerjee, for continuing to make the case that the
goals of Amazon and those of the research library are different.
Sales are not the same as use. Just because Amazon is good at *what
it does* doesn't mean that it is good at *what a research library
does*. [Now thanks to Jim Weinheimer for his input regarding this.]
I think cover images can be helpful, but not nearly as much as
certain aspects of metadata that are already captured by library
catalogs. Charles Ledvina is perhaps being facetious, but I would
love to see a spine view of a virtual bookshelf so that the physical
dimensions of a book (number of pages, height) would help me. If I
remember that I found something in a particular sized book, why is it
so difficult for the catalog to assist me when this information is
right there in the catalog record? A massive multi-volume set looks
quite different on the shelf than it does in a brief OPAC view. And
something like heft isn't conveyed by the cover view. In many cases I
couldn't care less what the cover looks like.
I would also like something like a little colored dot on that virtual
spine to indicate the presence of an index, and a different colored
dot to indicate the presence of a bibliography, for example. The
point that Amazon's "search inside" function is useful is quite
accurate, but to save the time of the reader, how about not making me
take the thing off the shelf first? How about not making me walk to
the shelf in the first place? Presence of index or bibliography is
just another facet. This is information already in the catalog
record. If I could limit my browsing to only books with indexes and
*then* do a meta-search within those indexes, that would be quite
helpful. Or maybe another colored dot indicating the presence of
illustrations. Again, already in the catalog record - so let's
leverage this data and make it useful to the researcher. Stop trying
to catch my eye with glitz and instead give me substance.
Virtual views (spines and covers) are, I think, useful when subject
browsability has been compromised through things like remote storage,
multiple shelving locations (i.e., folio, reference, etc.), and
simple circulation. I will be interested to see how multi-library
union catalogs can integrate this so that I can see the shelves of
one participating library, then the same section with two libraries
present, etc. This could even apply to the various branches of a
single library.
Now about this unsupported allegation: is Amazon (I assume this meant
books part only, right?) really far larger than any library? I remain
extremely skeptical. Amazon hasn't the faintest idea about tons and
tons of books that I use regularly. Or journals. And let's not get
into sound recordings, where vast numbers aren't even in OCLC and
likely won't ever be. Horses for courses: Amazon deals with what is
current and what is available. They have to. That's how they make
money. And making money is the object for them, not anything else.
Let us not forget this. If it sells, it's good - Amazon doesn't care
whether the customer bought the best book on the subject, just that
he spent money at Amazon. I hope that we in libraries are a bit more
particular.
Mike
mike at jazzdiscography.com
www.jazzdiscography.com
Received on Tue Jul 01 2008 - 17:36:48 EDT