Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> This bending over backwards to spare the user the "zero hits"
> experience is, I think, counterproductive in an insidious way.
> All to easily, timid souls are apt to turn over their judgement
> to the machine instead of working on it.
Interesting points, but I don't think it is necessarily "sparing the user from zero hits." It is one attempt to try to show people what is available to them. As I mentioned in my previous post, in today's world, it is almost inconceivable today that there really is a "zero hit" since there is probably something worthwhile on almost every topic that is more or less readily available to our users.
I am interested in giving our users as truthful results as possible, so it is also vital that we think outside our own limited catalogs, and include journal articles, government documents materials on the web, and all sorts of other resources.
Leaving a user with a zero hit *without any help* is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. And since so many of our readers (and probably many, many more in the future) will be using our materials remotely, they will get less and less help from reference librarians. The computer system itself must pick up the slack somehow to keep user frustration down. Otherwise, they'll come back to our tools less and less since Google and other tools are easier to use, and in this economic climate, I don't think that's wise.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Fri Feb 20 2009 - 10:31:42 EST