So the implications of this to me are to _automatically_ expand the user's query to include the subjects attached to an authority for which the user's query is a 'non-preferred' term. [Of course, this 'expansion' could be technically accomplished at the indexing stage or the query stage; the effect on the user experience could be the same either way].
It's far from obvious to me that this is necessarily better than offering the user the _option_ of expanding their search, with a 'did you mean' link. It will take some experimentation and testing with actual users to see which is better. I don't agree that it's an 'ideological' question where one of these techniques is necessarily 'disrespectful' to the user or something. It's a practical question of which one ends up most often giving most users what they need with "least surprise" for them. Automatic query expansion can sometimes result in surprising and confusing results, if not done carefully.
Again, it's interesting that Google in fact has _several_ ways of giving the user the option to expand/change their query. So it's still odd to me that everyone is discussing this like Google doesn't do it! They do! Google gives you a "did you mean" at the top. In some cases, Google will actually give you the first couple hits from the suggested "did you mean" right in your original results, with a link to see more. And in addition to that, Google sometimes gives you "similar search" options at the _bottom_ of the list of results. So this is not something that Google doesn't do, and I don't think many users find Google's suggestions insulting or disrespectful -- even when they are wrong or useless, which they certainly sometimes are.
Rather than (query) "Nat Turner's Rebellion" --> "Did you mean [Southampton Insurrection]?", how about:
---
(query "Nat Turner's Rebelliion")
Similar Searches:
[Southampton Insurrection] also known as "Nat Turner's Rebellion"
---
We currently do have data in our authority records to support that latter design. The particular "also known as" displayed would be the one that matched the user's query prompting the suggestion of the authorized term. The "similar searches" could be at the top or the bottom of the hit list.
Jonathan
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross Singer [rossfsinger_at_GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:33 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Leveraging Authority Data in Keyword Searches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> Could you clarify this? Are you saying that library catalogs do not need any authority control just as in Google?
No, he's saying we have an authority record which knows all of the
terms for Nat Turner's Rebellion.
Why should the user know or care what the LCSH preferred term is? The
records should be indiscriminate because they are referring to an
authority.
What Tim is saying is that if the search is restricted to what appears
in the 650 tag then we have have completely forgone the advantages of
moving it from an index card to a computer.
-Ross.
Received on Tue May 05 2009 - 11:17:45 EDT