James Weinheimer writes
> I guess I wasn't clear in my original message. Sure, they can cobble a
> system together, but it doesn't mean that people will use it. Let's face it:
> our users are not in love with our current catalogs (that's part of what
> this entire list is about), and throwing all of our records into Google
> would surely result in a huge mess,
Why?
> much as the Language Log examples provide.
I am unsue what you are referring to here. Do you mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Log
> How would Google's "page rank" and "relevance ranking" work with our
> records?
As long as a page can be found by Google's crawler, it will have
a page rank, albeit a small one.
> How would our headings work? Like they do in our catalogs today? I
> doubt if Google would want that.
They are not selective, they just index.
> Traditional catalog records were designed to be browsed in a card
> catalog or even better, in a printed book catalog. They don't work
> very well in an online environment,
But surely, a suitable matching can be found. Say, you know that a
lot of people why have borrowed book A also have borrowed book B. So
you can make links between the two static pages, very much like
Amazon does. Here you are creating information about items in your
collection, that may be picked up by others who may link to it, thus
raising your PageRank.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
skype: thomaskrichel
Received on Fri Sep 11 2009 - 10:58:05 EDT