> How do we measure, whether in Google _or_ in a traditional
> library catalog, how well the results gave them what they
> needed... without asking them?
I think you measure it by the number of check-outs and downloads.
Searches, in and of themselves, only tell you that people are "shopping" (to borrow a metaphor from e-commerce). Check-outs and downloads tell you the number of times people are "buying." If our systems are giving our users relevant results, then that _should_ lead to more check outs and downloads.
It's probably not quite that simple. But that is certainly the brass-tax metric, in my mind.
--Dave
==================
David Walker
Library Web Services Manager
California State University
http://xerxes.calstate.edu
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochkind_at_JHU.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:56 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] New Laws
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> With traditional library tools, a person's feelings are irrlevant. A search result may make them happy, angry, sad, or bored; it simply doesn't matter. Since search results today have so much on feelings today, I think we must consider what it means to "improve services" in such a scenario as well.
>
Hmm, I'm not sure that with traditional library tools, a patron's
feelings are irrelevant to operationally/empirically measuring success
of search. Jim, how are you thinking of opertionally and empirically
measuring success of a patron's search with traditional library tools,
that is based on objective standards? I'm having trouble thinking of a
way, but maybe I'm not just creative enough in my research methods.
A patron wants to find something. They type something into a traditional
library search tool (or they go to the card catalog, if you want to get
really traditional!). They find some records. How do we measure,
whether in Google _or_ in a traditional library catalog, how well the
results gave them what they needed... without asking them?
Jonathan
Received on Thu Oct 29 2009 - 12:35:23 EDT