Thanks very much for the descriptive statistics.
I'm not sure how representative these specifically
Alexa data are for any definable population, not to
mention the population I had in mind : faculty and
students affiliated with institutions of higher
education in Europe and North America, who
aren't necessarily dependent on search-engine
approaches -- i.e., how capable these data are of
constituting a basis for rejecting a research
hypothesis that significantly more than a ( "very,
very" ) few members of that population -- and
possibly of some other population you might wish
to define -- use WorldCat ( to say nothing about
knowing that it exists ).
Also not sure how comparable in this context
LibraryThing really is, to say nothing of Wikipedia.
You used the term "can be proven", strong language
indeed, and I as researcher had a reason for reacting
with concepts like "methodology", "valid and
reliable", and "inferential statistics".
Needless to say, therefore : the formulations "not
sure how representative" and "not sure how
comparable" which I employ above are euphemisms
for : "You have not yet by any means convinced me."
or "I still discern no evidence to justify your earlier
categorical claim.", which, as I wrote, doesn't accord
with my own experiential and anecdotal data. I think
we can conclude that the question has yet to be
responsibly investigated ( after, of course, we have
operationalized the terms "few", "use", "know
about", and of course "people" ;-) ).
So -- I'm just gonna have to live with my own
perspective for the meantime. Pas grand-chose.
None of this is meant to detract from your
proposition, below, that "We need other routes
as well.", and no, I don't find that the least bit
"unfortunate or sad". And also not meant to
neglect your important implicit question below,
i.e. : What is too much to expect ? But the
corollary is of course : What is enough to be
satisfied ?
However all of that may be, any measures should
preferably be founded on good evidence, and by
extension therefore on solid research. There's
nothing sacrosanct about WorldCat. If it's not worth
what it ( in various ways ) costs, out with it. If it is,
well, . . ..
I like the rest of your post below -- but can't refrain
from opining that while, as you say, OCLC and
WorldCat are -- like your example the catalogue card
-- in principle dispensable and "could disappear", the
same is true of librarianship and even of what we now
know as libraries. None of these things is an end in
itself. At least some of the "values of librarianship"
can be considered, for practical purposes, ends in
themselves -- but then again, they are neither the
creation or prerogative of, nor unique to, librarianship
and libraries.
Attaining the ideal situation in which librarianship
and perhaps even libraries are superfluous is not going
to be an easy act, I think -- for all kinds of practical
and policy ( *not* philosophical ) reasons. Some may
find consolation in this prognosis. With forty-seven
years of intensive library involvement, I don't ; I feel
no need for such consolation.
Anyway, as you've indicated : It's going to be interesting,
for quite some time to come.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 10:44:26 AM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC and Michigan State at Impasse Over SkyRiver Cataloging, Resource Sharing Costs
Laval Hunsucker wrote:
<snip>
I have no 'proof' immediately available one way or the other ( and would like to know what methodology, what valid and reliable research results, and what apt inferential statistics lie behind the declaration that "it can be proven that very, very few people use Worldcat or even know about it" ; maybe you have a quick reference at hand ), but I've for some years been constantly hearing disciplinary scholars saying in an off-hand fashion that their search in WorldCat yielded such-and-such a result. Isn't at least some of this dependent upon how visible the resource has locally been made, and how well it has been locally marketed ?
</snip>
If you look at the Alexa site, you can see the statistics:
Worldcat: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/worldcat.org
Yesterday 0.022 +10% (they had a good day yesterday)
7 day 0.0177 -3%
1 month 0.0164 +1%
3 month 0.0164 -7%
Therefore, about 0.016% of searches go to Worldcat.
Compare to LibraryThing:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/librarything.com
Yesterday 0.018 -30%
7 day 0.0254 -0.7%
1 month 0.0259 -8%
3 month 0.0277 -1%
Therefore, LibraryThing has a much higher percentage of use than Worldcat. (0.027%)
Compare to Wikipedia:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
Yesterday 12.51 -5.3%
7 day 12.97 +0.2%
1 month 12.975 -0.09%
3 month 12.748 +13.77%
Wikipedia gets a major number of hits.
Based on these statistics (which have remained pretty constant) it would make sense to conclude that a record placed into WorldCat will make it available to the least number of people. Placing it in LibraryThing or Wikipedia would increase its use. The conclusion I make from this is that while we can go ahead and put our records into WorldCat, we shouldn't expect too much. We need other routes as well.
Perhaps this is unfortunate or sad, but it is a fact nevertheless. What about when we add Google Scholar and Google Books into the equation? A friend of mine at FAO of the UN mentioned that they had recently placed the AGRIS database (an agricultural database) into Google Scholar and the hits went up exponentially. This only makes sense.
<snip>
May well, but library-centric focus in itself needn't -- witness my experience, but also in principle -- disqualify an instrument as enduser-appropriate and enduser-used, at least in a full-blown academic environment. Other factors can play determinant roles.
</snip>
Agreed, but products that are objectively better die every day if you can't get people to use them. Libraries have their collections and these collections need to be used, so I don't care how people find out about my materials. I can suggest certain ways, but if people want to use their own methods, that's fine with me. This is the world that is changing in fundamental, and as yet, very unclear ways.
What is important is to save libraries (in whatever form they take) and the values of librarianship. We should not confuse this with maintaining "OCLC" and/or "WorldCat." Either one of these entities could disappear and libraries should be able to continue.
<snip>
Perhaps -- but what will then be left of librarianship after they have been really solved ? Of course, once *all* of the librarianship problems have been solved ( i.e. from the perspective of those outside parties who alone ( can ) lend the field its legitimacy ), librarianship will not exist, or at least need to exist. Shouldn't your consolation ( as an apologist/advocate ) be predicated on the thought that not all of those problems will ever be solved ?
</snip>
Interesting question. I think there will be many solutions, but no "ultimate solution." As soon as one "solution" is implemented, a dozen more will arise. When you solve these dozen, your original solution will have to be rethought.
Some may consider this to be the very essence of futility, but to me, it represents the idea of progress. As new ideas and capabilities arise, you must adapt yourself to them. Just as the card catalog solved a myriad of problems, and created a host of others, we are in a similar situation today. The various ways of producing, and even using, cards evolved, and so will the methods we devise.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon Mar 15 2010 - 11:24:21 EDT