On 12/10/2011 21:09, Diane Hillmann wrote:
<snip>
> Also, from the point of view of the search engine community, this
> optimization by embedding metadata is their one-and-only use case for
> metadata. Those of us who remember early attempts to embed DC properties in
> web pages also know some limitations of this approach: it assumes metadata
> is static and unchanging, and makes it virtually impossible to maintain or
> re-use. We have a lot more than that we hope to do, and that niche, should
> we chose to accept it, really uses our skills and experience to the utmost.
</snip>
My own thoughts are that perhaps "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO)
really is the future for all metadata, for better or worse. Its
simplicity is going to make sense to a lot of people, and it can be
implemented now. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't see why microdata
would be any less susceptible to spam than "author created metadata" was
before, when people would put in practically entire encyclopedias into
the meta fields, and when search engines disallowed information in the
meta fields and took only on the text in the body of the webpage, people
came up with all kinds of clever things. One I discovered that I thought
was really neat, where people would put in all kinds of spam using white
text on white backgrounds, so that you couldn't see it until you looked
at the page source.
The only solution that was found was the Google-type solution that rated
pages by links *to* the page, and not by what was *on* the page. This is
liable to spam also, with Google-bombing and of course, SEO, which is
actually a type of Google-bomb but more respectable.
Nevertheless, library use of microdata could provide a level of a
predictability in the search result, which I think people want, at least
sometimes, as opposed to the endlessly "personalized" search results
that all of the information companies seem to be aiming for:
personalized by your own previous searches, by what your friends
searched, by what their friends searched, by what people with similar
profiles searched and so on and on....
Libraries allow true *conceptual* searching, using Use Fors,
Broader/Narrower Terms, Related Terms, and scope notes, so that people
really can search by concept. Google-type searches will remain as more
and more complex variations on searching text, using fuzzy searches for
terms, thesauri and so on. But no matter what, it will remain textual.
Libraries and conceptual searching, no matter the problems with it, is
wanted by many once people begin to understand it. But our conceptual
searching is really weird for most of the public today.
I still say this is one place where libraries could provide something
nobody else does. But I don't know--maybe it's too late. It would cost
some rapidly-disappearing bucks that will be spent on implementing RDA!
That will certainly solve all of our problems! :-)
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Wed Oct 12 2011 - 16:04:12 EDT