On 11/13/12 10:24 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
> It's a start, and after that the field is wide open.
> </snip>
> Karen,
> I agree that making holdings information should be done because it will
> be something that libraries and the cataloging community will be able to
> point to. *BUT* (there is always a "but") I don't know if people will
> use it.
From stats that I've seen, WC doesn't get a lot of traffic. Then again,
it only represents *some* libraries. For example, none of the public
libraries in my area are OCLC users, so it doesn't help me. Plus if it
takes extra clicks, people tend not to go there.
The difference between "click here" and what I have proposed is that the
Google entry itself will show not only your library's holdings, but the
availability (on the shelf, place a hold, etc.).
Please look at the example I have created:
http://kcoyle.net/libRichSnip.png
kc
> There are several reasons but a very important one is that
> Google Books already has something like that, where if you find a book
> you are interested in, e.g. Tom Wolfe's "A man in full"
> http://books.google.it/books?id=ZArnGe9CPHQC, in the left menu you can
> click on "Find in a library" and from there it will take you to Worldcat
> where you can find it in your library, if your library catalog is in
> Worldcat. I have no idea at all if people use this option.
>
> Google adds this kind of link because they are Google. They are not
> selling this book, but they are selling *attention*, and they do this
> because they know if they can get enough eyeballs, that is good enough
> for them. Google is unique and other businesses are quite different.
> Here is the book in Amazon.com
> http://www.amazon.com/Man-Full-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0553381334 where you can buy
> it for $11.48. Does anybody think Amazon will want to include a link to
> a library catalog where the person considering buying this book can get
> it *for free*? Or this from Random House
> http://www.randomhouse.com/book/193149/a-man-in-full-by-tom-wolfe where
> you can buy it through their partner for $17.00. I don't think anybody
> would expect them to put in the link to the cheaper Amazon version. Will
> they want to put in a link to a free library copy?
>
> This reminds me of the Digital Book Index, where the final result can
> border on the ridiculous. For example, here is the search for Herman
> Melville
> http://www.digitalbookindex.org/_search/search002a.asp?AUTHOR=Melville,%20Herm.
> Scroll down to "Israel Potter". There are two options: one for free and
> the other for $60.00. Whenever I have demonstrated this to people and
> ask "Which one would you choose?" we all end up with a good laugh!
>
> There is an article from the Guardian about a fight between the book
> publishers and Amazon because the publishers said Amazon was guilty of
> not charging enough, or "predatory pricing" for ebooks.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/23/amazon-ebooks-pricing-row-publishers
> What will happen when there is a library option that is *free?*
>
> So, while I agree that putting out holdings information is fine and it
> should be done because it can be done quickly and cheaply, I am not sure
> who will take advantage of it. Certainly no publishers will, nor will
> anybody who wants to sell you a copy of a book. But I think there is a
> lot more at stake and is one reason why, at a talk I gave in Oslo
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/02/revolution-in-our-minds-seeing-world.html
> I mentioned that it is vital for libraries to figure out what it is they
> *really do* and went to some pains to say that right now we don't really
> know.
>
> Putting our holdings information out for others to take may be a step in
> figuring out what libraries really do. It certainly can't hurt.
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tue Nov 13 2012 - 13:36:20 EST
