As a mountain dulcimer player, OMG ALL THIS + 1.
-Ross.
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013, Stephen Paling wrote:
> Hi Faye,
>
> If I said that other elements are always more important, I misspoke. In
> fact, my prototype actually uses uniform titles to bring together different
> versions of the same basic fable.
>
> Your response raises some good questions, though. I would never argue that
> we shouldn't provide author, title, and subject as options for users.
> However, let me give you an example of a search where none of those three
> worked for me. I bet this is a pretty common kind of search.
>
> I wanted to find a video of someone playing the mountain dulcimer. I
> Googled "mountain dulcimer" (no quotes), and found a YouTube video as the
> first hit. Even with network transit time, I was listening to the dulcimer
> (and watching) within a few seconds. I clearly wasn't looking for author or
> title. But was I looking for subject? I would argue that I wasn't. I didn't
> want articles about the mountain dulcimer. I already knew, basically, what
> it was. I didn't want information on playing the dulcimer. I'm already the
> world's worst banjo player, why torture people further?! The video isn't
> ~about~ the mountain dulcimer, per se. Topic? Genre? Instrument? Medium? I
> didn't have to think about.
>
> For fun, I looked at UW's catalog (http://library.wisc.edu/). Not only
> did the author-title-subject scheme not help me, it made it more difficult.
> I didn't want an article, book, journal, or database. I used the advanced
> search, limited to videos, slides, and files. I got a single hit. For a VHS
> tape. I'm not even sure I can play a videotape any more.
>
> So back to the main page. Explore Music! I roll over the link, and it says
> "The Beatles". Surely, a hint on how to search. Right? Nope. I click on the
> link, and get 79 hits (no pun intended) related to a defunct rock band that
> broke up before many of the ~parents~ of current undergrads were in
> kindergarten. I give up. The default options seem to be
> author-title-subject-anything, and those options are routed through
> divisions in the collection that don't help me. It really doesn't matter
> where on the site I go. It's just too damn difficult.
>
> Part of the problem was the collection. But the catalog made me think in
> ways that were unnecessary, even counterproductive. Now, if I wanted a
> particular recording or video? Work by a specific musician? Maybe the
> catalog would help. It absolutely should be able to. But, particularly with
> works that are primarily aesthetic in nature, author-title-subject just
> aren't enough in many cases.
>
> Sorry for the long response,
> Steve
>
> On 07/31/13, "Leibowitz, Faye R" wrote:
> > Hi, Steve--
> >
> > I agree that exploitable document structures and internal metadata are
> important tools for finding relevant resources. But I'm not so sure that I
> agree with you that they are always more important than author, title, and
> subject.
> >
> > For example, a library user seeking a known title wants to be able to
> easily find the item using title. In many next gen catalogs using relevancy
> ranking, the title doesn't even appear on the first page of search results.
> That can be quite frustrating.
> >
> > We should provide all of the options that technology allows for access
> to resources, keeping in mind the diversity of users (children as well as
> adults; non-English speakers as well as English speakers; etc.) Options
> should include mechanisms for identifying very granular data (as in your
> example) as well as data at a more "macro" level (as in subject searches)
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Faye Leibowitz
> > General Languages Catalog Librarian
> > University Library System
> > University of Pittsburgh
> > frleibo_at_pitt.edu <javascript:;>
>
Received on Thu Aug 01 2013 - 00:06:22 EDT