On 8/3/13 8:27 PM, Stephen Paling wrote:
> But "this is broader than that" is only one kind of classification.
See the "etc."? It was just one example.
> That's why I asked about the graphs you referred to.
Semantic Web.
>
>> Now THAT'S a shift in topic, aimed to derail the discussion. These systems use library catalog data. Whether or not they've had user testing is another issue -- are the cataloging rules based on user testing? Are the catalog displays based on user testing? Is your catalog based on user testing? Why change the subject?
> The disconnect between users' expectations and what the catalog actually delivers is a staple of discussion on this list. It's not changing the subject at all to ask whether these sites have addressed the problems in some way.
It is a topic of this list, but not of our discussion. and besides,
Google does more user testing than anyone, and libraries do almost none.
Just Google "Google user tests".
> I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. I don't mean to be
> disrespectful.
No, but I suspect that you are being purposefully thick. So I'm outta
here, but if you want to learn more I suggest starting with some of the
readings at the bottom of this page:
http://kcoyle.net/presentations/links.html
kc
> I know that you've done a lot of work over a long period of time. But
> your arguments often seem at odds with each other. You criticize
> Google for running algorithms over text, but that's what OPACs do,
> too. You remark that Google's algorithms are proprietary, but how
> often do commercial OPAC or database vendors give you their
> algorithms? You argue that Google doesn't organize information, but
> then make an unclear reference to graphs, which is exactly what Google
> ~does~ use to organize information. You talk about wanting to get
> outside the library, but point to sites that focus on material that
> libraries own or already have access to. You refer to relationships,
> which are a key part of Google's ranking. Google is bad because it
> aggregates without giving anything back, but a library site does the
> same thing and it's OK? Google provides infrastructure for people to
> find what they want. It's like the city streets that allow you to get
> to the library. Instead of criticizing Google, why not concentrate on
> building things that users actually want to find when they're out on
> the Web? Steve
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sun Aug 04 2013 - 09:52:49 EDT