Yes, agreed.
Note that one thing I didn't make 100% clear in the blog entry was that
I used the titles as is to form my Google and OpenDOAR search strings.
I didn't enclose the title string in quotes. Therefore, each word in
the title was used as a separate search term - I wasn't searching on the
complete string.
By way of example, my first test used the search string
Recent work on French rural history
Truncating this to
history french rural
(i.e. to something more like a real search string) still results in
http://eprints.bham.ac.uk/archive/00000009/ being the first hit.
I guess that for a real known-item search I would/should have enclosed
the title in quotes (I just didn't think of it! But in any case, I
think the test as I performed it is (slightly) more useful).
Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Hunter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 27 October 2006 15:02
> To: Andy Powell; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: Philip hunter
> Subject: Re: OpenDOAR Search
>
> Andy,
>
> You made the caveat about the worth of known searches
> yourself, but didn't expand on it. It's worth spelling this out.
>
> The longer the title in a known search, the less likely it is
> that anything closely resembles it. If the search is on the
> *exact title*, the record or the full text with that title
> is likely to appear with pretty much the same reliability
> with both search approaches.
>
> However a researcher might not know the exact title and
> search on a part of the title, the words which are in the
> title, or words *imagined* to be in the title, as well as
> keywords which might not be in the title at all. The real
> test of the relative usefulness of Google versus OAISTER type
> searches is what each throws up when the researcher can supply only an
> *approximation* to the title as a search string, since users
> are unlikely to type entire article titles.
>
> Philip
>
> *********************************
> Philip Hunter
> IRIScotland
> Digital Library Division
> Edinburgh University Library
> George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LJ
> Tel: +44 (0)131 651 3768
> *********************************
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Powell" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenDOAR Search
>
>
> >I completely agree that this is an interesting development.
> Like you,
> > it seems to me to raise some pretty fundamental questions
> about the way
> > in which repositories are integrated into the fabric of the
> Web. I've
> > tried to capture my thoughts (such as they are) here
> >
> >
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2006/10/pushing_a
> n_open.htm
> > l
> >
> > I share some of your conclusions but not all.
> >
> > Andy
> > --
> > Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
> > http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
> > http://efoundations.typepad.com/
> > [log in to unmask]
> > +44 (0)1225 474319
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Repositories discussion list
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr
> >> Sent: 27 October 2006 10:16
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: OpenDOAR Search
> >>
> >> On 26 Oct 2006, at 19:00, Hubbard Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> > Please find below an announcement from OpenDOAR for a
> >> search facility
> >> > based on OpenDOAR holdings.
> >>
> >> This is a very interesting service!
> >>
> >> There was a discussion on this list at the beginning of
> >> August about "Search Engines for Repositories Only". There
> >> were several attempts to define constrained searches using
> >> RollYO or similar, but they all suffered from one defect or
> >> another (too few sites, or logins required etc). The Google
> >> Custom Search that OpenDOAR have set up seems much more
> >> suitable to the repository community needs. Further, it would
> >> seem to be fairly simple to set up Country-specific searches
> >> (a la UKOLN's EPrints UK) by providing location-identifying
> >> annotations for each repository.
> >>
> >> I have had a go with this, and created a ROAR-based
> >> Repository Search Engine at
> >> http://google.com/coop/cse?cx=009118135948994945300%
> >> 3Agvogitng0da
> >> You can search all the ROAR repositories for a keyword and
> >> then Derek Law can click on 'Scottish Research' to reduce the
> >> set of results to those coming from the Scottish repositories
> >> (the "small and smart"
> >> ones, according to his recent keynote at Open Scholarship :-)
> >>
> >> There is a serious point that this opens up: why would we
> >> bother with OAI-based repositories, if you can do it all with
> >> Google? The advantage that OAI provided us was "metatdata",
> >> ie the possibility of providing more accurate resource
> >> identification. The advantage of repositories were that they
> >> provided an identifiable source of (well-
> >> maintained) research material. Of course, the one can be
> >> simulated by the other, and if Google could support a simple
> >> quality control "refereed material" tag then we could get by
> >> without OAI and without repositories.
> >>
> >> Well, it doesn't, and so OAI still seems our best hope.
> >> However, even with five years of OAI our repositories are not
> >> doing a very good job of sharing metadata that helps a
> >> service to comprehend the status of the holdings that it
> >> harvests (is this a published, refereed journal article or
> >> equivalent? Is this a paper from an unrefereed workshop?
> >> is this a chemical data file?) Too much is still down to
> >> interpretation and subsequent data mining of the web pages.
> >> The Eprints Application Profile
> (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/
> >> digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile) seems to be doing
> >> a good job in achieving consensus in the use of Dublin Core,
> >> but there is an urgent need for it to be implemented by all
> >> repositories!
> >>
> >> We've spent a lot of time and effort on advocacy and policies
> >> over the last couple of years, but I think it's time that we
> >> went back to some of the technical fundamentals and made sure
> >> that our information interoperability is up to scratch,
> >> otherwise we'll find ourselves in a universe where the only
> >> thing you can do is a keyword search!
> >> --
> >> Les
> >> (just my opinion)
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|