Hi David,

As a matter of interest, could you tell me what search option you used on Amazon? Even limited to music, I had to shift through 78 other records using the band name entry by itself on a general search before finding anything at all by the band in question (1 album, that is), although I could have missed one, I admit.

As regards the 'outage' problem, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to - there was no was no such problem, as far as I'm aware. I believe you misunderstood me: The OPAC in question was fully functioning, was not limited by number of results, or slowed in any way - it was more of an issue of the generalized keyword format discovering an unfavourably high number of irrelevant results, in the opinion of the catalogue users. In a similar fashion to my Amazon example.

Also, I would argue 'easy-in' is a poor option compared to 'easy-find'. 
Regarding Google specifically, I think its efficiency has declined as informational sources become increasingly buried under well sold commercial web sites. Nonetheless, it is still my favourite web browser - however, I believe that the functionality required from a web browser is completely different from that that which works well with a database of categorised items, such as a Catalogue, as my experience continues to prove.

Best wishes


Martin Kelleher

-----Original Message-----
From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kane
Sent: 19 June 2007 15:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Find 0.0

Hi Martin,
 
Of course.  A Googlized format has its limitations. But these are
limits which regular users come up against sooner or later after having
begun to use the search system.  
 
My point is that the Google-style interface provides an 'easy in' for
users and I really don't think that there should be a problem with
hardware or software. The outage problem you mention not the substantive
issue.  It's a technical problem which should have been anticipated by
the ILS vendor.
 
On Amazon, I found the band 'Man' pretty quickly but only after I
limited the search to the music section.  However I do take your point.
 
Where Google is concerned, you are never going to get a faceted search
in the same way that you can on an OPAC, simply because no one can be
bothered to put in the metadata.  That's the reality.  Google do
incredibly well given this limitation.  One other point I'd like to make
on that is that although people don't catalogue or add metadata, they
will tag but that's another pot of lobsters.
 
Best,
 
David Kane
WIT Libraries
http://library.wit.ie/ 
++353.51302838

>>> "Kelleher, Martin" <[log in to unmask]> 19/06/2007 15:00 >>>
I know that some library OPACs work in a keyword based format, and I'm
under the impression that changing to an OPAC using this 'googlized'
format has resulted in outrage from users in at least 1 library service
I know of, the general complaint being that they could no longer find
anything! The solution was apparently found to be directing them to the
more traditional 'browse' format, hidden under a submenu option.....

And if you're a big fan of keyword searching on databases, try finding
albums by a band called 'Man' on Amazon, and see how easy it is.... or
google for that matter! Although with Google, the band (and their fans)
have obviously gone to great lengths to work around the primitive
keyword format, if you can think of the right terms....

Martin Kelleher
Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool


-----Original Message-----
From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and
discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kane
Sent: 19 June 2007 14:30
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Find 0.0

Hi Alan,

You may be correct in saying that at this point the world's
information
mostly remains in print, but the soon cord will be mostly cut between
physical location of data and the users of that data.  Librarianship
is
being completely redefined, along with much else, by rampant
'Googlization'.

Making catalogues like Google is a *good* thing because it can be used
in a simple fashion using general keywords.  I, for one, want to give
as
many people access to as much information as possible.  I want to
empower them and make them feel confident in their own ability to
search
and discover.  I want to get young people into libraries and old
people
and everyone who wants to solve a problem or learn something.  It is
disingenuous of you to imply that there are only simple searches in
the
new library OPACs - like Google, they all have access to complex
syntax
for refining their searches.  Let us not scare people off with complex
search routines so they never come back to the library again.  Without
exception, we all want to help users search more effectively but let's
start them off easy.

I don't get your point about Google being staggeringly inefficient. 
Let the search for knowledge be profligate and let it return abundant
harvests for those who want to.  It's free and we have processing
power
to burn.  What's the big deal?

By the way, I think that it is kind of disrespectful to say things
like
'dumb down to their level of ignorance' when referring to our library
patrons.  There's something in that statement I just don't like.  I
chose my current job for a number of reasons, but one of them was that
I
love helping people. I find that rewarding.  I certainly don't see
ignoramuses walking through those library gates.  What I see is a
wonderful variety of people who have lifetimes of experiences and
knowledge.  All this is coming IN to the library.  If I can help to
add
just a little knowledge to what they already have when they leave the
library, then I have done my job.

Yours,

David Kane
WIT Libraries
http://library.wit.ie/ 
++353.51302838


>>> "Exelby Alan Mr (LIB)" <[log in to unmask]> 19/06/2007 13:36 >>>
John,

I think I agree with all this. There is a century's worth of
experience
in librarianship of information retrieval, including the understanding
that the methods readers like and what is most efficient/effective are
not the same thing, but a lot of this seems to be ignored in favour of
the latest fads. The constant assertion that 'young people' know all
about how to use computers is often extended to a belief that they
know
how to use them *effectively*, and that libraries should dumb down to
their level of ignorance rather than teaching them the truth - an
especially inappropriate belief for libraries in academic
institutions.

My own betes noires concern 1) the 'Google fallacy' - that readers
like
Google and think it is good (even though it is often staggeringly
inefficient), so libraries try to make their OPACs like Google,
relying
on general-keyword searches when more specific searches, or list
indexes, would be vastly more effective; and 2) the whole idea that
the
internet contains a significant part of the world's wisdom (it
doesn't;
except for a few subjects, most is still available only in print).

Alan

==============================
Mr A.V. Exelby,
Systems/Databases Librarian.
The Library,
University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ

Tel.: 01603 592432
E-mail: [log in to unmask] 
================================ 
"Man, who'd have thought being a librarian could be so tough"
Seamus Harper, in 'Harper 2.0', "Andromeda".


>-----Original Message-----
>From: A general Library and Information Science list for news 
>and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of 
>Lindsay, John M
>Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:34 PM
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Subject: Find 0.0
>
>At an inaugural lecture last night, while the speaker was 
>enthusiasing about Web 2.0 someone asked the question, or made 
>the point, that searching isn't the point of the exercise, 
>finding is, and showed the National Record Office as a case.
>
> 
>
>By accident, unless a tinzle fairy organises these things, I 
>had the catalogue for Internet Librarian International land on 
>my table the same day.
>
> 
>
>This seems to me to be full of Web 2.0 stuff with just about 
>nothing obvious on the traditional skills and professional 
>competences which made libraries libraries.
>
> 
>
>Is the plot being lost?
>
> 
>
>In Librarians for Social Change I argued we had to improve the 
>political, historical, philosophical, cultural, aspect of our 
>competences, not throw them out entirely.
>
> 
>
>With the computer industry forcing grep and search upon us, 
>with social tagging and social networking, it seems now that 
>re-asserting the essential competences is more important than 
>ever, but the profession is remarkably silent, like it has 
>given up, yet the ILI is badged with CILIP.
>
> 
>
>Perhaps we need to reform the library association?
>
> 
>
>Incidently, sorry for the 20= etc which appear in messages in 
>digest mode, I know it makes text almost unreadable, but is 
>beyond my control and imposed I think by the digesting software?
>
>
>This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
>Security System.
>