I don't want to get into a discussion about whether Intute was "used or appreciated" but my interpretation would be that Steve's point about the need to "recognise the relations on the digital information axis between volume, speed and quality" is an important factor in understanding usage (or non-usage) in the context of other services (notably, but not exclusively, Google).

There are lessons from Intute that are particular to that service, and which are probably not all that relevant here - I suggest that naming is one of those :-). But our attitudes to quality ("every deposit much be mediated thru a librarian"), volume ("let's build a UK-only repository search engine") and speed (which I interpret to mean our increasing ability to machine-process information out of large quantities of data, as opposed to having to manually catalogue it) it seems to me are highly relevant to this list.

Andy

--
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
t: 01225 474319
m: 07989 476710
twitter: @andypowe11
blog: efoundations.typepad.com

www.eduserv.org.uk 

-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C Oppenheim
Sent: 02 September 2010 11:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lessons of Intute

The service was not USED enough and therefore could not justify its cost to JISC.  JISC should not be in the business of subsidising services which aren't being used or appreciated.   One might speculate as to why Intute (I agree a really silly name) was used so little, and that's where lessons can indeed be learned.

Charles
________________________________________
From: Repositories discussion list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fred Riley [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 September 2010 11:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lessons of Intute

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Hitchcock
> Sent: 01 September 2010 12:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Lessons of Intute


> We must be careful to avoid partial lessons, however. The USP of
Intute
> was 'quality' in its selection of online content across the academic
> disciplines, but ultimately the quest for quality was also its
> downfall:

Intute bit the dust because of funding cuts - end of story. JISC wielded
the axe and a 'soft' target like Intute was an easy victim. It didn't
fail for any other reason. The only 'lessons' to learn from its death
are that you need to cultivate supporters at a high level in order to
stay alive.

I've been in the e-learning 'game' since '92 and remember Intute's early
stages as HUMBUL, SOSIG, EEVL and so on, after which they merged into
the RDN which mutated into Intute (a dire name IMO). In those days such
services were essential to find useful resources on the fledgling
Internet, and now they would be essential to sift diamonds from the
dungheap, but with Intute's head in the basket there are now no quality
portals in existence for UKHE AFAIK. Thus staff and students can only
fall back on the accursed Google.

The killing of the service was crass vandalism IMO, throwing away over a
decade and half's experience and carefully-catalogued resources, but
then I long ago ceased to expect rationality and sense from the ageing
suits at JISC. It'll be sorely missed by all.


Fred Riley
Learning Technologist
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Physiotherapy, University of Nottingham
Vcard: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/sonet/about/fr_uon.vcf

>
> "Our unique selling point of human selection and generation of
> descriptions of Web sites was a costly model, and seemed somewhat at
> odds with the current trend for Web 2.0 technologies and free
> contribution on the Internet. The way forward was not clear, but
> developing a community-generated model seemed like the only way to
go."
> http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue64/joyce-et-al/
>
> Unfortunately it can be hard for those responsible for defining and
> implementing quality to trust others to adhere to the same standards:
> "But where does the librarian and the expert fit in all of this? Are
we
> grappling with new perceptions of trust and quality?" It seems that
> Intute could not unravel this issue of quality and trust of the wider
> contributor community. "The market research findings did, however,
> suggest that a quality-assurance process would be essential in order
to
> maintain trust in the service". It is not alone, but it is not hard to
> spot examples of massively popular Web services that found ways to
> trust and exploit community.
>
> The key to digital information services is volume and speed. If you
> have these then you have limitless opportunities to filter 'quality'.
> This is not to undermine quality, but to recognise that first we have
> to reengineer the information chain. Paul Ginsparg reengineered this
> chain in physics, but he saw early on that it would be necessary to
> rebuild the ivory towers:
>
> "It is clear, however, that the architecture of the information data
> highways of the future will somehow have to reimplement the protective
> physical and social isolation currently enjoyed by ivory towers and
> research laboratories."
> http://arxiv.org/macros/blurb.tex
>
> It was common at that time in 1994 to think that the content on the
> emerging Web was mostly rubbish and should be swept away to make space
> for quality assured content. A senior computer science professor said
> as much in IEEE Computer magazine, and as a naive new researcher I
> replied to say he was wrong and that speed changes everything.
>
> Clearly we have volume of content across the Web; only now are we
> beginning to see the effect of speed with realtime information
> services.
>
> If we are to salvage something from Intute, as seems to be the aim of
> the article, it must be to recognise the relations on the digital
> information axis between volume, speed and quality, not just the
> latter, even in the context of academic information services.
>
> Steve Hitchcock
> IAM Group, Building 32
> School of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit
> Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
> Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.