[Web4lib] Federated searching-general question re sub groupings

[Dan Lester]

   ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
   From: "Pons, Lisa \(ponslm\)" <PONSLM at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
   To: web4lib at webjunction.org
   Received: 5/9/2007 8:18:57 AM
   Subject: [Web4lib] Federated searching-general question re sub groupings


   > 
   >I have a general question- sorry this is so long!

   >We're a few steps away from implementing our new federated search tool.
   >It has been an interesting experience!

   >I have some questions regarding how this tool is seen across your
   >institutions- that is, what is the vision for it's use?

   >For example, we have created our tool with 21 subject categories. Now,
   >some of  our subject specialists want to create sub categories, and
   >choose their own databases to be searched , and put a search box on
   >their subject guide pages that will only search within their sub
   >category.

   >For example, on our main federated page, we have Earth and Environmental
   >Sciences which includes 10 databases to be searched. Now, the subject
   >specialist wants to create a sub-category for Geography and put the
   >search box on her subject guide page. The category may or may not have
   >the same databases as the main earth and environmental sciences main
   >category.

   >My question is, won't this confuse users?  Does this partially defeat
   >the purpose of a "federated search" by limiting the search to a very
   >slender set of resources? We are using Serials solutions central search,
   >which has Vivisimo to cluser results- shouldn't that be enough.

Why will the sub-categories confuse users any more than the main categories.  Let's say you have a set of databases for chemistry and another for biology.  Will each of them have ALL possible databases of interest to a biochemist?  Probably not.  Same for any other example, whether large categories or small.  

As long as the chem page also suggests searching biochem (and maybe biology and physics and "sciences" in general) I don't see the harm.   

   >Isn't this kind of library 1.0 thinking- that every tool must be
   >separate, and to find this, you must go there, to find that, you must go
   >somewhere else.

I don't care how meta you make your searching, there will always be somewhere else to go.

   >I need help here- if I am wrong I need to shut up about it with my
   >colleagues, if I am write, I need help from all the experts out there
   >explaining why it is wrong.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything. but I sure know that no clustering will do all things for all people.  

Try searching one of my standard searches, namely

drugs and sex and rock and roll

and then see what you get for all of the "related terms' in the cloud.....in my experience almost none of them are useful.

dan

Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions
dan at riverofdata.com
Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA