[Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs

[Chris Strauber]

I think Tim is speaking truth on functionality. I also think the structural
problem with OCLC (that not every library can afford to play) is a big deal.
The little public library I used to work at was invisible to Worldcat, thus
(at least theoretically) driving traffic to our larger neighboring systems.
Of course, looking at my current employer's Open Worldcat stats, it probably
wasn't that much traffic.

Chris Strauber
Wofford College

On Feb 8, 2008 9:32 AM, Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com> wrote:

> > Functionally, what is wrong with the WorldCat model?
>
>
> Think about it from a non-library perspective. By and large, the OCLC
> "model" isn't applied to other things we find on the web, is it? When we
> want to find out about pizzas in our town, do we type in the name of the
> pizza we want, get the Online Computer Pizza Cooperative website fifth in
> our results, click on it, type in our zip code and proceed to be told by
> the
> OCPC whether our pizza is to be found locally, and where?
>
>
> This "intermediated" model, where someone controls access to the dark web,
> does happen, but when?
>
> 1. When the data changes very frequently (Orbitz)
> 2. When a single sign-on significantly reduces complexity (Orbitz)
> 3. When privacy is an issue (Match.com)
> 4. When a computer can't possible represent every permutation of what you
> want to see (Google Maps)
>
>
> Now, what are the drawbacks of the OCPC/OCLC approach?
>
> 1. It isn't "normal." Most of the web doesn't work this way, so it sets
> libraries apart.
>
> 2. It requires "teaching." Users need to learn a new way of working—going
> through a special library website to get to information about books. It's
> the same pattern again. Why do libraries plan their web engagement around
> the idea that everything would be great if the users would learn a new way
> of doing something?
>
> 3. It presumes intent. What if the user isn't sure whether they want to
> get
> the book or not? Google allows you to flip around easily between options.
> There's no commitment. With the OCLC model, the users need to go through
> various steps before they see something interesting to them.
>
>
> 4. Single point of excellence. I know you told me to "ignore other
> issues,"
> but the cold fact is that OCLC hasn't shown much speed or sagacity in it's
> approach to the web. It's traffic is terrible—currently 4% of the
> nytimes.com. It's been failing libraries for years. It's structure,
> mission,
> profit model and even its *location* are misaligned with innovation. Why
> is
> this going to change?
>
> 5. Single point of service. If patrons find out about your books on some
> external service, why maintain your own system? Why maintain your own tech
> people? Why maintain your own identity, even?
>
>
> 6. Single point of control. Don't like the way OCLC displays your items?
> Stuff it. Want to try something cool? Quit your job because your library
> is
> no longer in control.
>
>
> Tim
>
> On 2/8/08, K.G. Schneider <kgs at bluehighways.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Type "Omnivore's Dilemma, Portland Public Library" into Google and you
> > get
> > > nothing useful. If Google knew of a page that had both the book AND my
> > > public library, they would come up on top, I'm sure of it. They don't
> > > because my library isn't on the web. Few libraries are.
> >
> > Functionally, what is wrong with the WorldCat model? Set aside other
> > issues
> > about OCLC. Now let's assume OCLC wielded enough clout that WorldCat
> > entries
> > appeared near the top of results for any book search. At that point the
> > ZIP
> > code locator (or I think also IP authentication in some cases) brings
> the
> > user to the book+library-catalog combo (type five numbers, press Enter).
> >
> > I'm aware that WorldCat results currently don't appear high up enough to
> > matter (despite some hifalutin arguments about capturing users in their
> > workflow, yada yada). But what if they did? Why wouldn't that be good
> > enough
> > to lead the user to the book in his or her library?
> >
> > I am inclined to think this is not a matter of relevance ranking or
> > convoluted mystery-meat algorithms as it is a matter of focus.
> >
> > Karen G. Schneider
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>