[Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs

Fri Feb 8 10:28:41 EST 2008

At 09:20 AM 2/8/2008, Mark Allan wrote:
>Someone else has probably said this before, but 
>for better or ill, it sometimes seems that OCLC 
>is the Microsoft of the Library world.


Off topic note - indeed, the Family Man Librarian 
used this term earlier in 2007 - 
http://www.familymanlibrarian.com/archives/1276/


>Mark
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mark Allan
>Head, Reference Unit
>Porter Henderson Library
>Angelo State University
>ASU Station #11013
>San Angelo, Texas 76909-1013
>(325) 942-2511
>(325) 942-2198 (FAX)
>mark.allan at angelo.edu
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I love the smell of book dust in the morning.  It smells like...... knowledge.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Any opinions given above do not necessarily reflect those of the Porter
>Henderson Library, Angelo State University, the Texas Tech University
>System, the state of Texas...
>
>-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
>X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: 
>AgAAAJP4q0eErh3QmGdsb2JhbACQNQEBAQEBBgQGBwoWgReaNw
>X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,322,1199685600";
>    d="scan'208";a="163766429"
>X-Original-To: web4lib at lists.webjunction.org
>Delivered-To: web4lib at lists.webjunction.org
>Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:32:26 -0500
>From: "Tim Spalding" <tim at librarything.com>
>To: kgs at bluehighways.com
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs
>X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
>X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 CV:99.9000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282
>         C:98.6951 )
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2008 14:32:29.0996 (UTC)
>         FILETIME=[6F30B6C0:01C86A5F]
>X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
>Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
>X-BeenThere: web4lib at webjunction.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
>List-Id: "An electronic discussion for library-based World-Wide Web managers."
>         <web4lib.webjunction.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/web4lib>,
>         <mailto:web4lib-request at webjunction.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib>
>List-Post: <mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:web4lib-request at webjunction.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/web4lib>,
>         <mailto:web4lib-request at webjunction.org?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
>X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
>X-pstn-levels:     (S:99.90000/99.90000 CV:99.9000 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
>X-pstn-settings: 5 (2.0000:2.0000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 m c
>X-pstn-addresses: from <tim at librarything.com> [1884/82]
>X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/5742/Fri Feb  8 
>06:16:54 2008 on raiden.angelo.edu
>X-Virus-Status: Clean
>
> > 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 workinggoing
>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 terriblecurrently 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/
> >
>
>