[Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs

[Walker, David]

I'm not sure this is a particularly apt analogy, Tim.
 
A lot of the products and services we buy come from large corporations.  My local Dominos pizza and local Sears outlet don't have their own websites.  They have national, corporate websites that do, in fact, serve as intermediaries to the products that are available locally.
 
I also think we should be careful here in talking about 'libraries' and 'library users' in very broad terms.  Academic and public library users often have very different behaviors and goals, and I think there are definitely more effective ways of reaching the former than via placement on Google searches.

 
> 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.
 
At the Code4Lib conference later this month, I'm going to be demoing a system we are developing here that uses the WorldCat API, which is part of OCLC's new web services.  I'd be curious to see if you still hold this above opinion after seeing that.
 
--Dave
 
-------------------
David Walker
Library Web Services Manager
California State University
http://xerxes.calstate.edu

________________________________

From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of Tim Spalding
Sent: Fri 2/8/2008 6:32 AM
To: kgs at bluehighways.com
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs



> 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/