[Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs

[Tim Spalding]

First, let me apologize for the risk of offense. I know that libraries
want to be on the web in some way.

I'll rephrase by saying I think many understand what the web is: If
you can't link to something and you can't find it in Google, it's not
fully part of the web.

Pace Karen, however the web changes over time, it's about
connection—connection between stuff and between people. The first part
found its expression at Google nine years ago; has yet to sink into
the library world. Nor have libraries embraced connecting people,
except in the most superficial ways. Not surprisingly, that can't
always be done in isolation, but builds upon other connections.

For example, if I want to talk about a book on my blog, I link to
LibraryThing or Amazon, never a library. I do this because the library
link won't live long enough for my blog readers to visit it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe in five years Google will eagerly partner with
OCLC to give library books special treatment at the top of their
results.

Meanwhile, it's just *not that hard* to make static pages for your
catalog and stick them somewhere Google can see them.

I'm sorry this topic has made me hot. At this point, I'll sign
off—I've spoken too much anyway—and go *make* the solution I'm talking
about. Fortunately, I won't need to ask OCLC's permission to do it.

Tim

On 2/8/08, K.G. Schneider <kgs at freerangelibrarian.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> -----
>
> This is the least compelling of Tim's arguments for me. The web works a lot
> of different ways, and it will keep evolving. Right now if I want to find
> movies in Tallahassee, I go to Google and type
>
> Movies Tallahassee
>
> And by golly, I get what I want. I don't get the individual theater pages, I
> get a list of movies and locations.
>
> That's just to suggest that there are many ways to skin an onion. What's
> "normal" has only been "normal" for less than ten years, really, and will
> seem quaint in another decade.
>
> As for "we have local systems so we keep tech people employed," I think by
> now most libraries would agree that we could move most ILS activities to a
> SaaS (if the SaaS did what we wanted, of course, which is the hitch) and the
> "tech" people would continue to be gainfully employed.
>
> Most of the Web does NOT work like most ILS software. That's the major sad
> suckitudinal fact.
>
> I'm not writing an apologia for OCLC, and anyone who follows my writing
> knows I have plenty to say about this organization. But "most of the Web
> doesn't work this way" doesn't go that far with me. If it works, and people
> use it, then I'm satisfied. If WorldCat records were the second or third
> hit, I don't see the problem.
>
> Karen G. Schneider
>
>



-- 
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding