[Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs

[Chris Barr]

We're working on that expired-link problem too:

http://vufind.org/demo/Record/695686

In fact we consider permanent links a major feature of VuFind.

There's no reason now that a Google Site map can't be created for the
entire catalog. Or browse links that lead to everything...

--chris



Tim Spalding wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>