Here’s a interesting talk about Boolean Operators by Librarin Ember Stevens at a non-library event.
Personally I found it pretty entertaining. In a day and age where some begin to doubt the need to teach boolean operators to undergraduates (see here), it is nice to see Boolean operators being explained in a entertaining way.
Have you done it better or seen it done better? How do you teach Boolean Operators?
“Libraries are metadata specialists and many librarians are metadata search specialists. Our training for users too often tries to turn them into mini-librarians too, as though being a specialist at finding things in the library is or should be a crowning achievement in life. So I really do think libraries are NOT experts at search. In fact, compared to Google I think we pretty much suck at it. I also think most librarians are specialists rather than experts at search. But what I don’t understand is why this seems to be such a challenge to librarians.”
This has shades of “Reference is dead” posts (here , here , here, here etc) and “Libraries need to give up the notion that question answering is a core service of the library“
“Libraries are metadata specialists and many librarians are metadata search specialists. Our training for users too often tries to turn them into mini-librarians too, as though being a specialist at finding things in the library is or should be a crowning achievement in life. So I really do think libraries are NOT experts at search. In fact, compared to Google I think we pretty much suck at it. I also think most librarians are specialists rather than experts at search. But what I don’t understand is why this seems to be such a challenge to librarians.”
This has shades of “Reference is dead” posts (here , here , here, here etc) and “Libraries need to give up the notion that question answering is a core service of the library“
The blogger argues basically because libraries in general purchase off the shelf packages from vendors, and libraries don’t do much user behavior research anyway, libraries suck at search.
I agree, in general our search systems even the most state of art libraries systems such as Web Scale Discovery tools, or even Primo’s ScholarRank (that take into account user characteristics) is probably less advanced compared to what Google is doing (leaving aside the fact that Google probably doesn’t customize for Academic use except for Google Scholar).
I am not sure though if I agree ” I also think most librarians are specialists rather than experts at search “.
If by expert you mean most librarians don’t know how to construct a search engine from ground up that will give good relevant researches? Okay, but then again outside of people in silicon valley probably few people are experts in this sense.
But I think it is fair to say most decent librarians are much better at finding information that the typical library user, and I don’t mean just finding academic type information or information that resides in the library only. Many spend hours every day answering all type of questions and inevitably build up skills that most people can’t match.
Towards the end the blogger talks about getting over our “obsession to be seen as search experts” and try to “go where they are” such as Google, Facebook or YouTube.
I think any good reference librarian worth the title knows how to use Google, Twitter search, Youtube or any other tool when appropriate to find the information needed and not just rely on library systems. Librarians are people too and we use whatever is most convenient.
Yes, Users shouldn’t become mini-librarians to get what they need and we should build systems that avoid the necessity, but what if currently such tools don’t exist?
Or are librarians using this as an excuse to teach advanced search techniques like Boolean Operators, use of thesauri, controlled vocabulary because we enjoy doing things in convoluted ways?
In case you wondering that was a serious question.
Aaron
The new issue of code4lib as a interesting article “Tools for Reducing and Managing Link Rot in LibGuides”.
From abstract
“This article describes tools for managing links in SpringShare’s LibGuides, a popular web platform for libraries. LibGuides includes a built-in link checker for only some links. Instructions are provided on how to run an automated link checker on all links within a single guide. Persistent Uniform Resource Locators (PURLs), hyperlinks which are maintained centrally and rarely break, are recommended for library electronic resources. Special consideration is given to the fact that many libraries using the LibGuides platform may not have easy access to in-house information technology (IT) personnel. A method is presented for implementing PURLs entirely within the LibGuides platform.”
The automated link checker suggested is Xenu Xenu Link Sleuth which is fairly well known though clear instructions are given.
The second part of the article using LibGuides “Redirect URL” feature coupled with “Friendly URL” feature is pretty clever though, allowing you to create a PURL using just Libguides.
Full article here
Aaron Tay
The public libraries in Singapore (under the National Library board) are holding a “Fill our Shelves, Suggest a Book!” contest from now until 1 July 2012.
They appear to be using the crowdsourcing platform Uservoice.com that allows users to sign-in and vote and comments on submissions by others.
As I write this I estimate there are about 1400 submissions (70 pages of submissions, 20 entries per page), of course quite a few are duplicates or suggestion for books the library already owns (e.g Hunger Games Series). The top recommended title right now is “The Dragon Book of Verse” and has over 50 votes.
Prizes will be give for Top 3 Recommenders (most number of suggestions submitted online) and Most popular title in each category (suggested title with most number of votes)
I am a academic librarian, so I was curious to see which academic libraries have done the same using this or similar platforms like Getsatisfaction.
The public libraries in Singapore (under the National Library board) are holding a “Fill our Shelves, Suggest a Book!” contest from now until 1 July 2012.
They appear to be using the crowdsourcing platform Uservoice.com that allows users to sign-in and vote and comments on submissions by others.
As I write this I estimate there are about 1400 submissions (70 pages of submissions, 20 entries per page), of course quite a few are duplicates or suggestion for books the library already owns (e.g Hunger Games Series). The top recommended title right now is “The Dragon Book of Verse” and has over 50 votes.
Prizes will be give for Top 3 Recommenders (most number of suggestions submitted online) and Most popular title in each category (suggested title with most number of votes)
I am a academic librarian, so I was curious to see which academic libraries have done the same using this or similar platforms like Getsatisfaction.
Currently, I found Harvard Library has a moderate success using it as a general feedback platform and way back in 2008, Cook Library used it to crowdsource ideas for redesign of the website.
To all LISnews Readers out there, when you need to systematically crowdsource for popular ideas or recommendations what do you use? A discussion forum? Or perhaps you rely on Facebook related systems such as a Facebook group?
Aaron Tay
We were expecting this after it was announced Google bought over Meebo, but here’s final confirmation.
Of interest to librarians, Meebo Messenger, Meebo Me, Meebo Mobile Apps will be shutting down July 11th, 2012. All embeded widgets will stop working and you can download all chat logs at https://www.meebo.com/chatlog-download by July 11, 2012.
For more details see http://www.meebo.com/support/article/175/
Meebo Bar will continue but I don’t think many libraries use it. Meebo Me widgets of course are used by many libraries to provide IM reference support.
Other free chat widget alternatives exist including AIM, Chatango, Plugoo , Gtalk etc.
EDIT : Others I see mentioned include Zoho Chat, ChatWing, Digsby , Spark
Depending on your needs you could get away with free accounts on Zopim, Olark etc though you probably will need to pay if you use the service heavily.
Library specific IM reference services exist of course include Libraryh3lp , OCLC’s QuestionPoint and SpringShare who offer the popular LibGuides is readying LibChat.
Or perhaps in the age of Skype, Google Hangouts, SMS ref, Twitter & Social Media, IM reference is no longer so necessary?
Are you impacted by the closure of Meebo? Let us know in the comments.
Aaron Tay
Recent Comments