Comments for OPAChyderm http://opachyderm.wordpress.com Library Technology for the Thick Skinned Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:41:21 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Who are your users? by Things I Haven’t Had Time to Think About « Life as I Know It http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/library-stuff/#comment-16 Things I Haven’t Had Time to Think About « Life as I Know It Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:41:21 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/library-stuff/#comment-16 [...] Who are your users?- from OPAChyderm. I often bemoan the fact that it is difficult to figure out what are patrons want since we don’t have great data. In this post, the author points out that we need to know who are users are. From this post, “NOW tell me how much sense it makes to have the public services librarians be the sole voice for “the users” when making decisions. For most of us in university libraries, the vast majority of our patrons never make it in the door. If they do, it’s usually just to pick something up, or use a public computer or something. It’s not hard to do the math. If you look at how many people are on campus, how many librarians are on duty at any given time, how much time you spend on average with a patron…it’s pretty easy to see that a tiny, tiny percentage of patrons are being represented when we just ask the public service librarians what they think “the users” would like.” I agree that when any members of the library staff try to make decisions, they are basing those decisions based on contact with a tiny portion of the community. [...] [...] Who are your users?- from OPAChyderm. I often bemoan the fact that it is difficult to figure out what are patrons want since we don’t have great data. In this post, the author points out that we need to know who are users are. From this post, “NOW tell me how much sense it makes to have the public services librarians be the sole voice for “the users” when making decisions. For most of us in university libraries, the vast majority of our patrons never make it in the door. If they do, it’s usually just to pick something up, or use a public computer or something. It’s not hard to do the math. If you look at how many people are on campus, how many librarians are on duty at any given time, how much time you spend on average with a patron…it’s pretty easy to see that a tiny, tiny percentage of patrons are being represented when we just ask the public service librarians what they think “the users” would like.” I agree that when any members of the library staff try to make decisions, they are basing those decisions based on contact with a tiny portion of the community. [...]

]]> Comment on Of course we’re a business! by Jane http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/of-course-were-a-business/#comment-11 Jane Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:30:18 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/of-course-were-a-business/#comment-11 Well said. This dichotomy between the "people that give us money" and the "people that use our services" can cause a huge disconnect in marketing. And often does. Well said. This dichotomy between the “people that give us money” and the “people that use our services” can cause a huge disconnect in marketing. And often does.

]]> Comment on Why we’ll never be as good at search as Google by Scott http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/why-well-never-be-as-good-at-search-as-google/#comment-10 Scott Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:20:45 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/why-well-never-be-as-good-at-search-as-google/#comment-10 But there are some things we <i>could</i> do to improve relevance. As one example... certain publishers/imprints tend to publish certain types of materials (DAW books, as an obvious example, tends to publish speculative fiction.) Why not create a database that could adjust relevance weights based on such data? If someone is looking for material on buddhism, even if a DAW book had "Buddha" in the title it might be reasonable to weigh its relevance less than a book published by, say, Shamballah Press. It's not the same kind of relevance as page rank/popularity, but it could certainly bring some added value to searches. But there are some things we could do to improve relevance. As one example… certain publishers/imprints tend to publish certain types of materials (DAW books, as an obvious example, tends to publish speculative fiction.) Why not create a database that could adjust relevance weights based on such data? If someone is looking for material on buddhism, even if a DAW book had “Buddha” in the title it might be reasonable to weigh its relevance less than a book published by, say, Shamballah Press.

It’s not the same kind of relevance as page rank/popularity, but it could certainly bring some added value to searches.

]]> Comment on The cost of switching by OPAChyderm » Blog Archive » Of course we’re a business! http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-9 OPAChyderm » Blog Archive » Of course we’re a business! Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:35:56 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-9 [...] But don’t pretend for a moment that just because libraries are often unable/unwilling to vote with our feet that either our patrons or their representatives with the purse strings aren’t willing, even eager, to take the money and put it somewhere else. If you can’t justify your budget and your existence, don’t expect either to last forever. [...] [...] But don’t pretend for a moment that just because libraries are often unable/unwilling to vote with our feet that either our patrons or their representatives with the purse strings aren’t willing, even eager, to take the money and put it somewhere else. If you can’t justify your budget and your existence, don’t expect either to last forever. [...]

]]> Comment on Why we’ll never be as good at search as Google by Life as I Know It » Blog Archive » Some Unrelated Thoughts & Responses http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/why-well-never-be-as-good-at-search-as-google/#comment-8 Life as I Know It » Blog Archive » Some Unrelated Thoughts & Responses Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:04:36 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/why-well-never-be-as-good-at-search-as-google/#comment-8 [...] OPAChy reminds us in a post entitled Why we’ll never be as good at search as Google that the major problem in using Google’s page-ranking algorithms to compare with OPAC search ranking is that their page-ranking system is not necessarily applicable to our data. OPAChy writes that “PageRank presupposes that (a) there are lots of people “voting” by making links to given resources, and (b) the best resources are the most popular/linked-to.” The fact that the majority of our collection is not heavily used makes the use of relevancy ranking much more complicated. Just because an item hasn’t ever been used doesn’t mean that it isn’t highly relevant to a specific research topic. How does one convey this in terms of relevance? Obviously, academic, public and special libraries may have extremely different needs in terms of relevancy ranking. Since much of the recent criticism of OPACs relates to lack of relevancy ranking, I think we need to look closer at this issue in order to determine what we need for relevancy ranking. Our collections are very different from Google and even from Amazon and sometimes I think we forget this fact. Ultimately, I think this relates to the fact that Google provides users with many sources for a given topic, but that libraries are trying not to provide just sources, but the best sources available for a given topic. This is a critical distinction. [...] [...] OPAChy reminds us in a post entitled Why we’ll never be as good at search as Google that the major problem in using Google’s page-ranking algorithms to compare with OPAC search ranking is that their page-ranking system is not necessarily applicable to our data. OPAChy writes that “PageRank presupposes that (a) there are lots of people “voting” by making links to given resources, and (b) the best resources are the most popular/linked-to.” The fact that the majority of our collection is not heavily used makes the use of relevancy ranking much more complicated. Just because an item hasn’t ever been used doesn’t mean that it isn’t highly relevant to a specific research topic. How does one convey this in terms of relevance? Obviously, academic, public and special libraries may have extremely different needs in terms of relevancy ranking. Since much of the recent criticism of OPACs relates to lack of relevancy ranking, I think we need to look closer at this issue in order to determine what we need for relevancy ranking. Our collections are very different from Google and even from Amazon and sometimes I think we forget this fact. Ultimately, I think this relates to the fact that Google provides users with many sources for a given topic, but that libraries are trying not to provide just sources, but the best sources available for a given topic. This is a critical distinction. [...]

]]> Comment on Getting back in the saddle by Jane http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/06/getting-back-in-the-sadle/#comment-7 Jane Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:53:28 +0000 http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/07/06/getting-back-in-the-sadle/#comment-7 Well good cuz we need one more rambler out here in the ether. ;) Well good cuz we need one more rambler out here in the ether. ;)

]]> Comment on The cost of switching by dchud http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-5 dchud Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:12:00 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-5 What, you expect this work should be *easy*? It is hard. It's going to continue to be hard. The key thing is to choose where you want to end up, and to get started. What, you expect this work should be *easy*?

It is hard. It’s going to continue to be hard. The key thing is to choose where you want to end up, and to get started.

]]> Comment on The cost of switching by Nicole Engard http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-4 Nicole Engard Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:30:00 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-4 Ah! I understand - I was so confused - I have never heard that before. Now that I understand I can comment. While I know that it's difficult to walk away from the systems we have - and even more difficult to migrate to a new system - my suggestion has always been that we first develop the system we want. This system would include (as you suggest) a module to assist with the conversion from one system to another. Have you had the opportunity to hear Paul Miller talk on <a href="http://www.web2learning.net/archives/266" rel="nofollow">Libraries and Web 2.0</a>? I heard his talk at Computers in Libraries this year and he speaks about a similar idea - a core system that is the same across vendor lines - making it easy to make the change from one ILS to another. Ah! I understand – I was so confused – I have never heard that before.

Now that I understand I can comment. While I know that it’s difficult to walk away from the systems we have – and even more difficult to migrate to a new system – my suggestion has always been that we first develop the system we want. This system would include (as you suggest) a module to assist with the conversion from one system to another.

Have you had the opportunity to hear Paul Miller talk on Libraries and Web 2.0? I heard his talk at Computers in Libraries this year and he speaks about a similar idea – a core system that is the same across vendor lines – making it easy to make the change from one ILS to another.

]]> Comment on The cost of switching by OPAChy http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-3 OPAChy Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:35:13 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-3 To "vote with your feet" is to walk away from a situation/place/deal/vendor you don't like, instead of just complaining. It basically means to take your business elsewhere as a (most effective) way of expressing your discontent. If we're not willing to "vote with our feet" -- walk away, not renew the contract, hold the vendors accountable to our needs -- then they have no reason to change, because, let's face it, they've been listening to us complain for years and it's got us almost nowhere. To “vote with your feet” is to walk away from a situation/place/deal/vendor you don’t like, instead of just complaining. It basically means to take your business elsewhere as a (most effective) way of expressing your discontent. If we’re not willing to “vote with our feet” — walk away, not renew the contract, hold the vendors accountable to our needs — then they have no reason to change, because, let’s face it, they’ve been listening to us complain for years and it’s got us almost nowhere.

]]> Comment on The cost of switching by Nicole Engard http://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-2 Nicole Engard Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:24:18 +0000 https://opachyderm.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/the-cost-of-switching/#comment-2 I'm not sure I understand what you're quoting me as saying - what does "vote with out feet" mean? I’m not sure I understand what you’re quoting me as saying – what does “vote with out feet” mean?

]]>