Yeah, I'm looking at you, Single Search Box.

I'm torn about developments in search functionality these days.

Yes, the one-search-box interface is here to stay and if libraries and information resource developers don't get on the band-wagon, we will all miss the boat.  Users want simplicity and nothing's simpler than one box you can type whatever you want into and results and thrown back at you.  But, given current technology, the single search box can NOT provide better results than a more functional interface with more options.  Searching is about communication:  the user is trying to tell the system what he/she wants and the system responds with what it thinks is appropriate.  Too little information and the system either doesn't know what to do or simply guesses.  And, too often, too little information means the user is assuming a whole bunch of information.  The system doesn't (or more accurately, the system designers don't) necessarily have those same assumptions.

One objection to this might be, "But what are 'good' or 'bad' results? Can you make that kind of judgment?  Aren't all results either useful or not?  And isn't it just the user that must decide this in the end?"  This is all valid.  Usefulness IS the value in results.  It's what makes them good or bad.  This is not a case of moral value but utility of the results.  And yes of course it's the user that must decide in the end but, by definition, the user cannot perfectly judge results.  They're searching because they don't have the answer.  Hopefully, while putting pieces together, they can make a more knowledgeable assessment of the results but in some cases the user may just be judging them on whether they LOOK like their good.  So there are limits to how much the user is able to be the final judge.  But there must be a judge otherwise what are we doing by providing search results (or any kind of library resources for that matter)?  There must be some kind of assumption that results can be objectively determined as useful or not based on user input otherwise there's no point in developing a computer system to take such input and spit out results.

The other objection is that the library is not here to make things purposely difficult.  If there is an easier way of doing something, why shouldn't we provide it?  Those against the single search box may describe providing one as 'pandering' but aren't all efforts to make things easier a kind of pandering?  Where's the line beyond which such developments become a negative thing?  And again, this is basically true.  We should be making things easier.  Particularly in this age where putting up barriers may serve only to scare users off.  But there are plenty of cases where simply giving the users what they want, even giving your paying customers what they want is inappropriate.  In education, students consciously want a perfect grade.  We may suppose that what they want in the end is an effective education but if you gave every student the choice between a free A+ and an well-earned B-, the vast majority would choose the former.  I have no doubt about this.  Wouldn't you?  Especially in this increasingly competitive education and job market.  But educators do not simply hand over perfect grades despite this desire because that would defeat the purpose of teaching.  On a similar note, we cannot simply hand over free search results when it's clear that this is not the best way of searching.  This results in more garbage and less quality and, in my opinion, leads either to a misuse and misunderstanding of the information found, or more work on the part of the patron.

What single searching should do when used properly is simply backload the work farther down the line, which may work better in the long run (i.e. the novice user gets an idea of the info available early on which can then inform the search strategy) but unfortunately gives the impression that what pops up first at the top is what they were looking for all along.  A savvy user should recognize that more work is necessary but wouldn't the savvy user be fine with a more advanced search interface to begin with? If they know enough to recognize good and bad results, they should know enough to aim toward good results in the beginning.

I guess my point is that single search box interfaces are necessary but imperfect as we now use them.  Perhaps this is not really an argument with anyone serious about the topic at all.

"Directory of Open Access Books" (DOAB) review

From the press release for the launch of DOAB, the "Directory of Open Access Books" or "DOAB" is:

a discovery service for peer reviewed books published under an Open Access license. DOAB provides a searchable index to the information about these books, with links to the full texts of the publications at the publisher’s website or repository. 

CONTENT

The site claims to contain "854 academic peer-reviewed books" as of April 26, 2012 but my check found only 841 (by counting the number of titles under each letter in the alphabetical browse by title list).  Perhaps I missed a number or two when adding?  Perhaps there are titles not listed in that browse by list?  Not sure.  Regardless, although this is a relatively small number for a useful collection of ebooks, the Open Access (OA) book 'industry' (if you can call it that) is still new and the resource was only launched two weeks ago so the low number is understandable.

Looking through the browse by publisher list, there are some recognizable publishers (e.g. Taylor & Francis) plus several university presses (e.g. University of Michigan Press).  And there's already a pretty wide subject coverage (pure and applied sciences, arts and humanities, social sciences, etc.).

NAVIGATION

As is common with new resources now, DOAB has a very simple navigation and interface.  The pages are very clean, being mostly white with really no clutter.  There's a Google-like single keyword-search box on the front page (which seems to search all fields except "pages").  This search does not auto-wildcard meaning that it will not find the text string entered as a part of the meta-data.  For example, it did not find a book with "Donation" in the title when searching "donati".  It also includes an advanced search which allow the combination of search boxes with a Boolean connector searching specific fields, plus date range specification.

Some search related odds and ends:

• Not all entries have subject headings which is odd.  The database does include cover images for the books, which is nice (and probably almost mandatory for today's users).
• Search results display include faceted search functionality on the right.
• Subjects (at least in the browse by subject list) are quite limited and rather high level.  This ok with only 800-900 titles but it will be increasingly painful as the directory grows.
• No author browse function.
• Not a target in the SFX Link Resolver yet.  (This is understandable.)

CONCLUSION

This is a good showing for such a new resource.  And it's certainly good for the OA book movement which needs more promotion and supporting resources.  This is made by the makers of the "Directory of Open Access Journals" (or DOAJ) which has done well so far.  Many libraries appreciate the DOAJ data and add the "collection" to their list of accessible ejournals.  Books are a different kettle of fish than journals but it's probably safe to assume a possible similar trajectory for DOAB.  IMHO, I would add this to a small-medium sized library's "collection" of eresources.

Just Google It

Just like all librarians, I'm on the fence about Google and other search engines. Very useful - irreplaceable in some situations - but not always used appropriately and certainly not understood well enough to properly judge appropriate use.

I just came across another specific disadvantage of the "just google it" phenomenon. People in institutions with large websites seems to think that it's ok not to organize their site well since you can just site-Google what you want anyway. Even those who are invested in a specific area of an institution think it's just fine to have the primary (pronounced "easiest") access to their pages be through the Google search engine limited to the site's pages.

By itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It DOES provide quick and easy access to what users want without having to find their way through a long and complicated site structure, particularly for complex issues that aren't important enough to warrant front page real estate.

The problem is that it relieves us of the job of having to think about our desired information goal on a broader level. But is this a problem? Thinking is hard. It takes effort. And when we want information yesterday, we don't want to waste time thinking about something only tangentially related to our want/need. Having to think about, say, what KIND of thing is the thing we want to find, or WHY would the institution be providing this information and therefore where would they have made it available, is complicated and requires effort. But I think it's important in almost all situations.

Actually, I think there are only two situations: either it's easy to do this since the answer is obvious, or it's not so obvious and therefore is going to take some time and energy to figure out. The first case is not a problem. Finding information about "Dogs" should be in a book about "Animals" or in the "D" section or in the area related to "Pets". No problem. Find that section/chapter/link/section and go there. Problem solved. However, what about something like "Student Initiatives"? What is that exactly? The searcher themselves may not understand what exactly they are looking for. In fact, that may be WHY they're looking for information in the first place, because they don't know what that phrase really means. And without that information how will they be able to find what they are looking for if (a) the site is not using that phrase exactly, or (b) the phrase is being used in two or more different ways? Spending some time before searching to think about what the topic being searched for actually means, or even just COULD mean, would ensure that the searcher will be able to find the information faster and, when finding it, more quickly identify it as the information being searched for. Mere "phrase recognition" can lead to dead ends or mistakes.

Of course, all this relies on the pile o' information being searched is well organized in the first place, which, I guess, is the intitial stumbling block. This too is hard work and requires a lot of time and effort. This is certainly why it doesn't always get done in anything but those "piles" for which information searching is the primary purpose of the pile (e.g. journal article indexes). Web sites are not usually primarily about find each piece of information they contain. They are usually marketing tools to some degree. Communication of pieces of information chosen by the owners is the focus. But if the owners of this information want it all to be found, not just the pieces they want, then IMHO then need to ensure more finding tools that Google Site Search.

My 2.0 cents.

Comparing Googles to oranges.

Being a librarian, I often hear comments like, "Why doesn't this (insert information searching tool here) work like Google?" I recently came up with a snappy but sarcastic retort to this: "Because Google doesn't work."

Although the Google interface (or rather the single-box keyword-searching text box that has become synonymous with Google) is very attractive in it's simplicity, users pay a price for that simplicity. For anything beyond the straightforward where's-the-website-for-that-institution-that-I-know-the-name-of, searching by keyword, even with a fancy ranking system, is fraught with dangers.

Ok, maybe not dangers, but looking at a search tool that's designed to help you perform complex and comprehensive searches through academic publications and then comparing it to a search engine to find the web page you want is like comparing apples to oranges. No it's worse than that... it's like comparing apples to the moon! Article indexes/databases like MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, etc and their interfaces (sorry, I'm a health sciences librarian so those are the resources I know) are complicated for a reason. Databases provide a wealth of somewhat standardized pieces of information that can be used easily to find the record (or article) that you want. Creating an interface that doesn't take advantage of that organization of data would be foolish.

Google on the other hand has to contend with trying to reign in the chaos that is contained in billions of web pages that don't have any real amount of standardization. The only thing that they all have in common is that they have text. That's all Google et al have to work with. And they've done a great job, don't get me wrong. But you wouldn't want a tool like that searching through journal articles primarily. Google tries to glean what a web page is about by looking at the frequency and location of words and matching them with submitted search terms. In the databases I mentioned above, experts have read the articles and "tagged" them with subject terms that describe in pretty good detail what they are about. Guessing at that point would be foolish. The problem is that the searcher then has to do a little bit of work to figure out what terms describe what they really want. But the extra work pays off in better results.

So don't wish for a more Google-like interface. Wish for a bit of extra time to do a better search.

Some pros and hows of adding Wikipedia articles to the catalog

I already commented on the potential problems of adding Wikipedia articles to a library's catalog in the Distant Librarian blog entry that brought up the subject for me here, so I won't go over them again. What I want to do here is consider the benefits of doing so and doing it in the best way possible.

One benefit is that since an assumed good number of users see them as valuable and worthy of usage already, we can somewhat "ride the wave" of Wikipedia's success. Having their content linked to in our collection might say to a good portion of our patrons that, "Yes, we are hip and we can help you get to the resources we know you want." That may not sound like the best reason, but survival of an institution that most of us believe is worth saving may also be worth pandering a little to ensure continued appreciation. I'm not sure what the long term results of such pandering might be so this is probably not a sufficient reason but it does have a certain amount of short-term appeal at least.

Another benefit is that actually, many Wikipedia articles are valuable and include content not included in other resources to a sufficiently similar extent if at all. A venue where anyone anytime can add topics and start filling them up with content will always include more same-level topics than one that must pay authors to develop content. This is saying nothing about the quality of such content but if we assume some bare minimum level of quality that is sufficiently higher than neutral, or worse yet, outright falsehoods, then something is better than nothing. There will be somewhat informative articles in Wikipedia on topics that a for-fee or author-restricted resource will be able to provide. The benefit to a library catalog is that it can be filled with some content not available elsewhere.

A third benefit is that it is free, at least in terms of direct cost. Libraries do not typically have infinite budgets for collections and anytime a minimally worthy resource can be added to the collection for not outlay of money, it must be considered. Of course, the disadvantage of online resources such as Wikipedia articles is that they don't come with handy pre-made MARC records, requiring a certain amount of expertise and effort on the part of those who want them added.

Given these three benefits, how can the addition of at least some Wikipedia articles (and perhaps other similar online resources) be made easier particularly for those libraries with little time or smaller staff complements. First of all, they need to be linked to at the specific version level. This solves the issue of quality control that we tend to pride ourselves on in our collection (as mentioned in the comment mentioned above). Also, when a library/librarian has decided that a specific article version is worthy of addition, the metadata created needs to be shared, made available to other libraries considering it in the future. As a profession we tend to share well so let's use our large numbers to solve our general lack-of-local-resources problem. Finally, if we go down this path, we should go all the way down the path: if we're adding Wikipedia articles to the collection, advertise that we're doing so. One of the big problems with the library catalog as a tool is that users don't know what's in there. We need to tell them. It needs to be made clear all the kinds of resources are included in the collection and why. Not all at once though. One at a time.

Still not sure it's a good idea... May get too messy. But it seems to have a few useful positive side effects and is doable at least on a small scale. What do you think?

Systematic reviews, Lord of the Rings, headaches and The Agenda...

Long simple day at work today. I received an email requesting advice/help with a search yesterday that was described as being for a systematic review. Now, in medicine, systematic reviews are the cream of the crop in terms of documentation/publication. They take a lot of research (in the literature), a lot of care, a great deal of analysis, are incredibly practical and focused, and are meant to be regularly and eternally updated. I thought, "Yes! I'm going to really do a good job on this and be part of something really useful!" I worked all day preparing the search, checking definitions, finding subject headings and synonyms to ensure that the search would be comprehensive, and I wrote back to the requester mid-stride to make sure they were aware of what I was doing and what they could expect. Also, for stats purposes I wanted to know whether they were faculty or professional health care staff... Near the end of the day I get a response saying that they are a student actually working on an assignment that they will be handing in (the first part of, anyway) to US!!! All that work for someone I can't do the work for! Gaaahhhh!!! Well, hopefully their supervisor (this person is on a work assignment outside of the school doing this research) is the one doing the systematic review so that I can at least give the work to someone. Maybe. Who knows. At least it was a good experience and the next time a request like that comes in I have learned a few tricks and tips to help me do an even better job!

It's funny though. This really came at an appropriate time. I have been thinking lately about how I (and other librarians) really should do "more work" helping our users. Not that librarians don't already do a lot of work, or that we have loads of extra time on our hands. I just feel as though we could (and should) be doing more impressive work for our users. For example, not many libraries do literature searches for their patrons. Many, if they do, charge for the service. Bracken Library here at Queen's University does this for staff and faculty and health care professionals for free (at least on an individual level). But even though these are time consuming, difficult, and usually much better than the user could have done alone, sometimes I feel as though we're still not doing enough. I discussed this with a colleague of mine and I'm not as confident in this opinion as I was... I'm not quite sure what exactly we could do more, given our time and education restraints, but I feel as though we are not quite as impressive as I know we could be. Or perhaps I'm just feeling as though I could do more and wish I had the opportunity. I don't know.

On a completely unrelated note, I've been playing the free beta version of Lord of the Rings Online (LOTRO) for the past week or so. It's not bad. World of Warcraft (WoW) is still my favourite but I can definitely see how someone could like LOTRO more. The graphics (of the environment) are much more impressive (flowing grass, more realistic animal behavior, etc), the quests and activities, etc. are much more involved, serious and have many more layers than WoW. But there're still some things that are keeping me in WoW: the interface graphics are much nicer and clearer, the world seems much bigger and full of more possibilities, and there are vastly more people using it making the experience a little more varied in terms of interactions and socialization. They both have jerks and morons who cheat, swear, hate, disturb others, or don't play "fair" although I'm surprised at the numbers of these players who have swarmed into LOTRO already. I'll play it until I have to pay, and then move on to another free demo/trial edition: Final Fantasy, Matrix Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Trek Online (whenever that comes out), etc.

My daughter is suffering from a bad headache right now. Well, actually she's probably asleep now but she was feeling pretty bad before she went to bed a while ago. Aren't headaches about the worst kind of pain you can imagine? It hurts sometimes just to think, and try not thinking for a while! Go on, try it. LOL Unfortunately, migraines seem to be common on both my side of the family and my wife's.

And I just finished watching my current favourite show on TV now: TVO's "The Agenda with Steve Paikin". Not for the faint of heart, or rather, mind. A political show, but one that deals with issues calmly, rationally, and intelligently. Today's show discussed France's upcoming presidential election, and the recent provincial vote in Quebec. One of the leading candidates in France (in second place no less) is a woman, who, if elected, would be the first female president in France's history. It always dismays and confuses me why, in this day and age why (US, Canadian, European, etc.) political leaders are still always white and male. Are voters the last to be able to see past our prejudices? And an interesting last note in the French election portion of the show was some comments about the animosity France has for the States, talking about how France sees itself as having once what America has now, and that it represents for France both their worst fears and their best dreams for their future. At the end of the discussion about Quebec politics, one of the "panelists" spoke of how Quebecers tend to vote for and respect intellectual candidates more than Ontarians (gawd, what a mouthful). I think this is a trend throughout Western society (and probably the whole world), that we seem to be getting smarter on average and yet we still despise or at least avoid intelligence. Quebec may be able to fend this bad habit off a bit more, thanks to a language barrier between them and us english-speaking troglodytes but we'll bring them over to the dark side yet! LOL Finally, at the end of the show, Steve spoke with one of the producers of the show, which totally cracked me up. Following on the heals of the anti-intellectualism comment, it was brought up that the producer had (and has) spoken to guests on the show about words they cannot use: "narcissism" and "ontological" being two examples of words that "don't travel well". Writing this down now makes me wonder why I totally cracked up at this at the time! LOL

Waking up to everything...

Max continues to get up several time during the night and managed to, for the past two mornings, end up in bed with us without knowing until it was too late. I swear he's now hardwired to get up and stumble over (with incredibly ninja stealthing abilities) to our room.

Listening to Pink Floyd's "Coming Back to Life". I remember listening to this in university, alone in my dorm room. It starts out as a very "pity me", "how could you" kind of song but then turns into "Damn straight, screw you, I'm gonna make it" kind of song.

Did a HUGE literature search for a faculty member/resident/grad student (not sure really... it's very complicated... LOL) yesterday on zinc. Yes zinc. That's pretty much all I had to go on. Rather broad don't you think. Just RCTs and reviews of course, but still. Now you're jealous of my fantabulous job, aren't you?

The fire alarm went off yesterday... Thank GAWD it was a pretty nice day, weather-wise.

Found out that a co-worker of mine is pregnant. Congratulations and good luck and all that, yeah, yeah... go on maternity leave already so I can stay at Bracken a little longer please!!! LOL

Watched a couple webcast/webinars today. One on the databases Expanded Academic ASAP and Academic OneFile (didn't learn much new, already played around with them a few weeks ago), but the other one was about getting new knowledge to clinicians more and faster (see a summary of the session). We thought, "Hey, that sounds like libraries should and would be involved in that."  Nope. He didn't really put librarianship in too flattering a light. In fact, he put us in a column of other "ways for doctors to stay current that DON'T work". Thanks, Bri.

But in a way I agree with him. We don't do enough. We do a lot of work, and, what we do, I think we do well. But when it comes to pushing the information out to the users, changing people's minds about the value of good research practices, helping answer the questions that people have and may not even know that they have, we're not pushing hard enough. Most of the time we're not pushing at all. We need to be proactive, to be out there in people's faces, showing them that we exist, that we are valuable, and that we want to help. We can't always wait for them to come to us. That may sound odd from a librarian, but we need to be "loud and proud" and prove out worth. But it will take more work and smarter work for us to do it. But we can. I hope we will.