Federated searching has often been billed by vendors as the Holy Grail in the age of Google. Perhaps this has raised our collective professional expectations of federated search products to an unreasonably high level, because its reception among reference and instruction librarians can be described as lukewarm at best. In this pool of dissatisfied librarians, I include my former reference and instruction librarian self, my esteemed reference and instruction colleagues at the Auraria Library, and, more scientifically, the respondents of a survey conducted by Lynn Lampert and Katherine Dabbour at California State University Northridge.1 The short answer for the lukewarm reception is that expectations of federated searching are built on expectations of the products that it is designed to federate. The longer answer to this question envelops these technical issues and also the dissonance between what federated searching purports to do and the pedagogical roles of reference and instruction staff in the library.
While much has changed in the realm of federated searching in recent years, there are still a handful of technical shortcomings that are hard to swallow. Note that the following discussion does not target any specific products here; my personal experiences with products and customer support with WebFeat (2003) and Serials Solutions 360 Search (2007) were both very positive, in spite of my initial distaste for federated searching generally. The shortcomings discussed here—whether real or perceived—are more or less endemic to the product regardless of the brand at this time. These include lack of features, inability to search all databases, speed, and unmet performance expectations.
Date and peer review filters are now standard on most online databases, and these features have, logically, become embedded in reference and instruction routines. While Serials Solutions’ 360 Search and other products are technically capable in and of themselves of applying these limits to searches, limitations in the metadata that database vendors can currently provide render date and peer-reviewed filters useless. Serials Solutions’ 360 Search currently supports peer-reviewed filtering, but technical support recommends avoiding it because filtering a list of results for peer-reviewed articles usually results in zero results. Further, users may include a single specific year in their search terms; however, searching a range of dates is not yet supported for the same reason that the peer-reviewed filter does not work. (To reiterate, these are not flaws in the 360 Search product itself but conditions of the current technology.)
Secondly, in spite of what product literature may claim, no federated searching product can—or in some cases, should—currently search every online resource. Again, this is not necessarily a reflection on the quality of the search product itself. Three common reasons that a database may be excluded from a federated search include: vendor prohibition, no existing “translator” for the product, or a limited number of concurrent users for a resource.
First, notable holdouts among vendors who do not permit their clients to federate some or all of their products include Hoover’s, InfoUSA, and content giant LexisNexis. Currently, libraries may offer only LexisNexis Academic through a federated interface. Libraries sold on the concept of federated search have expressed their dismay about exclusion to holdout vendors, and they have also considered looking for equivalent content in other online resources that will allow inclusion.
Secondly, the nature of the electronic resources market creates a demand for constant creation by federated search vendors of the “translators” that allow a resource to be processed in federated search. Therefore, while it may be technologically possible for the federated search product to work with a given resource, if the vendor has not developed a translator yet, that resource will be effectively wait-listed. If the resource is local or highly specialized, the client library may have to wait until more client libraries request inclusion of a resource to increase the demand for the translator. In the case of the Auraria Library, this meant exclusion of Prospector, the unified catalog for the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries consortium, which is used heavily for interlibrary loan.
Third, technical support generally recommends that resources for which a library has a limited number of concurrent users be excluded from federated searching. If a subscription to a resource with limited concurrent users is included, it is unlikely that any user would ever be able to successfully access the product. “Use” of the database in this context begins not when a user clicks a link to an item in one of these resources, but when the resource is included in a federated search. In some cases, changing the subscription to the electronic resource to unlimited use may be an option; however, for other resources, this is prohibitively expensive. Some favorite high-quality resources of reference and instruction staff fall into this third category, as purchasing a resource with a low number of concurrent users may be a factor in licensing an expensive product at all.
Deciding how to handle all of the orphaned resources created by vendor exclusion, lack of an existing translator, or a limited number of concurrent users in a customized implementation of a federated search product can be quite difficult. Links to the excluded resources’ native interfaces can be included in an A-Z list within the federated environment or on appropriate subject guides or other pertinent web pages, but even so, they may be easily overlooked by patrons seeking a quicker—that is to say, federated—method of searching, such as selecting a bundle of resources grouped around a subject area, e.g., “Art & Architecture.” From a reference and instruction perspective, it can be difficult to market and encourage use of a new search feature that omits some of the best and most recommended resources.
A further issue is search speed. With the explosion in the number of online resources made available in recent years, many libraries have gradually outgrown their network infrastructure, and federated searching can, in a worst-case scenario, push network capabilities to the breaking point because of the increase in traffic it can cause. However, even in a healthy network environment, the simple fact that a federated search product is doing more work than a search in a database’s native interface also accounts for this extended search time. Waiting a minute or more for a search to grind away can create an awkward lull at the reference desk or in front of an information literacy session, which does little to instill confidence in the minds of the library staff and patrons.
Finally, there are behaviors with federated search products that are simply unexpected. A particular use of the software that sounds brilliant in theory sometimes does not prove effective in practice. For example, reference and instruction staff at Auraria were asked to draw up a list of ten or so resources that would be included in a general-focus “Quick Search” box on the Library’s home page. Eleven databases plus the library catalog were chosen for inclusion, and staff were excited by the potential of offering results to general queries from these resources from a search box on the home page. However, in practice, the result was disappointing. The results returned from the fastest resource were the results on top of the pile, and of the twelve resources chosen, PsycINFO routinely returned results first. Reference and instruction staff rightly felt that this skewed the results for a general query; therefore, the fate of this feature is under discussion. Perhaps expectations such as this are a bit unfair given the nature of the beast; however, anyone considering investigating federated searching would do well to manage expectations with library staff ahead of time by describing the above issues.
While these current technical shortcomings are a large part of the dissatisfaction in the reference and instruction department, there are philosophical and pedagogical issues as well. One of the primary concerns of reference and instruction staff is that federated searching dumbs down the research process, which is, of course, antithetical to the very existence of reference and instruction. All of the controlled vocabulary and carefully constructed indexes behind online resources are tossed out the window; the results returned from a certain resource via the federated interface may be of a lesser quality than those returned from a search in that resource’s native interface. In the words of a colleague, federated searching “removes many kinds of academic research drills and routines one or more steps from reality.”
Further, federated searching products bring no content into either the physical or virtual library. Reference and instruction librarians quite understandably crave content with which to fulfill their reference and instruction duties. With product price tags in the tens of thousands and budgets shriveling, buying a tool that does not stand up to staff expectations and brings no more content into the library seems foolish. Contrariwise, consider that libraries spend tens of thousands of dollars on online resources that have terribly unfriendly user interfaces, even for information professionals, yet are the sole online provider for crucial resources.
Finally, in terms of personal use—whether for conducting one’s own research or while assisting patrons—using federated searching feels a bit like putting the training wheels back onto the bicycle. Reference librarians know or can surmise which resources will likely yield good results for a given query, and they proceed to what they know are “the usual suspects” in the lineup of electronic resources. Because of this expertise, it is difficult to use federated searching instinctively in reference and instruction. While I am now a systems librarian and no longer work at the reference desk, an undergraduate asked me in passing recently how to find a “professional article” in a biology journal. I found myself directing her to the “biology” drop down menu in our homegrown directory of databases, ultimately offering her a choice of BioOne, BIOSIS, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. I added as a footnote that she could search multiple resources simultaneously from the Biology subject guide—but not Web of Science because it was not included in our federated search setup because of our limited number of concurrent users. Not to mention the peer-reviewed filter issue so that she’d get a “professional” article. And there’s the rub: explaining the shortcomings of the federated search box on the Biology guide was more difficult than simply pointing her to a couple of “best bet” choices in the first place. Am I going to take that search box off of the Biology guide? No.
Given the above, why are federated search products still on the market, and why are libraries still contracting with vendors? What has changed my own mind in the last five years, transforming me from a reluctant community college reference librarian fighting it tooth and nail to a web librarian petitioning the university’s budget priorities committee for extra funds to pay for it? Two things: usability testing and developments in federated search products themselves.
Web usability testing, which is rightly becoming ubiquitous in libraries, has shown that patrons have vastly different mental models of the world of information than librarians. Personally, this became painfully clear while watching a graduate student at Georgetown University time out after three minutes while trying to decipher from the library’s home page where to find a scholarly article about Descartes. He vacillated between the links on the library’s home page for 180 agonizing seconds and, in the end, never made a choice.
The primary benefit of federated searching products at this time is their use as a discovery tool. Libraries have historically had difficulty marketing and presenting in an intuitive fashion what is the heart of the virtual library: subscribed electronic content, which accounts for the lion’s share of our annual budgets. While not inexpensive, federated search products are now offered with a number of pricing options, and even if a library chooses to federate as many resources as possible, the annual price tag will still likely be less that one percent of the total annual expenditure for electronic resources—a small price to pay for what can be a large return on a very large investment. Additionally, implementing federated searching as a discovery tool can restore patrons’ faith in their ability to find what they need when they come to their library’s web site versus an open Internet portal such as Google or Yahoo. Libraries will only continue to offer more online content in the coming years, and federated search provides a way to present sensible options for patrons as the number of online resources continues to grow.
The products themselves, to include the implementation process, have also evolved quite a bit in recent years. Early vendor offerings were clunky behemoths that required a local server installation and took months, sometimes years, to prepare for patron use. Now, vendors typically offer more lightweight hosted options that are ideal for libraries whose local technology resources are limited or lacking. Serials Solutions’ promised—and, in the case of the Auraria Library, delivered—six-to-eight-week turnaround from contract to launch is a dramatic improvement over the years-long implementation time. Generally, vendor support during implementation is better, with the vendor doing more of the setup work.
In terms of technical improvements, vendors have found effective ways of deduplicating results, which was an early Achilles’ heel. The practice of HTML screen scraping—analyzing the output of a database by “reading” the HTML of the results page—is being replaced by more highly structured XML Gateway technology, which improves the quality of the results returned. Additional features like clustered results, integration with other tools, supported web integration services, and impressive administration and statistics modules are now available among the various products. Notable examples of these features are Serials Solutions’ clustered results feature in 360 Search and Info-Graphic’s administrative module for their AGent product.
Further, customization options allow a federated search box to be dropped into the code of any page on a library’s web site. Rather than being placed in parallel in a library web directory with other electronic resources, the technology can be used to overlay an entire web site to provide more immediate access to online resources. In addition to providing a single-search box on the library’s home page, many libraries are using federated search products to enhance the more traditional and usually home-grown A-Z/subject directories of databases as well as library guides and pathfinders. Almost any combination of resources and audience is possible. For example, an “English 101” bundle in an academic library could include EBSCO Academic Search Premier, Gale’s General OneFile, and LexisNexis Academic. Code for this particular search could be embedded on a class guide for English composition courses so that less time could be spent training students on the individual interfaces. More time could then be spent discussing topic selection and refinement, Boolean logic—which is supported by federated search products—and other important research concepts.
Federated searching is not the Holy Grail—at least not yet. It does not automatically make library patrons better searchers or researchers, but thankfully, reference and instruction librarians do. When implemented as a discovery tool, federated searching can successfully connect patrons with subscribed online content. It is another tool that we can put in our patrons’ research toolboxes, even if we still prefer not to use it ourselves until future developments, hopefully, will make improvements in what reference and instruction librarians find lacking. Even with all of its current technical shortcomings, federated searching provides a means of presenting our hyperstructured universe, with all of is semi-secret classification schemes and codes, to our customers in a way that they not only understand, but have come to expect.
Notes:
1. Lampert, Lynn D. and Katherine S. Dabbour, “Librarian Perspectives on Teaching Metasearch and Federated Search Technologies,” in Federated Search: Solution or Setback for Online Library Services, ed. Christopher Cox (Binghamton, NY: Haworth, 2007) 253-78.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Web Server Move Q & A
If I don't answer your "Q," or if you'd like me to clarify something, please post a comment. (Just click on "0 comments" at the end of the post.) Remember, you do NOT need an account to post a comment! Just follow the directions over the comments box. :)
Also, as with any complex project, this information is subject to change. Please stay tuned--I will email everyone if there are major updates to this post--and thanks for your patience!
Q: Why are we doing this?
A: A web server is just a big ol' computer, and like our desktop PCs, servers age and need to be replaced. Our new environment will be more secure and more reliable, both in terms of hardware and software, resulting is less down time and better web site performance. It will also be our very own virtual home; before, we shared server space on Carbon with many other departments and UCD groups. We will be free to try out new software and assign permissions and passwords internally, making us less dependent on ITS to do what we need to do. ITS will still support us, however.
Q: Why are we doing this NOW?
A: Because it may disrupt access to our web site. This disruption will hopefully be minimal, but it is far better to do the work during intersession than when we are in full semester swing. I apologize to all of those who use this downtime to polish up their web pages; I know that the timing is inconvenient to say the least, but everything will run more smoothly once we've made the change.
Q: What will we not have access to from the 11th-18th?
A: Library staff will not have access to their web pages from the 11th-18th. No one will be able to create or edit existing pages. Access to the online linking form and the ADI will be intermittent, so I ask that no one enter data in them during this time.
Q: What will our patrons not have access to from the 11th-18th?
A: Outages that affect patrons will be posted prominently in the Library FYI and elsewhere in the web pages that are affected (i.e., the ADI, the LEAP tutorial, class scheduling calendar). Faculty will not be able to schedule classes during this time--and I apologize again for the timing on that--and anyone taking the LEAP tutorial will not be able to save their results. These two applications will be disabled so that patrons cannot try to register for an IL class or take the tutorial. Even though the back end of the ADI will be shut down, the ADI web pages should function normally.
Q: What will our URL be after the move?
A: Still http://library.auraria.edu. Currently, two other URLs also work; they are http://library.cudenver.edu and http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/library. These URLs will be redirected to http://library.auraria.edu through Spring Semester 2008, but beginning in June, they will no longer work. I will notify the campus community of these changes in February.
Q. I work on library web pages. What about my permissions?
A. Unfortunately, permissions will need to be restored from scratch. Fortunately, from now on Nina will be able to assign permissions and help change passwords from now--no more calls to the Help Desk (unless you need permissions to your personal web space, which will still be on Carbon). With the current project plan, permissions will be restored on the 17th and/or 18th.
Q: What else do I need to know?
A: The New Books List for January will not be available until late in February. (We are contracting with Quipu Group to have them update the PHP/MySQL programming that produces the lists. I anticipate that the previous months' lists will work just fine, but I will double check.)
Also, as with any complex project, this information is subject to change. Please stay tuned--I will email everyone if there are major updates to this post--and thanks for your patience!
Q: Why are we doing this?
A: A web server is just a big ol' computer, and like our desktop PCs, servers age and need to be replaced. Our new environment will be more secure and more reliable, both in terms of hardware and software, resulting is less down time and better web site performance. It will also be our very own virtual home; before, we shared server space on Carbon with many other departments and UCD groups. We will be free to try out new software and assign permissions and passwords internally, making us less dependent on ITS to do what we need to do. ITS will still support us, however.
Q: Why are we doing this NOW?
A: Because it may disrupt access to our web site. This disruption will hopefully be minimal, but it is far better to do the work during intersession than when we are in full semester swing. I apologize to all of those who use this downtime to polish up their web pages; I know that the timing is inconvenient to say the least, but everything will run more smoothly once we've made the change.
Q: What will we not have access to from the 11th-18th?
A: Library staff will not have access to their web pages from the 11th-18th. No one will be able to create or edit existing pages. Access to the online linking form and the ADI will be intermittent, so I ask that no one enter data in them during this time.
Q: What will our patrons not have access to from the 11th-18th?
A: Outages that affect patrons will be posted prominently in the Library FYI and elsewhere in the web pages that are affected (i.e., the ADI, the LEAP tutorial, class scheduling calendar). Faculty will not be able to schedule classes during this time--and I apologize again for the timing on that--and anyone taking the LEAP tutorial will not be able to save their results. These two applications will be disabled so that patrons cannot try to register for an IL class or take the tutorial. Even though the back end of the ADI will be shut down, the ADI web pages should function normally.
Q: What will our URL be after the move?
A: Still http://library.auraria.edu. Currently, two other URLs also work; they are http://library.cudenver.edu and http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/library. These URLs will be redirected to http://library.auraria.edu through Spring Semester 2008, but beginning in June, they will no longer work. I will notify the campus community of these changes in February.
Q. I work on library web pages. What about my permissions?
A. Unfortunately, permissions will need to be restored from scratch. Fortunately, from now on Nina will be able to assign permissions and help change passwords from now--no more calls to the Help Desk (unless you need permissions to your personal web space, which will still be on Carbon). With the current project plan, permissions will be restored on the 17th and/or 18th.
Q: What else do I need to know?
A: The New Books List for January will not be available until late in February. (We are contracting with Quipu Group to have them update the PHP/MySQL programming that produces the lists. I anticipate that the previous months' lists will work just fine, but I will double check.)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Whither the Functionality of the ADI
A task force of Aurariabrarians is currently deciding on the fate of the Library's ADI--the database of databases that, until our implementation of 360 Search, was our primary point of access for database searching. The concern is that we will be expending resources maintaining multiple redundant systems. The task force is considering retiring the ADI and using Skyline and 360 Search to provide access to our online resources.
At the November reference department meeting, concern was expressed over what functionality would be lost if the ADI is retired. What concerns you personally? If the ADI went away, what would you miss? Post your comments below by Wednesday, January 16th, so that the task force can weigh this information at our next meeting.
At the November reference department meeting, concern was expressed over what functionality would be lost if the ADI is retired. What concerns you personally? If the ADI went away, what would you miss? Post your comments below by Wednesday, January 16th, so that the task force can weigh this information at our next meeting.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Top Ten Tips for Nailing your Academic Interview
Ah, the academic interview: a grueling day-long marathon of showcasing yourself and your accomplishments to people you've likely never met before. I've had three academic interviews in the past five years, two of them successful, so I like to think I know what I'm talking about here. These Top Ten Tips are things that I've done or see others do that have made a positive impact. If you're prepared, the interview process can be an enjoyable, rather than nerve-racking, experience. Even if you're not offered the job, this is your chance to make a lasting impression on a group of your peers.
1. Prepare answers to questions that you know you'll get asked. Some important ones include, "What are your strengths relative to this job?" "What are your weaknesses relative to this job?" "Why do you want this job?" and "Give an example of how you've handled a challenging situation." Write out and rehearse the answers so that you'll be able to answer questions quickly and confidently.
2. Don't worry about describing your weaknesses in front of search committee members. Employers will want to see not only how you fit the job, but how the job fits you. Demonstrate how the position will help you overcome weaknesses and advance your career. Be open and honest about what you would do, if you were hired, to meet the challenge.
3. Prepare a Power Point presentation, reason 1: You are likely one of three (or sometimes more) candidates presenting on the same topic. A visual presentation will help create a more lasting impression. Also, here at Auraria, we post the candidates' presentations to our staff-only intranet so that anyone who couldn't attend the live presentations can get a taste of each candidate's experience and ideas.
4. Prepare a Power Point presentation, reason 2: The library-wide presentation is the way for you to get a lot of bang for your buck, so to speak. Search committees rely heavily on input from all areas of the library, and while it's crucial for you to make a good impression on the people that you spend the most time with, the "popular vote" is important as well. If you don't prepare a slide show, or even a handout, it may make people question if you're taking the interview seriously.
5. Prepare a Power Point presentation, reason 3: Even if you're a confident public speaker presenting on something that you've had a lot of experience with, you may choke in a new environment in front of new faces. Your slides will be familiar to you, though, and keep you moving forward.
6. Prepare questions for your interviewers. What are the most important initiatives in the library currently? When you meet with smaller groups, ask individuals what research interests are. Are they people that you could see yourself collaborating with?
7. Research your interviewers. You'll likely get a list of names of people who are on your search committee; Google them or conduct author searches in library science databases, if you have access to those resources. If you don't have a list of names, visit the library's staff directory on their web page and Google/database search the names of the people you'd be working with.
8. Research the library itself. Where is it located--in a big city, or on a suburban campus, etc.? Whom does it serve? What are the patrons like? Visit the building if you can. Can you see yourself working there? If you're coming in from out of town, try to sneak over to building the day before to look around. You won't be experiencing it for the first time on the morning of your interview that way.
9. Create a personal/professional web page before the interview. This doesn't need to be anything fancy, just a bit about yourself and your professional interests so that people can get a sense of who you are. Include a fun (but appropriate) picture so that folks can put a face to a name and get a sense of your personality. Members of the search committee may Google your name; give them something great to find. Link to important projects you've done.
10. Send thank you notes. One job candidate on whose search committee I served sent everyone that she'd talked to over the course of the day a personalized thank you note. She got the job. Academic libraries spend a considerable amount on drawing qualified candidates in; this shows how much you appreciate the opportunity you've been given, especially if they're flying you in.
1. Prepare answers to questions that you know you'll get asked. Some important ones include, "What are your strengths relative to this job?" "What are your weaknesses relative to this job?" "Why do you want this job?" and "Give an example of how you've handled a challenging situation." Write out and rehearse the answers so that you'll be able to answer questions quickly and confidently.
2. Don't worry about describing your weaknesses in front of search committee members. Employers will want to see not only how you fit the job, but how the job fits you. Demonstrate how the position will help you overcome weaknesses and advance your career. Be open and honest about what you would do, if you were hired, to meet the challenge.
3. Prepare a Power Point presentation, reason 1: You are likely one of three (or sometimes more) candidates presenting on the same topic. A visual presentation will help create a more lasting impression. Also, here at Auraria, we post the candidates' presentations to our staff-only intranet so that anyone who couldn't attend the live presentations can get a taste of each candidate's experience and ideas.
4. Prepare a Power Point presentation, reason 2: The library-wide presentation is the way for you to get a lot of bang for your buck, so to speak. Search committees rely heavily on input from all areas of the library, and while it's crucial for you to make a good impression on the people that you spend the most time with, the "popular vote" is important as well. If you don't prepare a slide show, or even a handout, it may make people question if you're taking the interview seriously.
5. Prepare a Power Point presentation, reason 3: Even if you're a confident public speaker presenting on something that you've had a lot of experience with, you may choke in a new environment in front of new faces. Your slides will be familiar to you, though, and keep you moving forward.
6. Prepare questions for your interviewers. What are the most important initiatives in the library currently? When you meet with smaller groups, ask individuals what research interests are. Are they people that you could see yourself collaborating with?
7. Research your interviewers. You'll likely get a list of names of people who are on your search committee; Google them or conduct author searches in library science databases, if you have access to those resources. If you don't have a list of names, visit the library's staff directory on their web page and Google/database search the names of the people you'd be working with.
8. Research the library itself. Where is it located--in a big city, or on a suburban campus, etc.? Whom does it serve? What are the patrons like? Visit the building if you can. Can you see yourself working there? If you're coming in from out of town, try to sneak over to building the day before to look around. You won't be experiencing it for the first time on the morning of your interview that way.
9. Create a personal/professional web page before the interview. This doesn't need to be anything fancy, just a bit about yourself and your professional interests so that people can get a sense of who you are. Include a fun (but appropriate) picture so that folks can put a face to a name and get a sense of your personality. Members of the search committee may Google your name; give them something great to find. Link to important projects you've done.
10. Send thank you notes. One job candidate on whose search committee I served sent everyone that she'd talked to over the course of the day a personalized thank you note. She got the job. Academic libraries spend a considerable amount on drawing qualified candidates in; this shows how much you appreciate the opportunity you've been given, especially if they're flying you in.
Monday, October 15, 2007
October eWAC meeting
Here are a couple of things that I wanted to report to you and/or wanted your feedback on:
1. What's holding up the server move?
A couple of things: testing how the New Books List will work in the new non-carbon environment and testing our feedback forms (which use PHP) in the new environment. I'm working on these as fast as I can, and I'm hoping that the time it takes me to do this will see a decline in the number of classes we're teaching to minimize any disruption and give us some wiggle room to make the transition.
This move, when it happens, will go down as follows: move LEAP, the online linking form, the ADI, the class calendar, and the new books list to the new environment and test them, leaving the current web page setup in place for users. A day or two later, when all is confirmed stable, we'll need to load any data that's been entered into these applications on the live server (so that classes scheduled, tutorials taken, etc., aren't lost in the shuffle). Then, our carbon environment will be turned off, and I will need to restore everyone's Dreamweaver/Contribute connections.
The final piece of this puzzle is that our DNS entries (i.e., which URLs will work) will be consolidated so that carbon.cudenver.edu/public/library and library.cudenver.edu will be redirected to library.auraria.edu. We'll leave the redirect up for at least six months, and at that time, we'll have a look at our statistics to see if these two URLs are still being used to get to the site. Our statistics can tell us where links to the two "old" URLs are coming from. (For example, CCD still links to the library with the carbon address, and UCD the library.cudenver.edu address).
2. How long should we leave up the web page survey?
We have 70 results as of this morning, 69 of them students and 1 faculty. I 've asked the bibliographers, who have much more regular contact with faculty than me, to publicize the survey so that we can get faculty feedback. I'm pretty pleased with what they're telling us; I've posted an Excel file of the results so far here:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~nmchale/documents/newhomepagesurvey.xls
Names and email addresses have been removed. Of course, you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time; about five people have said that the best thing about the new site is the link to the old one. Ah, well. At least that shows that we've managed the transition well? I'll put a reminder up on the home page early December to remind everyone that that link is going away.
But, more to the point, how long should we leave the survey up? All semester? If so, should we have the drawing for the student prizes (book store gift certificates) at our November meeting, and then just leave the survey up if anyone wants to fill it out for the heck of it? The benefit of leaving it up all semester is that we'll get through the point of the semester that REALLY gets heavy web site use. Of course, students will have less time to fill out silly surveys then. Your thoughts?
3. 360 Search Launched!
I've asked for library-wide feedback on this, and my plan is to let us all play with it for a while, and then WAC will have a look at the comments that come back (posted in the blog entry made just before this one) and make any decisions that need to be made.
4. Whither the ADI now that we have 360 Search?
This discussion is currently taking place. No final decisions have been made yet, but the consensus seems to be to eventually retire the ADI. Another meeting about this matter is taking place next week; more will follow as it develops.
Anything else? Please post any comments below. Thanks!
1. What's holding up the server move?
A couple of things: testing how the New Books List will work in the new non-carbon environment and testing our feedback forms (which use PHP) in the new environment. I'm working on these as fast as I can, and I'm hoping that the time it takes me to do this will see a decline in the number of classes we're teaching to minimize any disruption and give us some wiggle room to make the transition.
This move, when it happens, will go down as follows: move LEAP, the online linking form, the ADI, the class calendar, and the new books list to the new environment and test them, leaving the current web page setup in place for users. A day or two later, when all is confirmed stable, we'll need to load any data that's been entered into these applications on the live server (so that classes scheduled, tutorials taken, etc., aren't lost in the shuffle). Then, our carbon environment will be turned off, and I will need to restore everyone's Dreamweaver/Contribute connections.
The final piece of this puzzle is that our DNS entries (i.e., which URLs will work) will be consolidated so that carbon.cudenver.edu/public/library and library.cudenver.edu will be redirected to library.auraria.edu. We'll leave the redirect up for at least six months, and at that time, we'll have a look at our statistics to see if these two URLs are still being used to get to the site. Our statistics can tell us where links to the two "old" URLs are coming from. (For example, CCD still links to the library with the carbon address, and UCD the library.cudenver.edu address).
2. How long should we leave up the web page survey?
We have 70 results as of this morning, 69 of them students and 1 faculty. I 've asked the bibliographers, who have much more regular contact with faculty than me, to publicize the survey so that we can get faculty feedback. I'm pretty pleased with what they're telling us; I've posted an Excel file of the results so far here:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~nmchale/documents/newhomepagesurvey.xls
Names and email addresses have been removed. Of course, you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time; about five people have said that the best thing about the new site is the link to the old one. Ah, well. At least that shows that we've managed the transition well? I'll put a reminder up on the home page early December to remind everyone that that link is going away.
But, more to the point, how long should we leave the survey up? All semester? If so, should we have the drawing for the student prizes (book store gift certificates) at our November meeting, and then just leave the survey up if anyone wants to fill it out for the heck of it? The benefit of leaving it up all semester is that we'll get through the point of the semester that REALLY gets heavy web site use. Of course, students will have less time to fill out silly surveys then. Your thoughts?
3. 360 Search Launched!
I've asked for library-wide feedback on this, and my plan is to let us all play with it for a while, and then WAC will have a look at the comments that come back (posted in the blog entry made just before this one) and make any decisions that need to be made.
4. Whither the ADI now that we have 360 Search?
This discussion is currently taking place. No final decisions have been made yet, but the consensus seems to be to eventually retire the ADI. Another meeting about this matter is taking place next week; more will follow as it develops.
Anything else? Please post any comments below. Thanks!
Monday, October 08, 2007
360 Search has Launched!
I hereby declare our implementation of 360 Search launched! Please post any comments that you have about the final product here--DO NOT email them to me, or they will be lost forever! :)
Here are some details of final work that was/is being done, as well as some items for you all to comment upon:
1. I've taken Quick Search box on the homepage out of beta, and I've cleaned up the code a bit so that it performs better. Skyline is also included now. Also, I changed the default search for Quick Search from title to keyword. Let me know if you think that makes a difference and whether the difference is for better or worse. The likely outcome will be more results, so I guess the question is, is it too many results?
2. A couple of changes were made to the Top Twelve databases (the ones searched by the Quick Search box) due to concurrent usage limitations. Biographies Plus Illustrated (Wilson) has been replaced with the Biography and Genealogy Master Index (but with unsatisfactory results today). Web of Science--with profuse apologies to Elaine--has been replaced by ScienceDirect. Any other suggestions for a biography resource? Should we just leave it out?
3. The link on home page to the full 360 interface (where one can choose a subject) is called "Advanced Search." I have the feeling, though, that I'm forgetting what suggested wording was, so please refresh my memory if you recall something different.
4. The peer review check box will be removed on Thursday, October 11th. As I mentioned in a previous email, the technology is not there yet to make this an effective enough feature; the metadata that 360 Search draws on is not yet standardized. I have yet to see it actually work, and I would rather the students trust their own judgement than a faulty feature.
5. I'll be working with the reference staff on ways to integrate customized search boxes onto subject guides--see this copy of the Education Guide--and elsewhere on the library web site.
6. There are other behind-the-scenes cleanups for me to make, but for the most part, they will not affect end user use of the product.
7. What have I forgotten? Remind me! :)
The floor is now open for your comments, critiques, questions, suggestions--post away! This can be about anything: the search interface, the subject groupings, which databases are included in which subjects, product performance, etc.
Here are some details of final work that was/is being done, as well as some items for you all to comment upon:
1. I've taken Quick Search box on the homepage out of beta, and I've cleaned up the code a bit so that it performs better. Skyline is also included now. Also, I changed the default search for Quick Search from title to keyword. Let me know if you think that makes a difference and whether the difference is for better or worse. The likely outcome will be more results, so I guess the question is, is it too many results?
2. A couple of changes were made to the Top Twelve databases (the ones searched by the Quick Search box) due to concurrent usage limitations. Biographies Plus Illustrated (Wilson) has been replaced with the Biography and Genealogy Master Index (but with unsatisfactory results today). Web of Science--with profuse apologies to Elaine--has been replaced by ScienceDirect. Any other suggestions for a biography resource? Should we just leave it out?
3. The link on home page to the full 360 interface (where one can choose a subject) is called "Advanced Search." I have the feeling, though, that I'm forgetting what suggested wording was, so please refresh my memory if you recall something different.
4. The peer review check box will be removed on Thursday, October 11th. As I mentioned in a previous email, the technology is not there yet to make this an effective enough feature; the metadata that 360 Search draws on is not yet standardized. I have yet to see it actually work, and I would rather the students trust their own judgement than a faulty feature.
5. I'll be working with the reference staff on ways to integrate customized search boxes onto subject guides--see this copy of the Education Guide--and elsewhere on the library web site.
6. There are other behind-the-scenes cleanups for me to make, but for the most part, they will not affect end user use of the product.
7. What have I forgotten? Remind me! :)
The floor is now open for your comments, critiques, questions, suggestions--post away! This can be about anything: the search interface, the subject groupings, which databases are included in which subjects, product performance, etc.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
As promised at June's reference department meeting, here is a place for a discussion of federated searching. We have received funding for and are planning to purchase Serials Solutions' 360 Search (formerly called Central Search), with the hope to implement, at the very least in a beta mode, this fall. In case you missed the June meeting, I asked three questions of the ref staff just to begin a very preliminary discussion:
1. What are your concerns about a federated searching implementation?
2. If you haven't already, have a look at this rough draft of a new library homepage. What should go under "Start My Research"?
3. How will federated searching change the way you teach and/or conduct reference interviews?
Some pros: In my experience, the biggest benefit to teaching with federated searching was that you only had to teach them one interface. There will obviously be times when you will not want to use it; for example, a very specific assignment for which one or two of our online resources are particularly relevant or required. Integrating federated searching into the reference interview was not difficult; a general search for a 101-level class is a great candidate for using it, while an advanced legal query is probably not.
Now the cons: This obviously isn't a silver bullet. It's *another* change to get used to. And while federated searching has come a long way, searching a database's "native interface" will still likely produce better results because each database product has its own indexing, its own way of managing Boolean searches, etc. However, our main goal in implementing federated searching is to make the wealth of our subscribed online content more visible and easily accessible to our patrons, while at the same time making our home page more usable and in line with their information seeking expectations.
Concerns expressed at the meeting yesterday included slow search speed; giving enough lead time to plan for changes to teaching for fall semester; how the faculty will respond; and how we should market it to the faculty. Please continue the discussion below! And please don't feel like you're resisting change or being negative by raising concerns. If I know what everyone's thinking about and concerned about, I can hopefully address these concerns and make a better end product for us and our patrons. Someone else requested that I post or link to some examples so that we can see what it looks like on other library home pages. That will come in a follow-up post.
In the mean time, here is a generic trial of 360 search. Please take the time to conduct some searches using it to see what it's like. We will have a very short time to implement and train, even if we only roll out a beta version!
http://demo.cs.serialssolutions.com/demo
User name: sersol
Password: search
For more information about how and why 360 Search was chosen, see: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~nmchale/federatedsearching/demos.htm
(The page is password protected, and the user ID=federated, and the password=searching.)
1. What are your concerns about a federated searching implementation?
2. If you haven't already, have a look at this rough draft of a new library homepage. What should go under "Start My Research"?
3. How will federated searching change the way you teach and/or conduct reference interviews?
Some pros: In my experience, the biggest benefit to teaching with federated searching was that you only had to teach them one interface. There will obviously be times when you will not want to use it; for example, a very specific assignment for which one or two of our online resources are particularly relevant or required. Integrating federated searching into the reference interview was not difficult; a general search for a 101-level class is a great candidate for using it, while an advanced legal query is probably not.
Now the cons: This obviously isn't a silver bullet. It's *another* change to get used to. And while federated searching has come a long way, searching a database's "native interface" will still likely produce better results because each database product has its own indexing, its own way of managing Boolean searches, etc. However, our main goal in implementing federated searching is to make the wealth of our subscribed online content more visible and easily accessible to our patrons, while at the same time making our home page more usable and in line with their information seeking expectations.
Concerns expressed at the meeting yesterday included slow search speed; giving enough lead time to plan for changes to teaching for fall semester; how the faculty will respond; and how we should market it to the faculty. Please continue the discussion below! And please don't feel like you're resisting change or being negative by raising concerns. If I know what everyone's thinking about and concerned about, I can hopefully address these concerns and make a better end product for us and our patrons. Someone else requested that I post or link to some examples so that we can see what it looks like on other library home pages. That will come in a follow-up post.
In the mean time, here is a generic trial of 360 search. Please take the time to conduct some searches using it to see what it's like. We will have a very short time to implement and train, even if we only roll out a beta version!
http://demo.cs.serialssolutions.com/demo
User name: sersol
Password: search
For more information about how and why 360 Search was chosen, see: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~nmchale/federatedsearching/demos.htm
(The page is password protected, and the user ID=federated, and the password=searching.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)