Skip to content

Author: Iris

More on the Future of the Catalog


Scream if you’re tired of this subject, but I’m studying hard for my presentation and thought as long as I was keeping notes and collecting URLs I might as well share them with anyone else who’s studying this topic.

First of all, here are some links to catalogs that are doing cool things:

(I’m still trying to find examples of AJAX-enhansed searches, but the only one that I know of is not, I think, public. You can see examples of LiveSearch by OCLC on Lorcan Dempsey’s PowerPoint slides.) [Update: Thom from OCLC Research has pointed me toward Phoenix Live, which uses AJAX to pre-search as you type. Thanks Thom!]

I’ve also just stumbled across Karen Schneider’s three part discussion on what we need to change in our catalogs over on ALA TechSource (found via Panlibus). Food for thought.

Oh, and I’ve decided to try del.icio.us out (been a furl user so far), so I’m collecting these catalog examples there. Collections of blog postings and other research are (so far) only here on my blog.

4 Comments

Radical Trust


Ever since Computers in Libraries this spring, people have been talking a lot about Darlene Fitcher’s “Radical Trust” concept. Stephen asks questions like

Are we comfortable with users tagging our MARC records? Can they add post-it note and comments to MARC? Are comments and user recommendations OK with us? Moderated or unmoderated? (Don’t be so fast – Are Amazon, Borders and B&N moderated?)

and

Why does Amazon work as an experience? Can libraries trust their users enough to safely share personal information to create a user recommendation experience like Amazon?

to get us thinking about radical trust. These questions and their kin are exactly the kind of questions we should be answering for ourselves. The answer doesn’t always have to be change. But if we don’t ask the questions and experiment with the ideas they present, how will we ever know if they were the right questions? And the best part is, exploring these questions can never hurt anybody. We aren’t committing to anything or throwing out millions of hours of work. We’re asking questions and thinking about the answers and maybe piloting and experimenting a little. But just because we don’t like one idea or care for one of the questions doesn’t mean that we’re exempt from asking them. That’ll never get us anywhere.

And in the midst of a very busy blog weekend (Wow, bibliobloggers were prolific this weekend!), John Blyberg wrote a fabulous essay called “More Than Just Faith: Radical Trust.” I highly recommend reading it and considering its implications. Two key points emerge from his essay: experimentation is necessary and good, but indiscriminate experimentation isn’t. He says:

What about the risk that your department could turn into a lunatic’s workshop? That’s not a bad concern. Innovation has always been about harnessing creativity to address a need or desire. By brainstorming effectively as a group, you can be selective about what you pursue so that energy is directed properly. What you want, what you should be striving for is focused creativity. This means using planning, communication, and agreement as the perimeter of your experimentation. Inter-organizational collaboration is a useful tact here as well.

But I think that part of radical trust is trusting ourselves. We need to understand that we can ask “crazy” or “out there” questions without ruining our credibility as librarians within our institutions. Too many people worry that if you ask questions about tagging MARC records, you actually want to implement it NOW and label all detractors as luddites and control-freaks. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. We are perfectly within our rights to ask questions and then not end up implementing those ideas. We are NOT within our rights to shut up and not ask the questions in the first place.

Comments closed

If Only I Knew What I Think

Thomas, over on TechEssence.Info, has a great post about the problem of forcing users to learn to use the catalog. He poses one of the central questions about the catalog:

And this was the comment that I keep chewing on: ““Students are in college to learn, so what’s so bad about forcing them to learn the catalog?”” I’’m still not sure how best to respond to this (although, “”Isn’’t that what we do now? And why we’re having day-long conferences on why our users are migrating to Google?”” is high on the list).

And like Thomas, I’m anything but sure what a good answer to that comment might be. On the one hand, I’m a firm believer in having catalogs serve users. Who isn’t? But in an academic library, where we get must meet the entire range of research needs, how important is it to have more complicated systems that can perform more complicated searches? I know that I tend to be able to manipulate a system to better advantage when I’ve been forced to figure out it’s inner workings. But then, that’s how I learn. That’s not how everybody learns. And quite frequently, my students only have enough time to work on their assignments, let alone familiarize themselves with an arguably arcane web application that provides very little in the way of automated help.

On the other hand, perhaps we’re finally to the point where technology is good enough that people don’t have to know how a program works in order to use it well. Maybe we can simplify things now without sacrificing valuable knowledge.

2 Comments