 |
 |
And indeed, that is exactly how I plan to make use of the Google metadata link, and have been suggesting is the best way to make use of it since I entered this conversation: As part of a set of links to 'additional information' about a resource, with no special prominence given to the Google link. Other "additional information" links I either have already or plan to have soon include: Amazon.com isbndb.com (a good aggregator of online prices for purchase, which has a nice api) Ulrich's (for serials) Books in Print OCLC Worldcat OCLC Identities (for the author of the resource) Of course, there is definitely a danger here of information overload. If these "additonal information" links are layed out on the page they shouldn't interfere with the use of hte page by people who want to ignore them entirely. But too _many_ links in the "additional information" section may make people ignore it entirely, where a smaller list limited to the most useful links would get more use. But at the moment, we're not really sure which are the 'most useful' links, so I think I'll err on the side of inclusion, up to a maximum of 6 or 7 links. Jonathan Tim Spalding wrote: > If the Google link were part of a much larger set of unstressed links, > I'd be more inclined to favor it. Lots of linking is a good thing. But > a single no-info Google link from a low-information OPAC page seems to > compound the deficiencies of one paradigm with that of another. > > On the subject of "lazy" students, I do think there is a legitimate > distinction between what students will do and what they ought to do. > Being pro-Web 2.0 doesn't require us to be information relativists. > Certainly there is a lot of ignorant criticism about Wikipedia. > Wikipedia is a remarkable resource, and an inspiration to us all. > Students will and probably should use it when they're starting out on > a topic. > > That some students will use it long after that, in the place of better > resources online and off, because it's the "path of least resistance" > isn't just a fact of life we must all bow before. It is a problem we > must confront. Not infrequently the right answer is "get off your butt > and read a book." > > Tim > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Custer, Mark <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> For the most part, I completely agree. That said, it's a very tangled >> web out there, and on occasion those "no preview" views can still lead a >> user to a "full view" that's offered elsewhere. Here's just one >> example: >> >> http://books.google.com/books?id=kdiYGQAACAAJ >> (from there, a user can click on the first link to be taken to another >> metadata page that has access to a "full view") >> >> Unfortunately, there's no indication that either of these links will get >> you to a full-text digitized copy of the book in question (the links >> always, of course, appear under the header of "References from web >> pages", which Google has nicely added), and there's also no way to know >> that a "no preview" book has any such "references from web pages" until >> you access the item, but it's something, at least, however unintended. >> >> It'd be nice, perhaps, if you could put some sort of standard in the >> metadata header of the webpage (DC or otherwise) to indicate to a >> harvester (in this case, a crawler) the specific format of the >> retrieval. Then these links could be labeled as "digitized copies >> available elsewhere", rather than simply "references from web pages" >> (which, of course, is all that they are right now), and could also be >> added to the API callback. That is, of course, if Google doesn't >> eventually put up these and other localized resources as well (and I'm >> sure they'll cover most of these, with the collections that they do >> have)... but until or if they do, it would go a longer way to >> fulfilling their mission. >> >> Mark Custer >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Tim Spalding >> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 6:52 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] coverage of google book viewability API >> >> So, I took a long slow look at ten of the examples from Godmar's file. >> Nothing I saw disabused me of my opinion: "No preview" pages on Google >> Book Search are very weak tea. >> >> Are they worthless? Not always. But they usually are. And, >> unfortunately, you generally need to read the various references pages >> carefully before you know you were wasting your time. >> >> Some examples: >> >> Risks in Chemical Units >> (http://books.google.com/books?id=7ctpAAAACAAJ) has one glancing, >> un-annotated reference in the footnotes of another, apparently >> different book. >> >> How Trouble Made the Monkey Eat Pepper >> (http://books.google.com/books?id=wLnGAAAACAAJ) sports three >> references from other books, two in snippet view and one with no view. >> Two are bare-bones bibliographic mentions in an index of Canadian >> children's books and an index of Canadian chidren's illustrators. The >> third is another bare-bones mention in a book in Sinhalese. >> >> >>> If the patron is sitting on a computer (which, given this >>> >> discussion, they obviously are), the >> >>> path of least resistance dictates that a journal article will be used >>> >> before a book. >> >> An excellent example. Let's imagine you were doing reference-desk work >> and a student were to come up to you with a question about a topic. >> You have two sources you can send them to-the book itself in all its >> glory, and another source. The other source is the Croatian-language >> MySpace page of someone whose boyfriend read a chapter of the book >> once, five years ago. You're not sure if the blog mentions the book, >> but it might. >> >> That something provides the path of least resistance isn't an argument >> for something. It depends on where the path goes. >> >> > > > > -- > Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding > > -- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu