That was obviously meant to read: "bibliographic data alone is NOT a 
full service...." - kc

On 2/23/12 11:45 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> This links to thoughts I've had about linked data and finding a way to
> use library holdings over the Web. Obviously, bibliographic data alone
> is a full service: people want to get the stuff once they've found out
> that such stuff exists. So how do we get users from the retrieval of a
> bibliographic record to a place where they have access to the stuff?
>
> I see two options: the WorldCat model, where people get sent to a
> central database where they input their zip code, or a URL-like model
> where they get a link on retrievals that has knowledge about their
> preferred institution and access.
>
> I have no idea if the latter is feasible on a true "web scale," but it
> would be my ideal solution. We know that search engines keep track of
> your location and tailor retrievals based on that. Could libraries get
> into that loop?
>
> kc
>
> On 2/23/12 11:35 AM, Eoghan Ó Carragáin wrote:
>> That's true, but since Blacklight/Vufind often sit over
>> digital/institutional repositories as well as ILS systems& subscription
>> resources, at least some public domain content gets found that otherwise
>> wouldn't be. As you said, even if the item isn't available digitally, for
>> Special Collections libraries unique materials are exposed to potential
>> researchers who'd never have known about them.
>> Eoghan
>>
>> On 23 February 2012 19:25, Sean Hannan<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's hard to say. Going off of the numbers that I have, I'd say that
>>> they
>>> do
>>> find what they are looking for, but they unless they are a JHU
>>> affiliate,
>>> they are unable to access it.
>>>
>>> Our bounce rate for Google searches is 76%. Which is not necessarily
>>> bad,
>>> because we put a lot of information on our item record pages--we
>>> don't make
>>> you dig for anything.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, 9% of visits coming to us through Google searches are
>>> return visits. To me, that says that the other 91% are not JHU
>>> affiliates,
>>> and that's 91% of Google searchers that won't have access to materials.
>>>
>>> I know from monitoring our feedback form, we have gotten in increase in
>>> requests from far flung places for access to things we have in special
>>> collections from non-affiliates.
>>>
>>> So, we get lots of exposure via searches, but due to the nature of how
>>> libraries work with subscriptions, licensing, membership and such, we
>>> close
>>> lots of doors once they get there.
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>> On 2/23/12 1:55 PM, "Schneider, Wayne"<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is really interesting. Do you have evidence (anecdotally or
>>>> otherwise) that the people coming to you via search engines found what
>>>> they were looking for? Sorry, I don't know exactly how to phrase this.
>>>> To put it another way - are your patrons finding you this way?
>>>>
>>>> wayne
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Sean Hannan
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:37 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Local catalog records and Google, Bing, Yahoo!
>>>>
>>>> Our Blacklight-powered catalog (https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/)
>>>> comes
>>>> up a lot in google search results (try gil scott heron circle of
>>>> stone).
>>>>
>>>> Some numbers:
>>>>
>>>> 59% of our total catalog traffic comes from google searches 0.04% of
>>>> our
>>>> total catalog traffic comes from yahoo searches 0.03% of our total
>>>> catalog traffic comes from bing searches
>>>>
>>>> For context, 32.96% of our total catalog traffic is direct traffic and
>>>> referrals from all of the library websites combined.
>>>>
>>>> Anecdotally, it would appear that bing (and bing-using yahoo) seem to
>>>> drastically play down catalog records in their results. We're not doing
>>>> anything to favor a particular search engine; we have a completely open
>>>> robots.txt file.
>>>>
>>>> Google regularly indexes our catalog. Every couple days or so. I
>>>> haven't
>>>> checked in awhile.
>>>>
>>>> We're not doing any fancy SEO here (though, I'd like to implement some
>>>> of the microdata stuff). It's just a function of how the site works. We
>>>> link a lot of our catalog results to further searches (clicking on an
>>>> author name takes you to an author search with that name, etc). Google
>>>> *loves* that type of intertextual website linking (see also:
>>>> Wikipedia).
>>>> We also have stable URLs. Search URLs will always return searches with
>>>> those parameters, item URLs are based on an ID that does not change.
>>>>
>>>> All of that good stuff doesn't help us with bing, though. ...But I'm
>>>> not
>>>> really concerned with remedying that, right this moment.
>>>>
>>>> -Sean
>>>>
>>>> On 2/23/12 12:37 PM, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First of all, I'm going to say I know little in this area. I've done
>>>>> some preliminary research about search indexing (Google's) and
>>>>> investigated a few OPAC robot.txt files. Now to my questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Can someone explain to me or point me to research as to why local
>>>>> library catalog records do not show up in Google, Bing, or Yahoo!
>>>> search
>>>>> results?
>>>>> - Is there a general prohibition by libraries for search engines to
>>>>> crawl their public records?
>>>>> - Do the search engines not index these records actively?
>>>>> - Is it a matter of SEO/promoted results?
>>>>> - Is it because some systems don't mint URLs for each record?
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen a lot of discussion about this recently and I know
>>>>> Jason Ranallo has done a lot of work in this area and gave a great
>>>>> talk at code4lib Seattle on microdata/Schema.org, so I figured this
>>>>> could be part of that continuing conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to being educated by you all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tod
>>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet