Jonathan, I, too, like the use of facets. I wish we could do something a 
bit more "zing" with them, like present them as word clouds or something 
a bit more appealing than "term (number)" but I think the basic data is 
there.

Facets, as we use them, though, function as set *narrowing* tools. 
That's very useful when you have a large set, but I'd like to see 
another function that leads users to nearby areas -- this obviously 
invokes the idea of topic maps. although I have to admit that topic maps 
don't always seem very provocative. There's probably some way that we 
could do them better.

I do think that both facets and topic maps may work better using 
FAST-type headings rather than full LCSH pre-coordinated subject 
headings. That FAST is derived from LCSH (rather than being developed 
specifically as a faceted classification) probably makes it something of 
an under-performer, but the related subjects that appear on the Open 
Library subject pages give a clue as to how something like this might 
work. I'd love to see more experimentation in this direction.

kc


On 9/20/12 12:55 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> On 9/20/2012 1:39 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>> So, given this, and given that in a decent-sized catalog users regularly
>> retrieve hundreds or thousands of items, what is the best way to help
>> them "grok" that set given that the number of records is too large for
>> the user to look at them one-by-one to make a decision? Can the fact
>> that the data is in a database help users get a "feel" for what they
>> have retrieved without having to look at every record?
>
> I've often felt that, if it can be properly presented, facets are a 
> really great way to do this.  Facets (with hit counts next to every 
> value) give you a 'profile' of a result set that is too large for you 
> to get a sense of otherwise, they give you a sort of descriptive 
> statistical summary of it.
>
> When the facets are 'actionable', as they are usually, they also let 
> you then drill down to particular aspects of the giant result set you 
> are interested in, and get a _different_ 2.5 screens of results you'll 
> look at.
>
> Of course, library studies also often show that our users don't use 
> the facets, heh. But there are a few conflicting studies that shows 
> they are used a significant minority of the time. I think it may have 
> to do with UI issues of how the facets are presented.
>
> It's also important to remember that it doesn't neccesarily represent 
> a failure if the user's don't engage with the results beyond the first 
> 2.5 screens -- it may mean they got what they wanted/needed in those 
> first 2.5 screens.
>
> And likewise, that it's okay for us libraries to develop features 
> which are used only by significant minorities of our users (important 
> to remember what our logs show is really significant minorities of 
> _uses_.  All users using a feature 1% of the time can show up the same 
> as 1% of users using a feature 100% of the time).  We are not lowest 
> common denominator, while we need to make our interfaces _usable_ by 
> everyone (lowest common denominator perhaps), it's part of our mission 
> to provide functionality in those interfaces for especially 
> sophisticated uses that won't be used by everyone all the time.

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