LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  January 2015

CODE4LIB January 2015

Subject:

Re: state of the art in virtual shelf browse?

From:

Emily Lynema <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:51:06 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

Since we've been running with virtual browse for a very long time now, I
thought I'd give a shot at a best answer to some of these questions....


> ------------------------------
>
>
> Where is the feature demand originating? Staff? Faculty? Students? Grad
> students? Undergrad students? (Not to exclude publics or special
> libraries, but this seems to be an academic catalog feature, when it shows
> up.)
>
>
There is a twofold demand for a feature like this. The first is that with
the move to remote / inaccessible storage, people want the ability to be
able to browse the books. We have almost half our collection in an
automated storage retrieval system at our second main library. Users don't
necessarily say they want to "browse the shelf" but there is a sense of
need to explore the collection in a more tactile way than is available via
standard catalog search.

The second is a pretty well-expressed demand to find related titles. Again,
not necessarily expressed as browsing the shelf, but more of a desire to
get interesting titles suggested, just like Amazon and Netflix and about
every other content service you can think of already does.

Call number is an excellent way to make recommendations of possibly related
titles. Shelf browse lets user explore and cherrypick the collection in a
way that transcends explicit search terms.

Also, I will say that we implement TONS of services that are useful to
patrons that they never explicitly ask for. If we waited for patrons to ask
for things specifically before we tried them, we would not be very
innovative.


> What is the level of familiarity with library/library services/library
> systems for those that request this feature?
>

They don't really request it, so I don't think this question matters much.
We do deal with faculty and grad students who are genuinely concerned about
loss of shelf browsability (esp. those in the humanities). Those folks do
understand library collections and call numbers.


>
> Is implementing shelf browse an attempt to work around some other catalog
> deficiency (e.g. weak subject cataloging)?
>

No, absolutely not. It's an attempt to present alternative forms of
exploration and browsing beyond keyword searching. I should note that we
have tested and are currently working on a feature that will be similarly
presented that suggests related titles based on subject heading terms. Our
plan is to show them both as 2 suggestion widgets on the full record for a
title in the catalog -- if Amazon can recommend related items via 3 or 4
mechanisms, then why can't we?


>
> Does the corpus have the cataloging data to support such a feature? (A lot
> of ebook packages do not have call numbers, for example.) What¹s the
> percentage? Is that reasonable?
>
>
This is a *great* question. Ebook packages are a challenge. When we first
looked into this question back in 2012, we saw about 60% of our ebooks
didn't have call numbers. However, that number doesn't mean as much as it
might, since about 90% of the records lacking call numbers were from 2 very
specific ebook packages -- Early American Books and Early English Books
Online, which are not evenly distributed throughout our collection. We do
get call numbers in our YBP ebook records. We are currently working with
automated tools to bring call numbers into our 360 MARC record loads using
OCLC Classify. Without enriching those records, we were seeing maybe 20%
that had classification. I think initial testing showed that we might be
able to jump that up to at least 60% using Classify, but we are still in
the testing phase.


> How do you plan on tracking use of the feature? What would you consider to
> be a success rate? 20% of sessions? 5%? 1%?


> At what point do you sunset the feature? Expand upon it?
>

> How long will the feature take to implement? How many staff will be
> involved? What is the ROI?
>

All difficult questions. I'm not sure I could answer them for many of our
services. We would probably only sunset the feature if it started costing
too much staff time to maintain. We first implementing virtual browse as a
replacement for the call number list browse that was the last step to
getting rid of our old OPAC. So we had justification beyond just thinking
virtual browse was cool.


>
> Will all of your users understand the visual implementation on the page?
> How do you plan on testing it?
>
> We have tested it, and no they don't understand the visual implementation
(at least in our cover view implementation). They also don't really care.
All they care about is whether or not it's showing them books they're
interested in. The biggest issue in usability testing of our service is
that they have trouble finding it on the full record in the catalog. (the
reason we are going to incorporate the actual browse into the full record
page)
-------

-- 
Emily Lynema
Associate Department Head
Information Technology, NCSU Libraries
919-513-8031
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager