 |
 |
So are you opposed to the long-standing practice of adding table of contents to catalog records on the same grounds? Table of contents is one thing that Google metadata can provide. Certainly if Google's metadata were bad enough, it should not be included. I'm confused as to why you're arguing that "scan-less" GBS information is automatically bad. Obviously, in the case of a scan-less GBS record, it's the _other_ metadata contained there that is of interest. Even if GBS somehow had NO scanned text, that other metadata might still be of interest and of quality. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that the GBS api response _tells you_ if full text is available or not--your client software is not reduced to presenting "scan-less" GBS links _as if_ they were full text. That would indeed be a problem. I am still very confused as to where your opposition comes from. I don't think most people maintaining library systems share an opposition to providing users with tables of contents, publisher information, and other information GBS metadata can provide. As an entirely separate issue, some GBS records do not allow full viewing, but DO allow "search inside the book" (with excerpts in your hits), which is another useful service. And yes, the GBS api tells you specifically if that's the access level. Not sure if Tim's opposition extends to these too. Search inside the book seems like an obviously useful value-added service to me. Jonathan Tim Spalding wrote: > Two thought experiments: > > *Let's add SparkNotes to the catalog. After all, SparkNotes has > information about books. Therefore, since all information is good > information, let's add it to the catalog. > *If SparkNotes, let's add free-essay-mill essays into the catalog. > *If that works, let's add snippets from the Google results to the > catalog. Not the first result, but the 100th. Since all information is > good information, the 100th result should be better than nothing. > > At some point, information is bad enough or far enough away from the > goals of education that while a student might conceivably use it, they > would be foolish to do so. For example, if LibraryThing for Libraries > recommendations uniformly terrible, nobody should add them to their > catalogs. This is doubly true when the bad information is juxtaposed > with good information sitting on a shelf. > > Whether scannless GBS is bad enough, I leave to you. I think it is, > but there's an argument, certainly. I don't think we can argue that > there is *some* lower threshold of quality beneath which data should > be left off the OPAC. I note, for example, that most "empty" books in > GBS do not show up high on Google's searches for that book name. They > don't show up because, absent a scan, GBS books are pretty weak tea. > > As for the idea that getting a book off the shelf is a non-trivial > hassle, while I admit that it can get hard if your library is split > between locations, at most colleges, getting a book from a library is > a trivial effort. And anyway, you're a student for pete's sake! > Learning is your full-time job. If gets books off shelves bums you > out, what are you doing in college? > > Best, > Tim > > -- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu