 |
 |
On 2/23/2012 2:45 PM, 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 think we need both of those, and mixtures between the two, and more. OCLC is trying to do the second one too. For instance with their link resolver redirector. But it requires link resolvers being registered, link resolvers working, and link resolvers working for print materials, etc. Of course "get a link on retrievals" begs the question of from where they are retrieving and who is generating this link? But in theory, anyone with a retrieval system could give you a link through OCLC's link resolver redirector. Which isn't quite fleshed out yet, but theoretically could then redirect you to the link resolver of your choice based on preferences or proximity. Except, well, it doens't work that well, for a variety of reasons both under and not under OCLC's control. But it's the sort of architecture we're talking about, I think. (Now if there was a common machine-readable response for link resolver type requests, an OCLC-like service could even aggregate the responses from _several_ "preferred institutions" on one page. Umlaut originally tried to do that with SFX link resolvers, but it never really went anywhere). Anyhow, yeah, both of those, and more. They definitely aren't mutually exclusive, and the sorts of technologies and metadata ecologies that are needed to support each one have a whole lot of overlap. Incidentally, my Umlaut software, mostly targetted at academic libraries, is really focused on that exact problem: "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? " But it's definitely not done yet, it's my goal with Umlaut, but there's still a lot left to do to get there. (Ultimately, you need some kind of LibX-type approach, browser plugin or javascript bookmarklet, to get people to a place where they have access from third parties that have absolutely no interest in collaborating on this plan. Amazon doesn't want to help you go anywhere other than Amazon to acquire a book). Definitely a work in progress, but the goal it's oriented to is exactly what you say. https://github.com/team-umlaut/umlaut Jonathan > > 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 >>> >