 |
 |
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