 |
 |
There is at least some new evidence that for at least some users...discovery patterns are moving toward library interfaces after having a steady decline [1]. It seems plausible to me that this shift may correlate to the change in tools and attitudes that has led to integrated discovery layers becoming the norm. I'm not suggesting that discovery is the end-all be-all, but think that providing helpful discovery to users that is targeted to the resources *they already can access* because of their affiliation(s) is still worthy of a chunk of our time, thought, and effort. I think the tools are better and that's a good thing. -t [1] http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/ithaka-sr-us-faculty-survey-2015/#discovery On 4/6/16, 7:04 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Eric Lease Morgan" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: >On Apr 6, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Jason Bengtson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> This is librarians fighting a PR battle we can't win. I doubt most people >> care about these assertions, and I certainly don't think they stand a >> chance of swaying anyone. This is like the old "librarians need to promote >> themselves better" chestnut. Losing strategies, in my opinion. Rather than >> trying to refight a battle with search technology that search technology >> has already won, libraries and librarians need to reinvent the technology >> and themselves. Semantic technologies, in particular, provide Information >> Science with extraordinary avenues for reinvention. We need to make search >> more effective and approachable, rather than wagging our finger at people >> who we think aren't searching "correctly". In the short term, data provides >> powerful opportunities. And it isn't all about writing code or wrangling >> data . . . informatics, metadata, systematic reviews, all of these are >> fertile ground for additional development. Digitization projects and other >> efforts to make special collections materials broadly accessible are >> exciting stuff, as are the developing technologies that support those >> efforts. We should be seizing the argument and shaping it, rather than >> trying to invent new bromides to support a losing fight. > > >+1 > >I wholeheartedly concur. IMHO, the problem to solve now-a-days does not surround search because everybody can find plenty of stuff, and the stuff is usually more than satisfactory. Instead, I think the problem to solve surrounds assisting the reader in using & understanding the stuff they find. [1] “Now that I’ve done the ‘perfect’ search and downloaded the subsequent 200 articles from JSTOR, how — given my limited resources —- do I read and comprehend what they say? Moreover, how do I compare & contrast what the articles purport with the things I already know?” Text mining (a type of semantic technology) is an applicable tool here, but then again, “Whenever you have a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." > >[1] an essay elaborating on the idea of use & understand - http://infomotions.com/blog/2011/09/dpla/ > >— >Eric Lease Morgan >Artist- And Librarian-At-Large