Web-Scale Discovery Reality Check

Frank CervoneVice Chancellor and CIO

Purdue University Calumet

Jeff WisniewskiWeb Services Librarian

University of Pittsburgh

Original idea…

DISCOVERY

TOOL SMACKDOWN!

Here’s the problem…

•The ILS is no longer integrated•Libraries don’t work with their ILS but

around it▫Duplicate data entry

Bibliographic Financial transactions

•Digital materials are the majority of the collection▫Often managed by separate staff in

separate, often inefficient workflowsBurke, Jane. 2012. Sometimes you just have to start over. Serial Solutions Words, January 24, 2012. Online at http://www.serialssolutions.com/en/words/detail/sometimes-you-just-have-to-start-over

Important point #1

0% of users start their research on your library’s website, so discovery needs to be

diffuse

Important point #2

Fulfillment is just as important as discovery

•All of these need to be as seamless and integrated as possible:▫Remote access▫openURL ▫ILL▫Requesting and other catalog functionality

Some bizarre arguments

•Users generally do not tag or review in next generation catalogs

Common arguments•No need for broad

searches•Aggregated indices are

opaque•Encourages lazy searching•We can/should/are

teaching users to search “properly”

•Google Scholar already does this

No need for broad searches• Searching through millions of items is not

necessary and tends to confuse users No real evidence to support this claim

• There are better more discipline specific tools This is true, so use them when appropriate In most cases though, this is not really the issue

• As research becomes more complex, most researchers are interested in the long-tail results

Aggregated indices are opaque

•Is it full text? Metadata? •What about “quality?”•Balancing the needs of

certainty vs. sufficiency▫Satisficing

•Discovery tools are simply easier to use

Howard, D., and Wiebrands, C. (2011). Culture Shock: Librarians' Response to Web Scale Search. Information Online Conference. Online at http://www.information-online.com.au/sb_clients/iog/data/content_item_files/000001/paper_2011_A1.pdf

Connaway, L. S., Dickey, T. S., Radford, M. (2011). If It Is Too Inconvenient, I’m Not Going After It: Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors. OCLC Research. Online at http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2011/connaway-lisr.pdf

Discovery is only as good as the content included or excluded

•Yes, but it’s our job to know that and work to get problems fixed

•Our patrons don’t know and (generally) don’t care

•Favoritism – a legitimate concern

Encourages lazy searching•Quick and dirty searches

•Welcome to the real world!

•People expect to be able to search easily

•Tools tend to increase usage of library resources▫Serendipity

Way, D. (2010). The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection. Serials Review, 36(4), pp. 214-220. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.07.002

“…dramatic increase in the use of full-text resources from full-text database and online journal collections…”

Which is a dramatic increase in ROI

Doug Way, The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection, Serials Review, Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2010, Pages 214-220, ISSN 0098-7913, 10.1016/j.serrev.2010.07.002.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098791310000882)

We can/should/are teaching users to search “properly”

Users failed:• Finding the correct starting-point for the search• Using search terms that were indexed and therefore

searchable• Got lost clicking subject heading and call number

linksWHY?

“Participants expected library searching to behave like their other search experiences”

-Nancy Kress, Darcy Del Bosque, Tom Ipri, (2011) "User failure to find known library items", New Library World, Vol. 112 Iss: 3/4, pp.150 - 170

Speaking of teaching…

“Bibliographic instruction is much better received and easier to provide, as Primo has freed librarians to spend more time teaching the finer points of research resources and methods…instead of basic search mechanics.”

Discovering what works: thinking of implementing a discovery service? Successful pioneers of several products describe their experiences.

Zinthia C. Briceno-Rosales, Rebecca Fernandez, Amanda Clay Powers, and Ken Varnum. Library Journal. 136.19 (Nov. 15, 2011

Google scholar already does this

• Google Scholar is free • Interface is user friendly• Outperforms discovery tools?

▫Not true Found wanting on validity and reliability Many of the results did not add any

significant value to the topic in question http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0361526X.2011.592115

• Customization is not easy▫Affiliation settings are pretty hiddenTimpson, H., and Sansom, G. (2011). A Student Perspective on e-Resource Discovery:

Has the Google Factor Changed Publisher Platform Searching Forever? The Serials Librarian 61(2), pp. 253-266. Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0361526X.2011.592115

Discovery tool may not completely replace the online catalog?

Repeat after me…

I am not our users

I am an information professional

My users neither search nor think like me

Unlike Janet Jackson, we’re NOT in control

So we need to stop thinking like we have to be

We don’t need to host locally, really

Traditional in-house implementation

Advantages• Complete

control

Disadvantages• Complete

responsibility

Alternative modelsHosted services

SaaS (Software as

a Service)

Vendor assumes

some responsibilit

y

Vendor assumes primary

responsibility

Bottom line benefits

Higher return on assets Cost savings

Decreased cycle time

Deployment time is decreased

Agility

• Lack of specific skill sets in house

• Internal policies• In house regulatory

compliance

Practical benefits

Has increased usage of

electronic resources

Eliminates major

responsibilities in keeping

systems operational

Can help safeguard applications• Separate location

Fast system restoration• Based on scalable architecture at vendor site

Saves time and effort• Failed hardware• Natural disaster

Advantages for the libraryDemonstrab

ly less expensive to implement

Much faster deployment

Allows us to focus on “value added” servicesSocial

computing benefits

Thanks• Jeff Wisniewski – University of Pittsburgh

▫Facebook.com/wisniewski.jeff▫Twitter.com/jeffwisniewski

• Frank Cervone – Purdue University Calumet▫Facebook.com/fcervone▫Twitter.com/fcervone