Internet Librarian 2007 - A102 The Impact of 2.0

October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 1

The Impact of 2.0

lipstick, cowbells and serendipity in the OPAC

Dave Pattern, Library Systems Manager

University of [email protected]


Contents

• “OPAC suckitude”• Some findings from the OPAC Survey• Our experiences at Huddersfield• More from the OPAC Survey

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/


Does Your OPAC “Suck”?


Quick OPAC Survey (2007)• On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is

extremely unhappy and 10 is extremely happy), how happy are you with your OPAC?

5.1


Quick OPAC Survey (2007)• One criticism of OPACs is that they rarely

have cutting edge features (or perhaps even basic features) that our users expect from a modern web site.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how well do you think your OPAC meets the needs and expectations of your users?

4.5


Quick OPAC Survey (2007)• On a scale of 1 to 10, how easy do you think

one of your average users finds your OPAC is to use?

4.6• On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you

think it is that an OPAC is easy & intuitive to use?

9.2


The Huddersfield Experience

• Not really “OPAC 2.0” (?)• Enhancements to the vendor OPAC

– user suggestions from student/staff surveys– “2.0” inspired features– good ideas “borrowed” from other web sites – new features launched with no/low publicity– “perpetual beta”

• Required staff buy-in and a willingness to experiment and take risks


Spell Checker

• We monitored keyword searches over a six month period and discovered 23%* of searches gave zero results– most OPACs present the user with a dead

end page (“...where do I go now?”)– a good search engine should still give the

user options on a failed search (“did you mean?”)

(* 2 years on, it’s still around 20%)


Spell Checker


Spell Checker

• Spell checker based on a common word dictionary or your own holdings?– ...the latter might highlight your

cataloguing errors1!

http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libraries/tballard/typoscomplete.html


Serendipity Keyword Suggestions

• failed keyword searches are cross referenced with www.answers.com to provide new search suggestions


Serendipity Keyword Suggestions


Borrowing Suggestions

• We had details of over 2,000,000 CKOs spanning 10 years stored in the library management system and gathering virtual dust

• Web 2.0 – “Data is the Next Intel Inside1”• Historic circulation data can be mined2 to

uncover the hidden trends and links between potentially disparate library items

http://tim.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining


Borrowing Suggestions


Other Editions

• Uses FRBR-y web services provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related works within local holdings– OCLC’s xISBN1

– LibraryThing’s thingISBN2

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/xisbn/

http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2006/06/introducing-thingisbn_14.php


Other Editions


Ratings and Comments


Problems ... Challenges!

• There was no formal process for discussing & agreeing new OPAC features– so we organised a web/library 2.0 afternoon for staff

• Some initial (healthy) scepticism from staff– would users think borrowing suggestions were formal

recommendations from the library?– aren’t borrowing suggestions just for selling books?– how relevant will the suggestions be?

• Would sudden changes confuse users?


Solutions?

• Encourage suggestions from staff• Include users in decision making

process• Encourage play and experimentation• Don’t be afraid to make mistakes!• Look widely for ideas• “Build crappy prototypes fast”1

• Monitor usage– if usage is poor then remove it


“If you build it, will they come?”


Increase in Usage"Did You Mean" - 2006/07 Compared

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

May June July

nu

mb

er o

f cl

icks

2006 2007


Increase in Usage"People Who Borrowed This..." - 2006/07 Compared

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

May June July

nu

mb

er o

f cl

icks

2006 2007


Lipstick on the Pig

“We need to focus more energy on important, systemic changes rather than cosmetic ones. If your system is more difficult to search and less effective than Amazon.com, then you have work to do.

After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still very much a pig.”

(Roy Tennant, Library Journal, 2005)

http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA516027.html


Quick OPAC Survey – Features

• Please rate how important you feel the following features are to your users in a modern OPAC.– embedding the OPAC in external sites (e.g. portals) 8.7– “did you mean” spelling suggestions 8.6– enriched content (book covers, ToCs, etc) 8.4– RSS feeds (e.g. new books, searches, etc) 7.8– facetted browsing (e.g. like NCSU Library) 7.4– “people who borrowed this” suggestions 6.5– user tagging of items (i.e. folksonomy) 6.1– user added comments and reviews 6.1– personalised suggestions (e.g. like Amazon) 6.0– user added ratings for items 5.7


Importance (getting soon)Feature I mportance

8.7 8.6 8.4

7.87.4

6.56.1 6.1 6.0

5.7

9.18.8 8.8

8.48.9

7.8 8.0

7.4

8.7

7.0

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

imp

ort

an

ce

(o

ut

of

10

)

importance (all) importance (already got) importance (getting soon)


Importance – UK respondents

8.6

8.17.8

7.2

6.5

5.95.7

5.45.8

5.3

8.7 8.88.6

7.97.7

6.7

6.2 6.26.0 5.9

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

stealt

h OPAC

did yo

u m

ean

enric

hed

RSS feed

s

face

ts

also

borro

wed

user

tagg

ing

user

com

men

ts

user

lear

ning

user

ratin

gs4

5

6

7

8

9

10

imp

ort

an

ce

(o

ut

of

10

)

UK respondents non-UK respondents


Technology Adoption - Now


Technology Adoption – Q4 07?


Thank you! Any quick questions?

http://www.slideshare.net/[email protected]

Internet Librarian 2007 - A102 The Impact of 2.0

Technology

Transcript of Internet Librarian 2007 - A102 The Impact of 2.0