1. Necessary Changes to Modern Library Catalogs and Potential Solutions Meg Gill ILS 506-S70

2. What do patrons want in a library search experience? They want the ease and familiarity of online search engines like Google and Yahoo! They want the ease and familiarity of online search engines like Google and Yahoo! List of desired features includes: Spell check Spell check Google’s “did you mean this?” Google’s “did you mean this?” Natural language text Natural language text Assistance with query building Assistance with query building full text and summary features full text and summary features One stop shopping - everything available in one database One stop shopping - everything available in one database Popularity tracking Popularity tracking Links to relevant information Links to relevant information And the list goes on…

3. Sue Gardner, in her article, The Changing Landscape of Contemporary Cataloging shares the views held by many. “Until I can put a sophisticated search string into a search box in an ILS and be taken to a link to the full text of the article that I want, or the bibliographic record that I want, I will continue to use Google to look for certain resources, especially those that I know exist… When this method does not take me to the full text, I often use Google to get a relevant citation and then go to my ILS to seek out a specific resource that is not available free on the Web,”

4. Potential Solutions Holly Yu and Margo Young in their article, The Impact of Subject Searching in OPAC suggest modifying OPACs in the following ways: 1. Use misspellings recorded in catalog transaction logs as a basis for a function like Google’s spell check 2. Insert reader comments into bibliographic records to create a type of reader recommendation feature 3. Provide an interactive experience for users by enabling them to post comments in the catalog 4. Implement metasearch technology that turns the OPAC into a portal that allows for a one stop shopping environment so appealing to today’s search engine users

5. Additional Ideas Issues relating to vocabulary, query building, and natural language searching verses controlled vocabulary/subject headings are far more complicated. As early as 1994, Marcia Bates, in her final report to the Library of Congress, Improving User Access to Library Catalog and Portal Information, argued for the need to develop a “general end-user entry vocabulary that can be used anywhere across the Internet, as well as in libraries, intranets, and other information environments, and by any agency” (2003, p. 30).

6. Bates Model Continued The two key objectives of the Bates model would be first to help the user by suggesting additional terms that may ORed (under Boolean Logic) to improve recall and second, to help the user utilize the best vocabulary to describe a topic to help improve precision. Use of the vocabulary would be optional and the design would function at the database level not the individual record level. The basic design of the vocabulary would consist of human and computer generated term clusters allowing for groups of keywords to be made available to the searcher (Bates, 2003, p. 30).

7. Are SOPACs the answer? Issues relating to vocabulary were a key factor in the development of the next stage for OPACs, SOPACs or Social Online Public Access Catalogs.

8. SOPACs SOPACs allow users to search using folksonomies which is, “a user-driven and fluid form of subject classification” as opposed to taxonomies which are “hierarchical and exclusive” (San Jose State University,2007, p.5). SOPACs present an excellent opportunity for catalogers to improve traditional taxonomies by creating hybrids of the two allowing for a more user-friendly information retrieval experience (San Jose State University, 2007, p. 6).

9. SOPACs Innovative Interfaces Inc., has helped to pave the way by creating Encore, a SOPAC which includes, “federated and faceted searching; tag clouds drawn from both a library’s own catalog and from tags suggested by library users; and patron ratings and reviews” (San Jose State University, 2007 p. 8). Encore uses AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and HML) technology, allowing users to view results before the search is even finished thus reducing the wait time associated with traditional search results. Encore also incorporates features from popular sites like Amazon.com including graphics, reviews, and linking to other relevant sites (San Jose State University, 2007, p. 9). Innovative Interfaces Inc., has helped to pave the way by creating Encore, a SOPAC which includes, “federated and faceted searching; tag clouds drawn from both a library’s own catalog and from tags suggested by library users; and patron ratings and reviews” (San Jose State University, 2007 p. 8). Encore uses AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and HML) technology, allowing users to view results before the search is even finished thus reducing the wait time associated with traditional search results. Encore also incorporates features from popular sites like Amazon.com including graphics, reviews, and linking to other relevant sites (San Jose State University, 2007, p. 9).

10. Final thoughts… Today’s library patrons crave a more interactive as opposed to static experience with tools and features designed to empower them as they navigate the information maze. Whether the solutions are SOPACs or integrated systems like the OCLC’s Open WebCat, or simply joining consortiums and switching to an ILS that gives patrons more autonomy, is unknown as these programs and others will require close monitoring over the next few years to determine their viability in the ever changing Web environment. What is certain is that with each attempt, progress is being made towards ensuring the information seeker’s needs and expectations are given priority over the security and familiarity of the traditional catalog.

11. References Bates, M. (2003). Improving User Access to Library Catalog and Portal Information Final Report (Version 3). Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/2.3BatesReport-03.doc.pdf Bates, M. (2003). Improving User Access to Library Catalog and Portal Information Final Report (Version 3). Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/2.3BatesReport-03.doc.pdf http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/2.3BatesReport-03.doc.pdf Gardner, S. (2008). The Changing Landscape of Contemporary Cataloging. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context= libraryscience Gardner, S. (2008). The Changing Landscape of Contemporary Cataloging. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context= libraryscience http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context= libraryscience http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context= libraryscience San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science. (2007, December). Information Seeking and Retrieval in the Web/Library 2.0 Age. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://slisweb.sjsu.edu/courses/202.gliu/SamplePaper.pdf San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science. (2007, December). Information Seeking and Retrieval in the Web/Library 2.0 Age. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://slisweb.sjsu.edu/courses/202.gliu/SamplePaper.pdf Yu, H. & Young, M. (2004, December). The Impact of Web Search Engines on Subject Searching in OPAC. Information Technology and Libraries, 23 (4). Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/ital/volume23a/number4a/yu.pdf Yu, H. & Young, M. (2004, December). The Impact of Web Search Engines on Subject Searching in OPAC. Information Technology and Libraries, 23 (4). Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/ital/volume23a/number4a/yu.pdf http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/ital/volume23a/number4a/yu.pdf