Presentation on theme: "George Machovec Associate Director Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries Metasearch academic perspectives."— Presentation transcript:
George Machovec Associate Director Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries Metasearch academic perspectives
Colorado Alliance: Who Are We? Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries A non-profit consortium of 12 libraries founded in c3 History of innovation –CARL ILS (sold in 1995) – now TLC –UnCover (sold in 1995) – now Ingenta No relationship to current TLC/CARL 12 staff
Colorado Alliance: Who Are We? Member of ICOLC We do standard consortial stuff with a twist –Database licensing –Data hosting (locally operate III, Endeavor, CARL/TLC, Ovid, SilverPlatter) –Prospector (INN-Reach) regional union catalog –Software development (e.g. Gold Rush, Colorado Digitization Project, The Charleston Advisor) –Operates over 20 servers with multiple T1s and BGP Internet redundancy
Colorado Alliance: Who Are We? Auraria CU/Boulder CU/Health Sciences CSU Colo School of Mines Denver Public Library Univ of Northern Colorado University of Denver University of Denver/Law Regis University Univ of Wyoming
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics MetaSearch showcase held at Colorado Alliance 18 months ago Presentations by leading commercial services After presentations the participants discussed their interests and needs
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics Research audience must be supported, but should also be able to serve adult, child, distance, scholarly, undergrad, doctoral, course-specific, and situational audiences. Good authentication tools. Ideally patrons should only need to authenticate once for access to all resources and content Good link checking tools that are flexible in implementation
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics Easy to implement, learn and to use The Web workspace should be flexible and customizable to fit within the existing library design Uses should be able to customize the environment (personalize), but only if desired (many patrons dont care to do this).
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics Flexibility in target selection. In addition to primary librarian suggested sites, additional sites might be suggested by the interface for users to select. Cross protocol calls (Z39.50, http, SQL, SRW, SRU) should be supported. Supports adaptive technologies for ADA compliance.
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics Content (selection lists) should be systematically selected and provided, offering guidance to users trying to identify targets. Good help for further information. New service alerts should be automatically provided without users having to search for them. Perhaps an SDI service for academics notifying them of new database or service content in areas of interest.
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics Display incoming results immediately to avoid dead wait time. Give user some indication that more is coming Ability to support many targets! Academics purchase much online. Security and privacy features should include the ability to set timeouts. SSL or similar encryption should be supported. De-duplication & priority setting for displays PDA or PC tablet support
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics Mimic institutional programming, e.g., areas of excellence Links to and from online courseware. Better integration with online classes. Possible e-commerce support (e.g. document delivery) if online content not available Easy ability to go into native search interface mode if necessary Ability to use system statistics for future interface and display. Perhaps heavily used resources given priority display. Dynamic?
MetaSearch Whats Important to Academics OpenURL enabled –Will help support linking with source services that are not or have done it poorly –Would provide a uniform manner for displaying links to further content –Needs to offer flexibility in link language, graphics and placement
MetaSearch: Academic Targets Abstracting/Indexing Services Publishers (e.g. Elsevier ScienceDirect) – important to be able to pull togther Aggregators Electronic reserves Local databases including digitization projects OAI resources Institutional repositories
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses How is interface categorized? –By subject categories. Some offer limiting by format (e.g. full-text, images) –Some are targeting specific audiences (e.g. undergrads) Who implements –Implementation/management team. End-user interface by Web librarian. Catalog librarian creates searching scripts –Assistant Electronic Resources librarian –Systems Department
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses How many targets have you put in your interface? –90 out of 250 after 6 months (a MetaLib site) –70 out of 300 after 12 months (a FD site) –30 after 3 months (limited license on Metafind) –50 out of 200 after 6 months (an Endeavor site)
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses Are you pointing to publisher specific websites? –Highwire, JSTOR (link only), IEEE (link only) [a Metalib site] –JSTOR, ProjectMuse, Wiley, Scirus (a MetaFind site) –Elsevier, Wiley, Blackwell Synergy, Highwire, Kluwer (a FD site)
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses How did you select which resources to add? –Paid ExLibris for some set-up. Did easy low- hanging fruit. Asked selectors to prioritize products –Used statistics for initial list. Assembled working groups in topical areas to select final targets –Task forces were selected and got feedback from library staff
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses Special or interesting targets? –ContentDM (for local digitization effort) –Classical.com –TARO (repository browse at the Univ of Houston) –Local archives and manuscript collection
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses What bothers you the most? –Options for end-user display not as flexible has hoped –Getting the interface to work with campus authentication –Linking to resources that do not easily support an incoming search –Limits in the number of targets and/or returned result sets due to IT
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses What bothers you the most? –Lack of relevancy ranking –Lack of knowing what fields can be search as this is is not standardized across targets –Lack of sufficient (or poor quality) metadata that causes false or no hits –Too much customization and ongoing maintenance by library –Wish it was easier to set-up and maintain targets
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses What do you like most? –One stop shopping –Great for undergrads! –Helps cut down on searching confusion with a unified (common) interface –Good starting point and takes advantage of librarian vetting for quality resources
Academic Metasearch Survey Selected responses What do you like most? –Alerts and my library features –Saving searches –Love citation manager output (e.g. EndNote)