1. Webdiscovery Tools: the Future of Reference in Academic Libraries

2. “ But I still haven ’ t found what I ’ m looking for …” I have run: a browser. I have crawled: i.e., used a webcrawler or search engine. Scaled walls: refers to paywalls. Paywalls are authentication pages which require payment. In spite of all of this effort, the search ended in frustration.

3. What users want: A Google style box which searches EVERYTHING. Everything=local and remote: databases, archives, books, ILL, serials, e-books, you name it. Independence which comes from cloud-enabled disintermediation. Access via mobile apps.

4. What users don ’ t want: To wait for someone else to search for them. Maybe have their question understood and receive good answers, maybe not. “ Find full text in other databases ” “ Sorry, no holdings were found. ”

5. Role of the Reference Librarian: Webdiscovery tools improve search for reference librarians too. Opportunity to teach ONE search interface to users. Experienced librarians can find items not even found by the webdiscovery system.

6. Benefits to the Library (and University): Ensures library resources are used. Justifies to the administration keeping the library open. Serves online students, who cannot access the physical library. Gives researchers a competitive advantage vs. other schools.

7. Current Alternatives: Google Scholar: very poor coverage of content; nothing local; no customization. Google Books in litigation. HathiTrust: no commercial content. Each database an “ information silo. ” Federated search engines: difficult to maintain, slow, poor relevance.

8. Customization! Interface adaptable to become more user-friendly. Advanced/faceted search modifiable. Even relevance ranking. Search box can be embedded in course mgmt software (Blackboard).

9. Depth Offered > 931,000,000 items. Retrieves related content: e.g., book reviews in addition to book. Can suggest other items. Includes ILS functions like fines, requests, renewals. Even user reviews, ratings, tags.

10. Brief History OPAC ’ s in ’ 70 ’ s before Internet. Integrated Library Systems (ILS). Front end: OPAC, circulation, ILL. Back end: purchases, cataloging, serials. Now some ILS ’ s are open source. Google began as a library indexer.

11. How Webdiscovery Works Huge consolidated index of citation metadata and full text. Central index is faster than federated search engines (distributed). Authentication leads to link resolvers which lead to content. Librarians still manage local records.

12. Potential for Conflict Ebsco Webdiscovery vs. Ex Libris Primo Central. Libraries need cooperation to ensure best coverage of content. Some libraries have begun to require cooperative indexing in their licenses with vendors.

13. OCLC WorldCat Local: the first single search discovery resource Release Date: Spring 2007 Used in 1000’s of libraries in more than 100 countries Includes >931 million items, including 658 million articles One-time implementation fee and an annual subscription based on library’s user population

14. OCLC WorldCat Local: Customization Options Use branded interface with institution’s logo and change color options Use WorldCat URL or implement the search box in a current website

15. OCLC WorldCat Local: Extra User Features Users create and share lists, write reviews, rate items and more Mobile-optimized views customizable for the library Google Books Integration

16. OCLC WorldCat Local: Examples of Current Users Harvard University University of Chicago Dominican University

17. Serials Solution Summon Released: July 2009 >40 million records 39 open access archives, 257 institutional repositories from 73 different institutions Annual subscription based on FTE count and discounts available for multiyear and consortial subscriptions

18. Serials Solution Summon: Customization Options No universal description Use out-of-the-box approach and add color, logo and links Completely start from scratch Include the search box in existing websites

19. Serials Solution Summon: Extra User Features Mobile accessibility available through mobile interface Database recommender

20. Serials Solution Summon: Examples of Current Users Dartmouth College University of Michigan American University

21. Ebsco Discovery Services Released: Early 2010 Approx. 6,895,000 items, plus additional resources (biographies, health reports, etc) Annual subscription based on full- time equivalent (FTE) count and the level of service desired

22. Ebsco Discovery Services: Customization Options Uses familiar interface, but users can add institution colors, logo, and links Search box can be added to existing websites

23. Ebsco Discovery Services: Extra User Features Users can create an Ebsco account with a username and password A variety of widgets are available to increase functionality Ex: Libguides, flickr image, google books Mobile access is provided using the same Ebsco interface

24. Ebsco Discovery Services: Examples of Current Users Columbia College Chicago Mississippi State University Northeastern University

25. Ex Libris Primo Central Released: Mid-2010 “hundreds of millions” of scholarly e- resources Pricing based on features desired, the institution’s FTE count, and the number of local records. Consortial discounts are available

26. Ex Libris Primo Central: Customization Options Use basic template Redesign the site completely

27. Ex Libris Primo Central: Extra User Features Supports user-generated tags, ratings and reviews Mobile option available using simple primo interface Recommender service: article-level recommendations

28. Ex Libris Primo Central: Examples of Current Users Northwestern University Brigham Young University Vanderbilt University

29. VuFind Released: July 2010 Up to 25 million records 99 institutions Free: Open-Access

30. VuFind: Customization Options Open Source Fully customizable to adapt to a library’s website

31. VuFind: Extra User Features “more like this” resource suggestions, author biographies Mobile interface available, but limited DOES NOT INCORPORATE RELEVANCY RANKING

32. VuFind: Examples of Current Users University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign Villanova University Yale University

33. What would you look for in a Web Discovery System?