During the last number of years of teaching library, I have really flip flopped on how much Dewey teaching I do. I hate teaching skills out of context or outside of real life situations. It just seems to make the skills irrelevant and boring. In hindsight, I think it is also reflective of me not having very many exciting ways to teach the concepts.
I realize that I have unconsciously relegated Dewey just to a retrieval system of physical addresses. I want kids using the OPAC as soon as possible and look for the books they like by keyword or subject searches. This has not really served the needs of my younger patrons. My K to 3 students are essentially shelf browsers. They are browsers by necessity since the use of the OPAC is onerous and not very productive. These patrons have limited success in locating the exact call number on the shelves.
I have put some signage up in the library regarding popular Dewey sections and used smallish icons that represent the section. I have matched these icons to the icons I use in the visual search queries I have created in Destiny Library Manager. I now see that I need to vastly increase the number of signs I have and perhaps make the pictures on those signs larger. The subject terms seem to resonate less with younger patrons than do the pictures.
I think reading through the Dewey and pre-selecting books for younger grades out of these sections is very productive and necessary. I have just been doing this with my Grade 1s over the last few weeks. Some kids are resistant to having their book choices limited to about forty books just laid out on the library tables. However, once they have gotten over this, they are finding much better and exciting reads. I certainly have a lot to learn about what appeals. This pre-selection of books and comparing and contrasting them with much more difficult books from these sections has also been productive. Students are becoming slightly more skilled at examining nonfiction books and identifying what will make them a "just right read." Previously, I just had grade 1s whoe were picture browsers. These were students who only consumedd nonfiction for pictures and reading of any of the text was totally irrelevant. Now they are thinking about whether they can read it themselves or whether or not it would be a good book to have read to them (they realize that some books just don't lend themselves to having an adult read them to their child--too long, too complicated-etc).
I think the more time I spend on guiding students through the subjects of Dewey and promoting informed shelf browsing, it will help my nonfiction section to better utilized. I have many great books that just don't circulate. There are Dewey sections that students just don't visit. Overt and systematic study of each Dewey category will help overcome this.
I think I am going to reinstitute some of my flash card and library mapping activities. I also think that having students create posters or advertisements for the Dewey categories would be a useful project. I don't have a lot of wall space for such posters but I think the activity itself and a little show and tell would be valuable.
I have used some websites and games to help with the Dewey. I have been using Order in the Library for years and some of the thinkquests. I am really surprised a truly professionally produced game package or subscription website has not yet been developed for teaching the Dewey. Maybe this is a moneymaker idea for some librarian/programmer out there.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Digital Library Collections
I have just finished my project for creating a digital library. Check it out.
https://sites.google.com/site/torquaylibrary/home
I also have a length discussion paper attached to the website.
In some ways I think I got a little too consumed with this assignment. Searching for electronic resources and creating electronic records for them and designing an organizational format to share them was the general thrust of the project. In an effort to end up with a usable resource for my school, I wanted to be all things to all people. I had a both students and teachers in mind. I was also very focused on electronic content. I did pay lip service to videos and some book resources but I wanted mostly to augment my library collection. This is no small task.
The effective organization of electronic resources is incredibly laborious. Without access to an OPAC that allows you to put your records into a MARC record database, the creation and maintenance of digital libraries is nearly impossible for a busy part time teacher-librarian.
Cataloguing of websites is incredibly difficult. Some websites are very eclectic in terms of their focus or intended audiences. Certainly cataloguing of websites requires the use of many more subject headings than we use for more standard physical print resources we catalogue for our libraries. It seems that some web resources need to be parsed down into sub-sections which are catalogued separately.
Depending on the content being catalogued the use on more and more non-standard subject heading may be required. Web page cataloguing seems to be a mixture of folksonomy and standardized subject cataloguing.
https://sites.google.com/site/torquaylibrary/home
I also have a length discussion paper attached to the website.
In some ways I think I got a little too consumed with this assignment. Searching for electronic resources and creating electronic records for them and designing an organizational format to share them was the general thrust of the project. In an effort to end up with a usable resource for my school, I wanted to be all things to all people. I had a both students and teachers in mind. I was also very focused on electronic content. I did pay lip service to videos and some book resources but I wanted mostly to augment my library collection. This is no small task.
The effective organization of electronic resources is incredibly laborious. Without access to an OPAC that allows you to put your records into a MARC record database, the creation and maintenance of digital libraries is nearly impossible for a busy part time teacher-librarian.
Cataloguing of websites is incredibly difficult. Some websites are very eclectic in terms of their focus or intended audiences. Certainly cataloguing of websites requires the use of many more subject headings than we use for more standard physical print resources we catalogue for our libraries. It seems that some web resources need to be parsed down into sub-sections which are catalogued separately.
Depending on the content being catalogued the use on more and more non-standard subject heading may be required. Web page cataloguing seems to be a mixture of folksonomy and standardized subject cataloguing.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Social Bookmarking and Subject Cataloguing
This week we are looking at subject cataloguing in libraries and the emergence of folksonomy for web-based resources. When searching for any library resource having concise keywords or subject terms are crucial to getting what you want and need. When we catalogue books, good library practice dictates that we don't just use terms that appeal to ourselves. A standardized set of subject terminology allows for more consistent cataloguing of books and increases the likelihood that patrons will be able to retrieve all applicable resources available in a library collection; provided they can identify and apply an approved term.
The Sears List of Subject Headings is the the most common resource used by teacher-librarians to provide subject headings for library items. The practice until recently has been to use one to two subject headings for most nonfiction items and not necessarily any subject heading for fiction items. With the advent of electronic catalogues and electronic search features this restriction is no longer necessary and perhaps even less desirable or acceptable practice. We have the capacity to give patrons a wider variety of access points to an item. Libraries also exist in a new context where patrons are conditioned to be less thoughtful in the search terms they use. The Google generation uses any term that comes to mind and more often than not have some sort of success in retrieving relevant information from the web. Whether this is be best and most relevant information is not often a consideration. This is a culture or reality I think librarians and cataloguers need to acknowledge.
Library collections exist in the larger context of the Internet-based resources. Recently, the phenomena on the web is to catagorize resources using tags. As people identify useful resources on the Internet the use of browser-based bookmarking has become somewhat unwieldly. We often use multiple computers so we want these resources to be consistently available. Social bookmarking sites have become the solution. Bookmarks can now be web-based and be available on any computer. In addition, social bookmarking sites have addressed the inadequacy of sorting bookmarks under single subject headings (our equivalent of folders in our browser-based bookmarks or favourites) by the advent of tagging. Users can attach any number of subject terms of their own choosing or invention to facilitate their retrieval and recollection at some future date.
The practice of developing personal cataloguing systems of subject headings or descriptors is called folksonomy. This practice has its drawbacks. When using nonstandardized terms it may require the searcher to use a great variety of terms to locate sufficient resources on a particular resource. Do you use the word cat, cats, kittens, or felines to find the information you desire? The use of more standardized terms in the social bookmarking context would seem to be beneficial to all, but the capacity to use a great number of tags is useful since it gives these resources a wide range of access points. A challenge is when the tags are too general then they lose their usefulness and too specialized or specific as to be irrelevant or inaccessible by most searchers. I believe a technological solution may be possible to some of the downside of folksonomy. The development of search algorithms that will generate and match sophisticated lists of synonyms for tags that also filter for specificity seems within the capacity of even today's technology.
I believe the phenomena of the increasing practice of folksonomy will create tremendous pressure to expand and change library cataloguing practice and technology. Today's library patrons are keyword searchers. They are used to web searches which use algorithms that search the entire text of websites. Such searching allows users to utilize terms that are personally relevant and doesn't require much reflection or education as to approved subject terms. The pressure is already on for our library collections to provide full electronic texts for most items in their collection. Full electronic texts opens the possibility of using search engine type algorithms as a point of access to library items. These access points could be used in addition to librarian provided subject cataloguing. Perhaps library catalogues will be opened to folksonomists at large. We already have OPACs that allow patrons to append their own personal reviews of the resources. Technologically it would be fairly easy to add the ability for patrons to add their own tags to these items and allow such searching of collections by tags.
The Sears List of Subject Headings is the the most common resource used by teacher-librarians to provide subject headings for library items. The practice until recently has been to use one to two subject headings for most nonfiction items and not necessarily any subject heading for fiction items. With the advent of electronic catalogues and electronic search features this restriction is no longer necessary and perhaps even less desirable or acceptable practice. We have the capacity to give patrons a wider variety of access points to an item. Libraries also exist in a new context where patrons are conditioned to be less thoughtful in the search terms they use. The Google generation uses any term that comes to mind and more often than not have some sort of success in retrieving relevant information from the web. Whether this is be best and most relevant information is not often a consideration. This is a culture or reality I think librarians and cataloguers need to acknowledge.
Library collections exist in the larger context of the Internet-based resources. Recently, the phenomena on the web is to catagorize resources using tags. As people identify useful resources on the Internet the use of browser-based bookmarking has become somewhat unwieldly. We often use multiple computers so we want these resources to be consistently available. Social bookmarking sites have become the solution. Bookmarks can now be web-based and be available on any computer. In addition, social bookmarking sites have addressed the inadequacy of sorting bookmarks under single subject headings (our equivalent of folders in our browser-based bookmarks or favourites) by the advent of tagging. Users can attach any number of subject terms of their own choosing or invention to facilitate their retrieval and recollection at some future date.
The practice of developing personal cataloguing systems of subject headings or descriptors is called folksonomy. This practice has its drawbacks. When using nonstandardized terms it may require the searcher to use a great variety of terms to locate sufficient resources on a particular resource. Do you use the word cat, cats, kittens, or felines to find the information you desire? The use of more standardized terms in the social bookmarking context would seem to be beneficial to all, but the capacity to use a great number of tags is useful since it gives these resources a wide range of access points. A challenge is when the tags are too general then they lose their usefulness and too specialized or specific as to be irrelevant or inaccessible by most searchers. I believe a technological solution may be possible to some of the downside of folksonomy. The development of search algorithms that will generate and match sophisticated lists of synonyms for tags that also filter for specificity seems within the capacity of even today's technology.
I believe the phenomena of the increasing practice of folksonomy will create tremendous pressure to expand and change library cataloguing practice and technology. Today's library patrons are keyword searchers. They are used to web searches which use algorithms that search the entire text of websites. Such searching allows users to utilize terms that are personally relevant and doesn't require much reflection or education as to approved subject terms. The pressure is already on for our library collections to provide full electronic texts for most items in their collection. Full electronic texts opens the possibility of using search engine type algorithms as a point of access to library items. These access points could be used in addition to librarian provided subject cataloguing. Perhaps library catalogues will be opened to folksonomists at large. We already have OPACs that allow patrons to append their own personal reviews of the resources. Technologically it would be fairly easy to add the ability for patrons to add their own tags to these items and allow such searching of collections by tags.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Cataloguing: Making my own MARC record
This week's assignment is to learn the Tags, Indicators and Subfield codes of the MARC record and try to catalog a book independently and then check it against a MARC record developed either by the Library of Congress or from AMICUS our Canadian national catalogue. During this assignment I registered with AMICUS so as to be access their free MARC records. My library catalogue system automatically links with AMICUS and a number of other library catalogues in Canada when searching for MARC records for items that have not yet been added to our union catalogue.
My first attempt was for a newly purchased book by Sean Cassidy entitled Kazaak!. There was a record in our union catalogue but is was incomplete and what was there was formatted in all capitals and looked questionable. This is what I was able to generate on a first try:
020 ## $a 9781554551170
100 1# $a Cassidy, Sean
$d 1947
245 1# $a Kazaak
260 ## $a Markham, Ontario :
$b Fitzhenry & Whiteside
$c 2010
300 ## $a 30 p. :
$b ill. ;
$c 21 x 27 cm.
This was the very basic information. This doesn't give anything in regards to subject or other notes. When I looked up this record on AMICUS they had added one more tag as follows:
500 ## $a "A tell-me-more! story book"--Cover
This general note tag where variations in the title can be noted. On the cover is a circular icon with a picture of a porcupine on it and the A Tell-Me-More! Storybook title on it. It seems this book is one of number of books using a similar format. It is not really a series though.
Now that I look inside the front cover of the book for a little more help in creating a summary note for tag 520. I am curious to know what sources cataloguers use for such summary notes or are they all original creations. Where does plagiarism start and end with these summaries? Can you just take the information of the back cover?
520 ## $a Spike is just learning about his new quills from his friend Rupert, but when Rupert gets into trouble with Bear, Spike must use his imagination and his won quills to save him.
For the subject tag I am not very clear on what subfield codes to be using and the whole part of using $2 if you are using a Sears subject listing.
650 ## $a Porcupine
Here is my MARC record as complete as I can get for now:
020 ## $a 9781554551170
100 1# $a Cassidy, Sean
$d 1947
245 1# $a Kazaak
260 ## $a Markham, Ontario :
$b Fitzhenry & Whiteside
$c 2010
300 ## $a 30 p. :
$b ill. ;
$c 21 x 27 cm.
500 ## $a "A tell-me-more! story book"--Cover
520 ## $a Spike is just learning about his new quills from his friend Rupert, but when Rupert gets into trouble with Bear, Spike must use his imagination and his won quills to save him.
650 10 $a Porupine
My first attempt was for a newly purchased book by Sean Cassidy entitled Kazaak!. There was a record in our union catalogue but is was incomplete and what was there was formatted in all capitals and looked questionable. This is what I was able to generate on a first try:
020 ## $a 9781554551170
100 1# $a Cassidy, Sean
$d 1947
245 1# $a Kazaak
260 ## $a Markham, Ontario :
$b Fitzhenry & Whiteside
$c 2010
300 ## $a 30 p. :
$b ill. ;
$c 21 x 27 cm.
This was the very basic information. This doesn't give anything in regards to subject or other notes. When I looked up this record on AMICUS they had added one more tag as follows:
500 ## $a "A tell-me-more! story book"--Cover
This general note tag where variations in the title can be noted. On the cover is a circular icon with a picture of a porcupine on it and the A Tell-Me-More! Storybook title on it. It seems this book is one of number of books using a similar format. It is not really a series though.
Now that I look inside the front cover of the book for a little more help in creating a summary note for tag 520. I am curious to know what sources cataloguers use for such summary notes or are they all original creations. Where does plagiarism start and end with these summaries? Can you just take the information of the back cover?
520 ## $a Spike is just learning about his new quills from his friend Rupert, but when Rupert gets into trouble with Bear, Spike must use his imagination and his won quills to save him.
For the subject tag I am not very clear on what subfield codes to be using and the whole part of using $2 if you are using a Sears subject listing.
650 ## $a Porcupine
Here is my MARC record as complete as I can get for now:
020 ## $a 9781554551170
100 1# $a Cassidy, Sean
$d 1947
245 1# $a Kazaak
260 ## $a Markham, Ontario :
$b Fitzhenry & Whiteside
$c 2010
300 ## $a 30 p. :
$b ill. ;
$c 21 x 27 cm.
500 ## $a "A tell-me-more! story book"--Cover
520 ## $a Spike is just learning about his new quills from his friend Rupert, but when Rupert gets into trouble with Bear, Spike must use his imagination and his won quills to save him.
650 10 $a Porupine
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Comparing the Library Catalog Record to the Item in Hand
This week's assignment is to examine five items from my library collection with the record found in Integrated Library System. The purpose of this exercise is to see how the areas of description from the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) have or have not been followed or completed for the item in hand. It also gives pause as to whether the information is sufficient to meet the needs of patrons. Do the eight areas of description inform the patron to a sufficient degree that the catalog matches the item they are seeking?
The first two items I looked at happen to be books I had pulled for an author/illustrator unit for my grade ones. In addition to examining authors we have been exploring the importance of remembering author names so as to be able to quickly go to the stacks and retrieve their favourite stories (area 1 information). Later when they are capable of looking in the catalog they will see a big discrepancy in how these first two items display and this would easily make them favour one book over the other.
Frederick's Fables: A Treasury of 16 Favorite Leo Lionni Stories
The record is complete for all 8 areas of description. Most importantly the title is complete--it includes the important subtitle "A treasury of 16 favorite Leo Lionni stories." It also includes vital notes that the item includes an introduction by the author and names three of the most famous of Lionni's stories included in the treasury. In fact later in the description it names all the stories in the treasury. All edition information is accurate including the fact that it is revised edition. In terms of physical description it was useful to know the size of the book. It is 29 cm which makes it a good choice for a read aloud where children can see the pictures as a group. There is also a picture of the book cover.
My record includes many other additional notes including awards, interest grade level, and reading grade level. Attached to the record is a link to a subscription service called Title Peek. This provides additional review information about the book and some background of the author.
Leo Lionni Favorites: Six Classic Stories
This item had:
area 1 --Title and Statement of Information (Author)
area 2 --edition
area 3--Material
area 4--publication
area 5--physical description
area 7--notes
area 8--standard numbers
Even though this item did have all the basics it was the enriched notes and description that were missing that made the item seem far inferior to the first Lionni book I looked at. There was no book picture and no summary. There was also no link to Title Peek. The stark difference in the amount of text and empty summary field that visually made the record easy to dismiss. If we were to look at this record and the above record purely in MARC format the difference would be far from dramatic. It appears that the use of area 7 notes and other non standard enhanced physical description can have a huge impact on patrons.
Leonardo da Vinci [video recording]
I have just recently begun updating my video collection. There is quite a difference in cataloguing quality. This title is perhaps one of the better catalogued items. It has all ISBD areas covered-at least to a minimal degree. An interesting bit of data that was put in as area 7 information is who did the animation of the 30 minute DVD. I am not sure if this should be area 1 information and if so how such information is entered. Is it the same as listing an illustrator for a book? Since the item in hand is located in our Learning Resources Audio Visual collection it is not easily accessed. This increases the importance of additional notes describing the content. The information that is there is a summary that sounds more like an advertisement: "Explore the brilliance of of Leonardo da Vinci, whom was a master painter and inventor." The description that is found on the back of the DVD would have been a little more informative
Once again there is not picture of the DVD cover but it does indicate the length of the DVD.
The Night Before Christmas [ebook] by Clement C. Moore
I have a few e-books in my collection mostly because I could get them for free. These are books that can be viewed on the computer but are not talking books that you can take out an play on an ipod type device. The description just says ebook but it provides not information on what the requirements are required for reading the ebook, as in is there a particular plugin or application required for reading the book. All the other basic areas covered.
Cowboys and Coffin Makers: One Hundred 19th-Century Jobs You Might Have Feared and Fancied by Laurie Coulter
This is a non-fiction book. What is interesting in how the area 1 information is presented. It does not say illustrations but rather says art is by Martha Newbigging. This makes me ask more about the nature of the graphics in this book. The summary reads: A guide to 100 career opitons in 19th century America featuring a timeline of the 1800s and humorous illustrations. Should the word artist or illustrator be used for Martha Newbigging? Where did the term art or illustration come from? Looking at the book in hand one would say illustrator would have been a better term to use.
It is interesting to see how the records in the library collection can have a huge impact on how a patron will perceive and judge the resource before they even have the item in hand. As librarians we have always been worried about judging a book by its cover now it seems we may have to be as worried by patrons judging books by their electronic record.
The first two items I looked at happen to be books I had pulled for an author/illustrator unit for my grade ones. In addition to examining authors we have been exploring the importance of remembering author names so as to be able to quickly go to the stacks and retrieve their favourite stories (area 1 information). Later when they are capable of looking in the catalog they will see a big discrepancy in how these first two items display and this would easily make them favour one book over the other.
Frederick's Fables: A Treasury of 16 Favorite Leo Lionni Stories
The record is complete for all 8 areas of description. Most importantly the title is complete--it includes the important subtitle "A treasury of 16 favorite Leo Lionni stories." It also includes vital notes that the item includes an introduction by the author and names three of the most famous of Lionni's stories included in the treasury. In fact later in the description it names all the stories in the treasury. All edition information is accurate including the fact that it is revised edition. In terms of physical description it was useful to know the size of the book. It is 29 cm which makes it a good choice for a read aloud where children can see the pictures as a group. There is also a picture of the book cover.
My record includes many other additional notes including awards, interest grade level, and reading grade level. Attached to the record is a link to a subscription service called Title Peek. This provides additional review information about the book and some background of the author.
Leo Lionni Favorites: Six Classic Stories
This item had:
area 1 --Title and Statement of Information (Author)
area 2 --edition
area 3--Material
area 4--publication
area 5--physical description
area 7--notes
area 8--standard numbers
Even though this item did have all the basics it was the enriched notes and description that were missing that made the item seem far inferior to the first Lionni book I looked at. There was no book picture and no summary. There was also no link to Title Peek. The stark difference in the amount of text and empty summary field that visually made the record easy to dismiss. If we were to look at this record and the above record purely in MARC format the difference would be far from dramatic. It appears that the use of area 7 notes and other non standard enhanced physical description can have a huge impact on patrons.
Leonardo da Vinci [video recording]
I have just recently begun updating my video collection. There is quite a difference in cataloguing quality. This title is perhaps one of the better catalogued items. It has all ISBD areas covered-at least to a minimal degree. An interesting bit of data that was put in as area 7 information is who did the animation of the 30 minute DVD. I am not sure if this should be area 1 information and if so how such information is entered. Is it the same as listing an illustrator for a book? Since the item in hand is located in our Learning Resources Audio Visual collection it is not easily accessed. This increases the importance of additional notes describing the content. The information that is there is a summary that sounds more like an advertisement: "Explore the brilliance of of Leonardo da Vinci, whom was a master painter and inventor." The description that is found on the back of the DVD would have been a little more informative
Once again there is not picture of the DVD cover but it does indicate the length of the DVD.
The Night Before Christmas [ebook] by Clement C. Moore
I have a few e-books in my collection mostly because I could get them for free. These are books that can be viewed on the computer but are not talking books that you can take out an play on an ipod type device. The description just says ebook but it provides not information on what the requirements are required for reading the ebook, as in is there a particular plugin or application required for reading the book. All the other basic areas covered.
Cowboys and Coffin Makers: One Hundred 19th-Century Jobs You Might Have Feared and Fancied by Laurie Coulter
This is a non-fiction book. What is interesting in how the area 1 information is presented. It does not say illustrations but rather says art is by Martha Newbigging. This makes me ask more about the nature of the graphics in this book. The summary reads: A guide to 100 career opitons in 19th century America featuring a timeline of the 1800s and humorous illustrations. Should the word artist or illustrator be used for Martha Newbigging? Where did the term art or illustration come from? Looking at the book in hand one would say illustrator would have been a better term to use.
It is interesting to see how the records in the library collection can have a huge impact on how a patron will perceive and judge the resource before they even have the item in hand. As librarians we have always been worried about judging a book by its cover now it seems we may have to be as worried by patrons judging books by their electronic record.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Cataloguing
This week I have started learning the more technical side of cataloguing. This is to say what the rest of the world stereotypes to be the librarian's main work.
I was interested to find out that the kind of cataloguing I do most often in my library is what is called copy cataloguing. According to the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS) this the practice of adapting a pre-existing bibliographic record to fit the item in hand. I also learned that rather than referring to an item it is more useful to refer to the material to be catalogued as a package. This allows one to think of form the item takes and this would be one of the aspects that we catalogue and use to differentiate it from other packages.
I was surprised to discover that the MARC record and Machine Readable Cataloguing standard has been in existence since the 1960s. This just show how forward looking and up-to-date librarianship has been and continues to be.
The ODLIS is quite the collection of terminology and cataloguing minutia. It at first looked like one of the driest collection of terms one could ever hope to assemble. After a little browsing though it turns out to be a cornucopia of obscure but fascinating concepts and terms not just about cataloguing but about the packages themselves that are catalog (I may have inserted my tongue slightly into my cheek here, but there is no denying the usefulness and importance of this resource). Here are just a couple to whet your appetite:
chiffon silk: A layer of extra-thin but strong silk tissue applied to mend or strengthen a leaf in a book or other document printed on paper.
chi-rho: A monogram consisting of the letters XP, the first two characters of the name for Jesus Christ (chi and rho) in Greek, often used symbol in early Christian art
cinching: A condition that results when loosely wound film is rewound too tightly on a reel, causing the film to move against itself on the roll. As the film tightens, any dirt or irregularities on its surface will cause fine scratches called cinch marks, angled in the direction of movement.
cocked: A serious binding defect in which the spine of the book is angled or twisted in a way that prevents the boards from line up evenly with each other.
cockle: A slightly puckered finish produced naturally or artificially as paper shrinks unevenly when dried under little or no tension, as in the production of onionskin.
I was interested to find out that the kind of cataloguing I do most often in my library is what is called copy cataloguing. According to the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS) this the practice of adapting a pre-existing bibliographic record to fit the item in hand. I also learned that rather than referring to an item it is more useful to refer to the material to be catalogued as a package. This allows one to think of form the item takes and this would be one of the aspects that we catalogue and use to differentiate it from other packages.
I was surprised to discover that the MARC record and Machine Readable Cataloguing standard has been in existence since the 1960s. This just show how forward looking and up-to-date librarianship has been and continues to be.
The ODLIS is quite the collection of terminology and cataloguing minutia. It at first looked like one of the driest collection of terms one could ever hope to assemble. After a little browsing though it turns out to be a cornucopia of obscure but fascinating concepts and terms not just about cataloguing but about the packages themselves that are catalog (I may have inserted my tongue slightly into my cheek here, but there is no denying the usefulness and importance of this resource). Here are just a couple to whet your appetite:
chiffon silk: A layer of extra-thin but strong silk tissue applied to mend or strengthen a leaf in a book or other document printed on paper.
chi-rho: A monogram consisting of the letters XP, the first two characters of the name for Jesus Christ (chi and rho) in Greek, often used symbol in early Christian art
cinching: A condition that results when loosely wound film is rewound too tightly on a reel, causing the film to move against itself on the roll. As the film tightens, any dirt or irregularities on its surface will cause fine scratches called cinch marks, angled in the direction of movement.
cocked: A serious binding defect in which the spine of the book is angled or twisted in a way that prevents the boards from line up evenly with each other.
cockle: A slightly puckered finish produced naturally or artificially as paper shrinks unevenly when dried under little or no tension, as in the production of onionskin.
Monday, January 17, 2011
How Search Engines Determine Relevancy and Ranking
What you see and what you get when you use a search engine is a result of a fairly complex set of factors. These factors vary according to the search engine or directory you use. I did some sleuthing about how search engines in general operate and how Yahoo in particular works.
The spider software that each search engine uses is the first part of the process. No seach engine site has the capacity to have their spider examine all the pages on the Internet--the amount of pages is just too vast. What the spider looks at will vary from spider to spider. It would seem where on the Internet that these spiders work also varies. The strategy, agenda or market to which search index and engine developers appeal to or follow is a mystery but I would think that looking for sites that are popular and could provide marketing opportunities to the search engine service would be the ones to be indexed first by their spider. Already the ranking of information has been influenced.
It is not always completely clear exactly how each service's spider reads web pages. Yahoo say that they gather information from the "web page text, title and description as well as its its source, associated links, and other unique document characterisitcs." From what I have read elsewhere on the Yahoo site these unique characteristics would include any metadata or metatag information that has been included in the site. This will determine what they will put in their index or database. This is what you actually search when using a search engine. You are not searching the world wide web directly.
How information is retrieved is a product of a complex algorythm that webservice uses (and which it constantly tweaks). How this search engine works is of course a trade secret. Knowing how they work makes them vulnerable to manipulation by webpage creators who wish to have their web pages ranked at the top without having to pay for the privilege. Sponsoring a link is surest way to get it moved to more relevant ranking position when the search engine is used to retrieve information from the index (a little more about that later).
Website designers can improve the ranking of their sites by careful titling of their webpages, including the terms that they believe they will be searched by in the text of their webpage and in their internal links. Sites that use keyword metatags and description metatags that are relevant to each particular page of their site will in general get a better relevancy ranking than sites which use the same general keywords for their entire site.
It would seem that the saviness of a website designer has a lot to do with whether or not a website will show near the top of the relevancy rankings. If titles and metatags, and links are not well planned no matter how important or relevant the site content it may still get a low relevancy score. Although this fact is may lead to a disappointing overlooking of good information relevant to search engines users it is something that is fairly easy to accept. A well crafted webpage would most likely have more superior content on average than those which are amateurishly made. The fact that results are greatly influenced by sponsorship shows the greatest need to search engine users to educate themselves. In Yahoo a web site owner can sponser their site by biding on keywords. The more they have bid on those words the higher their site will be ranked when those terms are searched. The search engine user is not necessarily getting the most relevant site, just the site which the sponsor wants you to see the most. What is the agenda of that sponsor? Who knows? They certainly want to either attract you for an opportunity to advertise to you and sell you a service or to push their point of view to the exclusion of other competing websites on the same topic.
The spider software that each search engine uses is the first part of the process. No seach engine site has the capacity to have their spider examine all the pages on the Internet--the amount of pages is just too vast. What the spider looks at will vary from spider to spider. It would seem where on the Internet that these spiders work also varies. The strategy, agenda or market to which search index and engine developers appeal to or follow is a mystery but I would think that looking for sites that are popular and could provide marketing opportunities to the search engine service would be the ones to be indexed first by their spider. Already the ranking of information has been influenced.
It is not always completely clear exactly how each service's spider reads web pages. Yahoo say that they gather information from the "web page text, title and description as well as its its source, associated links, and other unique document characterisitcs." From what I have read elsewhere on the Yahoo site these unique characteristics would include any metadata or metatag information that has been included in the site. This will determine what they will put in their index or database. This is what you actually search when using a search engine. You are not searching the world wide web directly.
How information is retrieved is a product of a complex algorythm that webservice uses (and which it constantly tweaks). How this search engine works is of course a trade secret. Knowing how they work makes them vulnerable to manipulation by webpage creators who wish to have their web pages ranked at the top without having to pay for the privilege. Sponsoring a link is surest way to get it moved to more relevant ranking position when the search engine is used to retrieve information from the index (a little more about that later).
Website designers can improve the ranking of their sites by careful titling of their webpages, including the terms that they believe they will be searched by in the text of their webpage and in their internal links. Sites that use keyword metatags and description metatags that are relevant to each particular page of their site will in general get a better relevancy ranking than sites which use the same general keywords for their entire site.
It would seem that the saviness of a website designer has a lot to do with whether or not a website will show near the top of the relevancy rankings. If titles and metatags, and links are not well planned no matter how important or relevant the site content it may still get a low relevancy score. Although this fact is may lead to a disappointing overlooking of good information relevant to search engines users it is something that is fairly easy to accept. A well crafted webpage would most likely have more superior content on average than those which are amateurishly made. The fact that results are greatly influenced by sponsorship shows the greatest need to search engine users to educate themselves. In Yahoo a web site owner can sponser their site by biding on keywords. The more they have bid on those words the higher their site will be ranked when those terms are searched. The search engine user is not necessarily getting the most relevant site, just the site which the sponsor wants you to see the most. What is the agenda of that sponsor? Who knows? They certainly want to either attract you for an opportunity to advertise to you and sell you a service or to push their point of view to the exclusion of other competing websites on the same topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)