ebyblog students and information

Spamming Google with the OPAC

While I like the ideas behind WPOpac, I have to disagree with Casey’s post about exposing the information to Google. I actually have no problem with exposing, as you can do what you want, but I don’t think it’s very helpful as is and would hope if more libraries do it that Google takes action and moves the results to the bottom. The information on most OPAC’s pages are only useful to a few people and it would make more sense to have it only show up when they include the library name or something similar. It looks ok know and seems like it might be a good idea to have it wide open and high results but that’s only because very few are doing it. When I search for an author or book the last thing I want is 20 pages of results for different libraries that all tell me nothing. Casey does include a link to WorldCat but it presumes you know what “worldcat libraries” is.

Now I should say that I think library holdings in search engines are a great idea and the way to go in the future but I have some caveats:

• Union Holdings. Libraries should be clustered together. I’m thinking OpenWorldCat. Should be something that all libraries can contribute to. If OpenWorldCat doesn’t open up then maybe one of the search engines should do it themselves.
• Geographic Display. I don’t care that your library has the book as it doesn’t really tell me how to get it. Most people I talk to don’t understand ILL. High results should show me what I can get now, not 2 weeks from now.

I think Google could pull something off that was useful. I like their displays when you search for a band or album. I’d like to see something similar when you search for an author or title. Google could work with libraries, oclc and others to get the dataset they need to group information such as this. OpenWorldCat within Google. Libraries/Worldcat could then be featured without clogging up results. I think Google could also expand their openurl or something they use with Google Book Search to general results. Those with an account could then choose their library and have it linked to from applicable results.

If I sound like I’m saying that library results aren’t useful it’s because I find many aren’t. A link in Amazon that says my library has an item is pretty useful. 10,000 results for different libraries when I’m trying to look up some information online isn’t. I do have to point out an exception though: rare out-of-print books. For books that only a few libraries hold it makes sense to let people know a print copy is still available as it might be worth the time and frustration to get. Again something like worldcat is often used and could be a help in this area.

I’m sure some disagree, feel free to write up your own opinion. This is just one by a library user.

It’s hard to know where things will go if we open our catalogs to search engines, but we do know where they’ll go if we don’t: nowhere.

Many people say OpenWorldCat is where this happens, but who can find OWC records in popular search engines without doing a specific search for them? The problem is that until people start linking to them, they have no value, no relevance in the Google Economy.

Search engines have ways of working things out. And even now there are only a few examples where WPopac is ranked on the first page of results. The value is in the link to OWC, the way it raises OWC’s rank in the world.

In the long run, Google and others will probably add library catalogs to their local search results, while general searches for books or other materials held by libraries will more easily find OWC (and from there, local libraries). But until we start participating, this is all just wishful thinking.

While I admit I don’t know what the best route would be, I’m uncertain if Google bombing via the OPAC would be the way to go. I think with the upcoming digitization projects that the search engines are working on there will be a need for a unified push from all libraries to become a partner in the new economy. In the end there are similar missions for all.

Casey, despite saying the same thing over and over again (read: Google Economy), simply opening up our current OPACs to be crawled by search engines will not be a particularly useful enterprise and /isn’t/ the way into the Google Economy. Linking to OWC from our OPAC isn’t really it, either (because I’m not sure why our users would want to go to OWC from one of our records, anyway).

We certainly need to find /some/ way to participate. OpenWorldcat is probably our best option (right now), but we definitely shouldn’t feel limited to it. Partnering with Google Book Search, Open Content Alliance… even the book sellers (I mean, why not?) is definitely in our best interest (although maybe not theirs).

This is no slight on the WPOpac, I think there is a tremendous amount of value in that approach, however it’s scaleability runs into problems once the number of WPOpac instances grows > 1.

For an example of where this has already gone awry (thanks to EJournal A-Z lists), do a Google Search on an ISSN.

Ross, you’ve got me. I’ve been annoying everybody with this same old saw about the Google Economy.

Here’s the thing. In libraries we keep looking for some deterministic, tightly linked solution to the problem of getting library data out there into search engines, but Google and the other search engines keep telling us (in their various ways) that they like loosely linked, market-like solutions.

I’m not saying it’s without problems. What I’m arguing for is bending our systems to their rules to get the results we want. No arguments from me, those A-Z lists are a good example of how we can do it wrong, but their failures are easy to spot and easy to correct.

A counter example may come from Amazon and the way it pops to the top of most result sets. Their success is largely the result of the indexability and linkability of their content (and their affiliate program that makes linking especially desirable). While a web search for a book title or isbn doesn’t often reveal the ocean of blogs and other web content discussing and linking to the book (and creating search engine spam in your eyes), it’s that content that puts Amazon on top.

That will be the long-term value of systems like WPopac, especially as the number of instances grows > 1.

I think the important part is that “it’s that content that puts Amazon on top”. I don’t mind Amazon in the result as it usually has lots of useful information, including search inside. I also get the benefit of knowing I can almost always get the item listed and not have much hassle doing so. I can’t say the same for libraries.

While I agree with the motives, I still have some apprehensions about the process. Pulling Amazon data to make ourselves more useful and then using that to advertise holdings just doesn’t sit well with me. Exposing works that we have full text online or is easy to access would be another thing. I don’t think a hard to find worldcat link will suffice.

Perhaps I’m just disillusioned but I’m missing the overwhelming benefits this idea poses over the many drawbacks.

[...] Spamming Google with the OPAC at ebyblog Voir aussi la discussion dans la liste web4lib (http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2006-April/subject.html#40093) (tags: OPAC google worldcat crawler TheLongTail marketing library bibliothèques) [...]