Serials Solutions 360 Search: Implementation and Feedback

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

more share options
Embed For WordPress.com

Without related presentations

Good afternoon. My research interests and position as an information literacy librarian, are the motivating factors in why I am presenting on this topic today. I teach numerous library instruction sessions to undergraduate students, in addition to a credit-bearing library research methods course. My research interests lie in the areas of the information seeking behaviors of Millennial generation students and the impact technologies have on library service.

Today I plan to discuss the University at Buffalo Libraries’ need for a federated search tool, the implementation process of said tool, and the feedback we’ve received from users.

The University at Buffalo is a premier research-intensive public university, a flagship institution in the SUNY system and its largest and most comprehensive campus. Our student body in fall 2008 was 28,192. 19,022 of those were undergraduate students. (http://www.buffalo.edu/aboutub/index.html)

With such a large undergraduate class, we investigated federated search tools to meet the needs of this demographic of students. Many undergraduate students are new to academic research. We wanted to target students who were avoiding library resources; whether they realized it or not.

Many are avoiding library databases and resources because they find it to be too much work. They come from a generation that is used to instant gratification and speedy results. They want something intuitive, such as what Google provides for them. If the students are going to Google for their research assignments, we want to find a way to bring them back to the library - a place where more scholarly information is readily available.

Another reason for investigating a federated search tool is that many of our users are unaware of the resources available to them. We subscribe to over 200 databases. Databases which are very expensive. There are multiple access points on our Libraries’ web site to these databases, but they still don’t get the exposure that many of them deserve. Students are conducting multidisciplinary research, but not exposing themselves to as many databases as they should be. Federated searching can be an answer to this problem. Access points:Find Library Materials drop-down, Quick Links Best Basic Resources, Resources by Subject, the search box on the center of the page.

Take a look at our subject guides, Resources by Subject. Students find their subject area/discipline and are lead to resources hand-selected by librarians for places to go for their research. We introduce the guides in reference transactions and in library instruction. Students will use them, BUT as I said before – they are looking for quick results. They don’t want to search multiple places to find what they need. They’ll try 1 or 2 of the top five databases and then go to Google for quicker results.

So, can a federated search tool assist us with our troubles? It sure sells it self to do so! With federated search we provide a single search point that searches multiple resources simultaneously. It can be a great time saver. In addition, with one single search point, we’re making it more intuitive for users to search, therefore saving time on training. (Although, I’ll get to a few negatives about this later.) Federated searching is doing what we wanted at UB, it’s utilizing expensive databases and introducing new resources to users. One of the great things about federated search is that to truly optimize your experience, you can use a link resolver which directs patrons to the full-text of the articles. This is crucial in providing the best fed search experience. Link resolver connects references to fulltext. It’s essential for optimal use of federated search engines. Examples include: SFX, Webbridge, 360 Link

Once we knew that we wanted to investigate federated search tools, we had to start with choosing a product.

To do this, an adhoc committee was formed in early 2007. The team reviewed the literature to see what was out there, and based on our local needs, narrowed it down to a few products. Vendor demonstrations were scheduled in the summer of 2007 and we looked at tools such as Encore, ExLibris MetaLib, and Serials Solutions 360 Search. Found MetaLib to be very similar to 360 Search. Others: LibraryFind, Encore, ExLibris Primo (search and discovery)

When evaluating products, there are some things you want to keep in mind. Ask for trials of your final choices. Arrange for the same databases to be included in each trial, therefore you’re testing the algorithms of both products. How does it search? Test the same query in the fed search product vs the database itself. How are the results? Is the interface intuitive for users? Can you change the interface to meet the needs of your users? Are the databases that you’d like to include actually supported with a connection to the tool? Does the database allow federated searching? Some do not, such as Westlaw and Lexis. Is the product open source? Do you need the technical support, due to lack of tech staff at your library?

After assessing our needs and evaluating products, we went with Serials Solutions 360 Search.

360 Search was very similar to ExLibris Metalib, but local decisions made the final call. We have had an existing relationship with Serials Solutions with our eJournals and Article Linker (360 Link product).

We can’t break the bank, as many others can’t. We would have loved to go with a search and discovery tool such as exLibris Primo, but it was far too costly. Limited funds was one factor that played into our decision. Primo pre-indexes the entire site, but it also costs $300,000.

The next step was getting started. The process was fairly simple. Negotiating the price and reviewing the license was a straightforward process with Serials Solutions. The next step was thinking about important decisions regarding the actual implementation of the product.

With 360 Search, you do have some leeway for customizing the look and feel. To make any changes to the interface, you must submit an online customization form to Serials Solutions. They do not allow you to make the changes, but the form is fairly easy to fill out, and they will make all changes to create an interface that matches your web site and works for your users. With the UB Libraries tool, we choose to rename the 360 Product as “Articles+” and called it a Multi-Search tool. Databases are listed, in addition to the ability to arrange them by categories or subjects. For the categories of databases, we chose to mirror our Resources by Subject pages, as seen here. In addition, there is the ability to “Select All” or try a “Quick Search” which searches databases that cover multidisciplinary topics. We choose Academic Search Complete, JSTOR, Project Muse, Gale Virtual Reference Library, ScienceDirect Journals, and our BISON Catalog. Once the categories were arranged, subject librarians were asked to select databases that they though would be best for a federated search. This took quite awhile. Librarians had lots of questions, were busy with other tasks, and any feedback took months. We had already signed a contract, so while we were waiting on decisions for selections, we were wasting time that we were paying for this tool but not using it. So, word to the wise: don’t sign the contract until you have everything planned out. Know the databases you want to include, make decisions about your layout/categories, etc. all ahead of time. Also, keep in mind that 360 Search is locked. Every change (remove a database, add a new one) must go through Serials Solutions.

As previously mentioned, our subject librarians made the selections. Feedback was also sought from others, but they were the primary selectors. Depending on the subscription you have, you may have a limit to the number of databases. Originally we had a limit to 100 databases. Earlier this year SUNY purchased a subscription to 360 Search and with the more expensive subscription, we are now able to open this up to an unlimited number. However, more is not always better. With fed search tools, the more databases to retrieve from, the results take a longer time to be retrieved. It also leads to numerous “time outs.” (note the ! in the results.) So, keep this in mind when selecting. There are some limitations to databases as well. Some databases do not have a connection created by Serials Solutions, others do not allow their database to be included in a federated search. This limits what you can choose from. In addition, when selecting databases, avoid those with limited number of log-ons for simultaneous users. You don’t want to lock others out who want to actually use the database for someone who is just running a search of whatever databases are selected under “Quick Search” or whatever topic.

At the University at Buffalo Libraries, we chose to do a quiet roll-out of the 360 Search product. After much deliberation amongst our web team members and putting a call out to librarians, we chose to name our new product Articles+. We posted a link to the product from our main web page and sent email announcements to librarians to then forward the information on as they saw fit to students, faculty,and staff within their departments. Our library news blog and student support blog also exposed the product by featuring it in posts. It was completely up to reference and instruction librarians on whether or not they wished to teach the product in class.

This is an example of our quiet rollout. It’s a simple link under our catalog search box on the main library web page.

A few months later we did a re-design of the site and at that time, made “Articles+” our default on the main page search box. This was done in hopes of bringing students who just start typing into a search box into one that might get them where they want to go : someplace for articles. There was and still is controversy over whether or not this needs to be the default. We’d like to do some usability testing in the near future on this topic.

So, what exactly happens when we complete a search? Let’s take a look.

In addition to the basic search, there is an option for an Advanced Search (see tab). The only additions to this are the date limit and multiple search boxes.

Just to show you a quick demo of a search, I ran a search for “Great Gatsby” to be searched in the default title (of the item). Notice ability to limit. Also the results show which databases articles came from and which timed-out before retrieval. The search result list can be sorted by date, title, author, or source (database). You can limit to full-text and peer-reviewed. There is the ability to email and export/save citations. What happens when you need full-text? From this interface it’s not very intuitive.

For full text, you can click on either the title of the article, and follow the links, or click the 360 full text (which does not show up for both of these, although they are both available).

So, what are our users saying about federated searching? In particular, 360 search. I’m going to focus on the feedback I’ve received from two groups: librarians and undergraduates.

In 2008, with the rollout, we posted a survey to our web site. The link was located near the multisearch tool and as an item on our Library News blog. We introduced Articles+ and asked for feedback from users. A short survey asking if they found what they were looking for, the ease of use, and comments about changes that could be made were inquired upon users.

This past spring while teaching a library research methods course, I introduced my students to the tool and had them complete a survey of the same 2008 questions, but in addition to a comparison of Google Scholar results vs Articles+ or 360 Search. 14 students were surveyed and it was completely anonymous. Students submitted their responses via an embedded Google Form in our course site in our content management system, Blackboard.

So, what did they think?

All 14 students responded that it was a useful tool.

In addition to all 14 responding that it was easy to use.

When asked if they would use it again, 77% responded probably, only 8%definitely, and 15% not sure. No one said no.

When comparing their research topic queries in Google Scholar and Articles+, 38% found it to be about the same, 31% somewhat better, and 23% somewhat worse.

The majority of the students, 46% said that they would probably recommend MultiSearch to others. However, 39% were not sure whether or not they would.

These are some of the things students were saying when asked for recommendations for making the tool more effective.

In regards to the student about keyword searching not working well. The reasoning behind it is that Keyword is not really keyword in 360 Search. What it is searching is a field assigned with keywords. If one wants a true keyword search, they need to know to select ANY as the search type.

Some final additional comments from students.

So, now that we know how students feel about 360 Search…What are the librarians saying?

Here are some of the good points made about 360 Search. (Read slide bullets.) In addition, I recently found it useful when asked about finding drug reviews from the FDA. I wasn’t sure which database to touch and it led me to discover that this type of information was found in Factiva and other newspaper business databases. Who would’ve thought!

Many feel as thought it dumbs down the search process for students. The federated search tool also leads to the loss of the functionality of some of the databases. This would include advanced search techniques and the use of subject searches. Clustering of the results does try to do this, but it does not replace a search in a database. Some electronic resources have limited access. For those that limit the number of seats used simultaneously, spaces would be occupied by unnecessary searches.

Favorites, Groups & Events

Serials Solutions 360 Search: Implementation and Feedback - Presentation Transcript

Serials Solutions 360 Search: Implementation and Feedback Bridget Schumacher University at Buffalo Libraries Federated Searching and Beyond NYLA: Peace, Love & Freedom October 15, 2009
Agenda
- Introduction
- Need for Federated Search
- Choosing a Product
- Implementation Process
- User Feedback
- Conclusion
Need for Federated Search
Intuitive Searching
Expose Buried Resources
- Hundreds of databases… multi-disciplinary research
Too many steps, too many databases…
Advantages of Federated Search
- Single search point
- Search diverse and distributed sources
- Save time
- Less training
- Utilize expensive databases
- Access to full-text (with link resolver)
Choosing a Product
Choosing a Product
- Ad hoc committee
- Literature review
- Narrow it down
- Arrange vendor demonstrations
- Evaluate products
- Final decision
When evaluating products, keep in mind…
- Search functionality
- Search results
- Interface features
- Database support
- Vendor support
We went with… Serials Solutions 360 Search
Existing Relationship Serials Solutions 360 Link
Within Budget
Implementation Process
Customizing the Look & Feel
Selecting Databases
- Subject librarians as selectors
- Limit to number of resources depending on subscription
- Database limitations
Publicity and Marketing
- Quiet rollout
- Listserv announcements
- Library liaisons
- Reference & instruction librarians
Quiet Rollout
A few months later…
Let’s complete a search…
User Feedback
2008 Survey
- Did you…
- Comments on…
2009 Survey
- Google Form embedded into CMS
- Surveyed 14 undergraduate students
- Used 2008 Questions
- Added an exercise comparing Google Scholar vs. 360 Search
What are the students saying?
Is Multi Search useful?
Is Multi Search easy to use?
Would you use it again?
When comparing Multi Search to Google Scholar, do you find it:
Would you recommend Multi Search to others?
How would you make Multi Search a more effective tool?
- Cleaner, simpler, more user-friendly design
- Limit it to just articles, not books
- Get rid of the duplicate tool
- Make the results relevant to my search
- Keywords have to be too specific to work
Help documention: http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/help/multisearch.html
Additional Comments
- Wording for searches in GS seems to be less strict
- It’s good. It will just take time to get used to.
- It narrows my results, but I have to do more clicking than GS
- I like it, but would probably use GS over it
- GS seems to be faster
- Won’t use it. The results are a bit messy.
- Will use for final project!
- I’ve used it before and it gave me good resources.
What are the librarians saying?
The Good
- Can be useful for ready reference
- Can introduce you to new databases
- Useful for a detailed analysis of what’s out there on a topic
The Not So Good
- Result retrieval takes too long
- Irrelevant results retrieved
- Cluttered interface
- Students don’t understand results
- Creates more work for the student
- Lose functionality of some databases
Additional Comments
- “Only go to it when I run out of ideas”
- “I’ve found stuff I couldn’t have found without a lot of hunting”
- Prefer old-fashioned research approach
- Feeds laziness factor of one-stop shopping
- “I like it more now than in the beginning”
Conclusion
Looking Ahead
- For the time being:
- Possibly down the road:
Questions? Comments? Bridget Schumacher [email_address]