This document summarizes the key points in a discussion about web-scale discovery tools. It notes that integrated library systems are no longer fully integrated and libraries manage digital materials separately from print in inefficient workflows. It also notes that 0% of users start on a library website so discovery needs to be available elsewhere. Fulfillment of requests is as important as discovery. While some argue broad searches are unnecessary or that aggregated indexes are opaque, the document counters that discovery is only as good as its coverage and users generally do not care about the details of the search mechanisms as long as they are easy to use.

1. Web-Scale Discovery Reality
Check
Jeff Wisniewski Frank Cervone
Web Services Librarian Vice Chancellor and
CIO
University of
Pittsburgh Purdue University
Calumet

2. Original idea…

3. Here’s the problem…
• The ILS is no longer integrated
• Libraries don’t work with their ILS but around it
▫ Duplicate data entry
 Bibliographic
 Financial transactions
• Digital materials are the majority of the
collection
▫ Often managed by separate staff in separate, often
inefficient workflows
Burke, Jane. 2012. Sometimes you just have to start over. Serial Solutions Words, January 24, 2012.
Online at http://www.serialssolutions.com/en/words/detail/sometimes-you-just-have-to-
start-over

4. Important point #1
0% of users start their research on your library’s
website, so discovery needs to be diffuse

5. Important point #2
Fulfillment is just as important as discovery
• All of these need to be as seamless and
integrated as possible:
▫ Remote access
▫ openURL
▫ ILL
▫ Requesting and other catalog functionality

6. Some bizarre arguments
• Users generally do not tag or review in next
generation catalogs

7. Common arguments
• No need for broad searches
• Aggregated indices are
opaque
• Encourages lazy searching
• We can/should/are teaching
users to search “properly”
• Google Scholar already does
this

8. No need for broad searches
• Searching through millions of items is not necessary
and tends to confuse users
 No real evidence to support this claim
• There are better more discipline specific tools
 This is true, so use them when appropriate
 In most cases though, this is not really the issue
• As research becomes more complex, most
researchers are interested in the long-tail results

9. Aggregated indices are opaque
• Is it full text? Metadata?
• What about “quality?”
• Balancing the needs of certainty
vs. sufficiency
▫ Satisficing
• Discovery tools are simply easier
to use
Howard, D., and Wiebrands, C. (2011). Culture Shock: Librarians' Response to Web Scale Search. Information
Online Conference. Online at http://www.information-
online.com.au/sb_clients/iog/data/content_item_files/000001/paper_2011_A1.pdf
Connaway, L. S., Dickey, T. S., Radford, M. (2011). If It Is Too Inconvenient, I’m Not Going After It: Convenience as a
Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors. OCLC Research. Online at
http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2011/connaway-lisr.pdf

10. Discovery is only as good as the
content included or excluded
• Yes, but it’s our job to know
that and work to get
problems fixed
• Our patrons don’t know and
(generally) don’t care
• Favoritism – a legitimate
concern

11. Encourages lazy searching
• Quick and dirty searches
• Welcome to the real world!
• People expect to be able to
search easily
• Tools tend to increase
usage of library resources
▫ Serendipity
Way, D. (2010). The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection. Serials Review,
36(4), pp. 214-220. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.07.002

12. “…dramatic increase in the use of full-text
resources from full-text database and
online journal collections…”
Which is a dramatic increase in ROI
Doug Way, The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection, Serials Review,
Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2010, Pages 214-220, ISSN 0098-7913,
10.1016/j.serrev.2010.07.002.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098791310000882)

13. We can/should/are teaching
users to search “properly”
Users failed:
• Finding the correct starting-point for the search
• Using search terms that were indexed and therefore
searchable
• Got lost clicking subject heading and call number links
WHY?
“Participants expected library searching to
behave like their other search experiences”
-Nancy Kress, Darcy Del Bosque, Tom Ipri, (2011) "User failure to find known library items",
New Library World, Vol. 112 Iss: 3/4, pp.150 - 170

14. Speaking of teaching…
“Bibliographic instruction is much better received
and easier to provide, as Primo has freed
librarians to spend more time teaching
the finer points of research resources and
methods…instead of basic search
mechanics.”
Discovering what works: thinking of implementing a discovery service? Successful pioneers
of several products describe their experiences.
Zinthia C. Briceno-Rosales, Rebecca Fernandez, Amanda Clay Powers, and Ken Varnum.
Library Journal. 136.19 (Nov. 15, 2011

15. Google scholar already does this
• Google Scholar is free
• Interface is user friendly
• Outperforms discovery tools?
▫ Not true
 Found wanting on validity and reliability
 Many of the results did not add any significant value to
the topic in question
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0361526
X.2011.592115
• Customization is not easy
▫ Affiliation settings are pretty hidden
Timpson, H., and Sansom, G. (2011). A Student Perspective on e-Resource Discovery: Has the Google
Factor Changed Publisher Platform Searching Forever? The Serials Librarian 61(2), pp. 253-266.
Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0361526X.2011.592115

16. Discovery tool may not
completely replace the online
catalog?

17. Repeat after me…
I am not our users
I am an information professional
My users neither search nor think like me

18. Unlike Janet Jackson, we’re NOT
in control
So we need to stop thinking like we have to be

19. We don’t need to host locally,
really

20. Traditional in-house
implementation
Advantages Disadvantages
• Complete • Complete
control responsibility

21. Alternative models
SaaS
Hosted
(Software as a
services
Service)
Vendor
Vendor
assumes
assumes some
primary
responsibility
responsibility

22. Bottom line benefits
• Lack of specific skill sets
in house
• Internal policies
Agility • In house regulatory
compliance
Decreased cycle Deployment
time time is decreased
Higher return on
assets Cost savings

23. Practical benefits
Eliminates
major
responsibilities
in keeping
systems
operational
Has
Saves time and increased Can help
effort safeguard
• Failed hardware
usage of applications
• Natural disaster
electronic • Separate location
resources
Fast system
restoration
• Based on scalable
architecture at
vendor site

24. Advantages for the library
Demonstrably
less expensive
to implement
Much faster
deployment
Allows us to
focus on
“value added”
services
Social
computing
benefits

25. Thanks
• Jeff Wisniewski – University of Pittsburgh
▫ Facebook.com/wisniewski.jeff
▫ Twitter.com/jeffwisniewski
• Frank Cervone – Purdue University Calumet
▫ Facebook.com/fcervone
▫ Twitter.com/fcervone