Re: Re: Google Search Appliance and OPACs

First, let me apologize for the risk of offense. I know that
libraries
want to be on the web in some way.

I'll rephrase by saying I think many understand what the web
is: If
you can't link to something and you can't find it in Google,
it's not
fully part of the web.

Pace Karen, however the web changes over time, it's about
connection—connection between stuff and between people. The
first part
found its expression at Google nine years ago; has yet to
sink into
the library world. Nor have libraries embraced connecting
people,
except in the most superficial ways. Not surprisingly, that
can't
always be done in isolation, but builds upon other
connections.

For example, if I want to talk about a book on my blog, I
link to
LibraryThing or Amazon, never a library. I do this because
the library
link won't live long enough for my blog readers to visit
it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe in five years Google will eagerly
partner with
OCLC to give library books special treatment at the top of
their
results.

Meanwhile, it's just *not that hard* to make static pages
for your
catalog and stick them somewhere Google can see them.

I'm sorry this topic has made me hot. At this point, I'll
sign
off—I've spoken too much anyway—and go *make* the solution
I'm talking
about. Fortunately, I won't need to ask OCLC's permission to
do it.

Tim

On 2/8/08, K.G. Schneider <kgsfreerangelibrarian.com>
wrote:
> Now, what are the drawbacks of the OCPC/OCLC approach?
>
> 1. It isn't "normal." Most of the web doesn't
work this way, so it sets
> libraries apart.
>
> -----
>
> This is the least compelling of Tim's arguments for me.
The web works a lot
> of different ways, and it will keep evolving. Right now
if I want to find
> movies in Tallahassee, I go to Google and type
>
> Movies Tallahassee
>
> And by golly, I get what I want. I don't get the
individual theater pages, I
> get a list of movies and locations.
>
> That's just to suggest that there are many ways to skin
an onion. What's
> "normal" has only been "normal" for
less than ten years, really, and will
> seem quaint in another decade.
>
> As for "we have local systems so we keep tech
people employed," I think by
> now most libraries would agree that we could move most
ILS activities to a
> SaaS (if the SaaS did what we wanted, of course, which
is the hitch) and the
> "tech" people would continue to be gainfully
employed.
>
> Most of the Web does NOT work like most ILS software.
That's the major sad
> suckitudinal fact.
>
> I'm not writing an apologia for OCLC, and anyone who
follows my writing
> knows I have plenty to say about this organization. But
"most of the Web
> doesn't work this way" doesn't go that far with
me. If it works, and people
> use it, then I'm satisfied. If WorldCat records were
the second or third
> hit, I don't see the problem.
>
> Karen G. Schneider
>
>



-- 
Check out my library at http:
//www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

We're working on that expired-link problem too:

http://vufind.or
g/demo/Record/695686

In fact we consider permanent links a major feature of
VuFind.

There's no reason now that a Google Site map can't be
created for the
entire catalog. Or browse links that lead to everything...

--chris



Tim Spalding wrote:
> First, let me apologize for the risk of offense. I know
that libraries
> want to be on the web in some way.
>
> I'll rephrase by saying I think many understand what
the web is: If
> you can't link to something and you can't find it in
Google, it's not
> fully part of the web.
>
> Pace Karen, however the web changes over time, it's
about
> connection—connection between stuff and between people.
The first part
> found its expression at Google nine years ago; has yet
to sink into
> the library world. Nor have libraries embraced
connecting people,
> except in the most superficial ways. Not surprisingly,
that can't
> always be done in isolation, but builds upon other
connections.
>
> For example, if I want to talk about a book on my blog,
I link to
> LibraryThing or Amazon, never a library. I do this
because the library
> link won't live long enough for my blog readers to
visit it.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe in five years Google will
eagerly partner with
> OCLC to give library books special treatment at the top
of their
> results.
>
> Meanwhile, it's just *not that hard* to make static
pages for your
> catalog and stick them somewhere Google can see them.
>
> I'm sorry this topic has made me hot. At this point,
I'll sign
> off—I've spoken too much anyway—and go *make* the
solution I'm talking
> about. Fortunately, I won't need to ask OCLC's
permission to do it.
>
> Tim
>
> On 2/8/08, K.G. Schneider <kgsfreerangelibrarian.com>
wrote:
>   
>> Now, what are the drawbacks of the OCPC/OCLC
approach?
>>
>> 1. It isn't "normal." Most of the web
doesn't work this way, so it sets
>> libraries apart.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> This is the least compelling of Tim's arguments for
me. The web works a lot
>> of different ways, and it will keep evolving. Right
now if I want to find
>> movies in Tallahassee, I go to Google and type
>>
>> Movies Tallahassee
>>
>> And by golly, I get what I want. I don't get the
individual theater pages, I
>> get a list of movies and locations.
>>
>> That's just to suggest that there are many ways to
skin an onion. What's
>> "normal" has only been "normal"
for less than ten years, really, and will
>> seem quaint in another decade.
>>
>> As for "we have local systems so we keep tech
people employed," I think by
>> now most libraries would agree that we could move
most ILS activities to a
>> SaaS (if the SaaS did what we wanted, of course,
which is the hitch) and the
>> "tech" people would continue to be
gainfully employed.
>>
>> Most of the Web does NOT work like most ILS
software. That's the major sad
>> suckitudinal fact.
>>
>> I'm not writing an apologia for OCLC, and anyone
who follows my writing
>> knows I have plenty to say about this organization.
But "most of the Web
>> doesn't work this way" doesn't go that far
with me. If it works, and people
>> use it, then I'm satisfied. If WorldCat records
were the second or third
>> hit, I don't see the problem.
>>
>> Karen G. Schneider
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my library at http:
//www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Hi, Tim & Karen and everyone
I absolutely hate searching Google and getting a whole
screen full of 
links to book records from other libraries, none of which
are close to 
my home or of any use to me. 

I agree with Roy--gee, isn't it a shame that there is no
central 
database we could all place our holdings into? Isn't it a
shame that 
there is no way a patron can easily use this central
database to find 
out whether their local library has this book? Oh, wow,
maybe there 
is! 

And I don't work for OCLC 

Jean Hewlett
Regional Librarian, USF North Bay Campus

All opinions are my own, and do not represent my employer.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Spalding <timlibrarything.com>
Date: Friday, February 8, 2008 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Re: Google Search Appliance and
OPACs
To: kgsfreerangelibrarian.com
Cc: web4libwebjunction.org, kgsbluehighways.com

> First, let me apologize for the risk of offense. I know
that 
libraries
> want to be on the web in some way.
> 
> I'll rephrase by saying I think many understand what
the web is: If
> you can't link to something and you can't find it in
Google, it's not
> fully part of the web.
> 
> Pace Karen, however the web changes over time, it's
about
> connection—connection between stuff and between people.
The first 
part
> found its expression at Google nine years ago; has yet
to sink into
> the library world. Nor have libraries embraced
connecting people,
> except in the most superficial ways. Not surprisingly,
that can't
> always be done in isolation, but builds upon other
connections.
> 
> For example, if I want to talk about a book on my blog,
I link to
> LibraryThing or Amazon, never a library. I do this
because the 
library
> link won't live long enough for my blog readers to
visit it.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe in five years Google will
eagerly partner with
> OCLC to give library books special treatment at the top
of their
> results.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's just *not that hard* to make static
pages for your
> catalog and stick them somewhere Google can see them.
> 
> I'm sorry this topic has made me hot. At this point,
I'll sign
> off—I've spoken too much anyway—and go *make* the
solution I'm 
talking
> about. Fortunately, I won't need to ask OCLC's
permission to do it.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 2/8/08, K.G. Schneider <kgsfreerangelibrarian.com>
wrote:
> > Now, what are the drawbacks of the OCPC/OCLC
approach?
> >
> > 1. It isn't "normal." Most of the web
doesn't work this way, so 
> it sets
> > libraries apart.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > This is the least compelling of Tim's arguments
for me. The web 
> works a lot
> > of different ways, and it will keep evolving.
Right now if I 
> want to find
> > movies in Tallahassee, I go to Google and type
> >
> > Movies Tallahassee
> >
> > And by golly, I get what I want. I don't get the
individual 
> theater pages, I
> > get a list of movies and locations.
> >
> > That's just to suggest that there are many ways to
skin an 
> onion. What's
> > "normal" has only been
"normal" for less than ten years, really, 
> and will
> > seem quaint in another decade.
> >
> > As for "we have local systems so we keep tech
people employed," 
> I think by
> > now most libraries would agree that we could move
most ILS 
> activities to a
> > SaaS (if the SaaS did what we wanted, of course,
which is the 
> hitch) and the
> > "tech" people would continue to be
gainfully employed.
> >
> > Most of the Web does NOT work like most ILS
software. That's the 
> major sad
> > suckitudinal fact.
> >
> > I'm not writing an apologia for OCLC, and anyone
who follows my 
> writing> knows I have plenty to say about this
organization. But 
> "most of the Web
> > doesn't work this way" doesn't go that far
with me. If it works, 
> and people
> > use it, then I'm satisfied. If WorldCat records
were the second 
> or third
> > hit, I don't see the problem.
> >
> > Karen G. Schneider
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Check out my library at 
> 
http://www.librarything.com/profile/timsp
alding________________________
_______________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/