Why Reference and Instruction Librarians Hate Federated Searching and NextGen Catalogs

Confession: this presentation is therapy for me. In the past six years, I have implemented federated search twice in academic libraries more or less on my own. I also have spent much of 2009 chairing and serving on a NextGen catalog product selection and implementation committee; we went live with WorldCat Local this fall semester. Discovery products such as these are often billed by vendors as the Holy Grail in the age of Google and Amazon. Perhaps this has raised our collective professional expectations of federated search and NextGen products to an unreasonably high level, because, in my experience at least, the reception among reference and instruction librarians can be described as lukewarm at best. In this pool of dissatisfied librarians, I include my former reference and instruction librarian self, my colleagues at the University of Colorado Denver’s Auraria Library, and, more scientifically, the respondents of a survey conducted by Lynn Lampert and Katherine Dabbour at California State University Northridge.1 [SLIDE 2] The short answer for the lukewarm reception is that expectations of discovery tools are built on expectations of the products that they are designed to work with. The longer answer to this question envelops these technical issues and also the dissonance between what federated searching and NextGen catalogs purport to do and the pedagogical roles of reference and instruction staff in the library.

While much has changed in the realm of federated searching in recent years, there were still a handful of technical shortcomings that were hard to swallow in 2007 when we chose 360 Search at Auraria. Note, however, that the following discussion does not target any specific products here; my personal experiences with products and customer support with WebFeat (2003) and Serials Solutions 360 Search (2007) were both very positive, in spite of my initial distaste for federated searching generally. The shortcomings discussed here—whether real or perceived—were more or less endemic to the products regardless of the brand at the time they were implemented. These include lack of features, inability to search all databases, speed, and unmet performance expectations.

Date and peer review filters are now standard on most online databases, and these features have, logically, become embedded in reference and instruction routines. While Serials Solutions’ 360 Search and other products are technically capable in and of themselves of applying these limits to searches, limitations in the metadata that database vendors provided rendered date and peer-reviewed filters useless. Serials Solutions’ 360 Search supported peer-reviewed filtering, but technical support recommends avoiding it because filtering a list of results for peer-reviewed articles usually results in zero results. Further, users may include a single specific year in their search terms; however, searching a range of dates is not yet supported for the same reason that the peer-reviewed filter does not work. (To reiterate, these were not flaws in the 360 Search product itself but conditions of the technology at the time.)

Secondly, in spite of what product literature may claim, no federated searching product can—or in some cases, should—currently search every online resource. Again, this is not necessarily a reflection on the quality of the search product itself, and whether or not to federate all databases and resources is a philosophical question all its own. Four common reasons that a database may be excluded from a federated search include: vendor prohibition, no existing “translator” for the product, an license agreement that stipulates a limited number of concurrent users for a resource, or sources that are priced in a pay-by-search model.

First, notable holdouts among vendors who did not permit their clients to federate some or all of their products in 2007 included Hoover’s, InfoUSA, and content giant LexisNexis. At the time Auraria went live with 360 Search, only LexisNexis Academic could be made available through a federated interface. Libraries sold on the concept of federated search have expressed their dismay about exclusion to holdout vendors, and they have also considered looking for equivalent content in other online resources that will allow inclusion.

Secondly, the nature of the electronic resources market creates a demand for constant creation by federated search vendors of the “translators” that allow a resource to be included in federated search. Therefore, while it may be technologically possible for the federated search product to work with a given resource, if the vendor has not developed a translator yet, that resource will be effectively wait-listed. If the resource is local or highly specialized, the client library may have to wait until more client libraries request inclusion of a resource to increase the demand for the translator. In the case of the Auraria Library, this meant exclusion of Prospector, the unified catalog for the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries consortium, which is used heavily for interlibrary loan.

Third and fourth, technical support generally recommends that resources for which a library has a limited number of concurrent users or which are priced by pay for search be excluded from federated searching. If a subscription to a resource with limited concurrent users is included, it is unlikely that any user would ever be able to successfully access the product. A resource that is charge-by-use will be rapidly depleted of the allowed number of searches. This is because “use” of the database in this context begins not when a user clicks a link to an item in one of these resources, but when the resource is included in a federated search. In some cases, changing the subscription to the electronic resource to unlimited use may be an option; however, for other resources, this is prohibitively expensive. Some favorite high-quality resources of reference and instruction staff fell into this third category, as purchasing a resource with a low number of concurrent users may be a factor in licensing an expensive product at all.

Deciding how to handle all of the orphaned resources created by vendor exclusion, lack of an existing translator, a limited number of concurrent users, or limited number of searches in a customized implementation of a federated search product can be quite difficult. Links to the excluded resources’ native interfaces can be included in an A-Z list within the federated environment or on appropriate subject guides or other pertinent web pages, but even so, they may be easily overlooked by patrons seeking a quicker—that is to say, federated—method of searching, such as selecting a bundle of resources grouped around a subject area, e.g., “Art & Architecture.” From a reference and instruction perspective, it can be difficult to market and encourage use of a new search feature that omits some of the best and most recommended resources.

A further issue with both federated searching tools and NextGen catalogs is search speed. With the explosion in the number of online resources made available in recent years, many libraries have gradually outgrown their network infrastructure, in a worst-case scenario, network capabilities can be pushed to the breaking point because of the increase in traffic. However, even in a healthy network environment, the simple fact that a federated search product is doing more work than a search in a database’s native interface also accounts for this extended search time. Waiting a minute or more for a search to grind away can create an awkward lull at the reference desk or in a classroom setting does little to instill confidence in the minds of the library staff and patrons. Even though we can say that this search grinding away takes less time than searching each native interface individually, we’ve all become impatient due to high speed of the interwebs.

Finally, there are behaviors with discovery products that are simply unexpected. A particular use of the software that sounds brilliant in theory sometimes does not prove effective in practice. For example, reference and instruction staff at Auraria were asked to draw up a list of ten or so resources that would be included in a general-focus “Quick Search” box on the Library’s home page. Eleven databases plus the library catalog were chosen for inclusion, and staff were excited by the potential of offering results to general queries from these resources from a search box on the home page. However, in practice, the result was disappointing. The results returned from the fastest resource were the results on top of the pile, and of the twelve resources chosen, PsycINFO routinely returned results first. Reference and instruction staff felt that this skewed the results for a general query; therefore, the feature was gradually reduced to three databases plus the catalog, and then simply three databases.

While these current technical shortcomings are a large part of the dissatisfaction in the reference and instruction department, there are philosophical and pedagogical issues as well. One of the primary concerns of reference and instruction staff is that discovery tools dumb down the research process. All of the controlled vocabulary and carefully constructed indexes behind individual online resources are tossed out the window; the results returned from a certain resource via the federated interface may be of a lesser quality than those returned from a search in that resource’s native interface. In the words of a colleague, in an academic environment, federated searching “removes many kinds of academic research drills and routines one or more steps from reality.”

My response to that question is, “Whose reality?” A librarian’s? Because we know how to walk both ways to school uphill in the snow, our patrons have to, too? Just earlier this week at KLA, Rick Anderson from the University of Utah called for the slaughter of five sacred cows of librarianship, the third of which was reference. He noted that reference is not scalable, and that our goal should be to make libraries so easy to use that reference service is not necessary. Auraria Library is, in fact, moving to an information desk model that refocuses the main duties of reference librarians to consultation, liaison, and outreach duties. If the tools we choose to offer our patrons are easier to use, reference librarians can go beyond the library’s walls and increase our presence in our communities in these ways. (Thank you whoever tweeted about Rick Anderson’s presentation, by the way.)

Further, federated searching and NextGen products bring no content into either the physical or virtual library. Reference and instruction librarians quite understandably crave content with which to fulfill their reference and instruction duties. With product price tags in the tens of thousands and budgets shriveling, buying a tool that does not stand up to staff expectations and brings no more content into the library seems foolish. I find this a bit ironic, however, because libraries spend tens of thousands of dollars on online resources that have terribly unfriendly user interfaces, even for information professionals, yet are the sole online provider for crucial resources.

Finally, in terms of personal use—whether for conducting one’s own research or while assisting patrons—using discovery tools feels like putting the training wheels back onto the bicycle. Reference librarians know or can surmise which resources will likely yield good results for a given query, and they proceed to what they know are “the usual suspects” in the lineup of electronic resources. Because of this expertise, it is difficult to use federated searching instinctively in reference and instruction. One reference librarian told me that she never taught federated search in her classes because she hated it.

While I am now a systems librarian and no longer work at the reference desk, an undergraduate asked me in passing shortly after we implemented 360 Search how to find a “professional article” in a biology journal. I found myself directing her to the “biology” drop down menu in our homegrown directory of databases, ultimately offering her a choice of BioOne, BIOSIS, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. I added as a footnote that she could search multiple resources simultaneously from the Biology subject guide—but not Web of Science because it was not included in our federated search setup because of our limited number of concurrent users. Not to mention the peer-reviewed filter issue so that she’d get a “professional” article. And there’s the rub: explaining the shortcomings of the federated search box on the Biology guide was more difficult than simply pointing her to a couple of “best bet” choices in the first place.

Given the above, why are federated search products still on the market, and why are libraries still contracting with vendors? What has changed my own mind in the last five years, transforming me from a reluctant community college reference librarian fighting Webfeat tooth and nail to a web librarian petitioning the university’s budget priorities committee for extra funds to pay for 360 Search? Two things: usability testing and developments in discovery tools themselves.

Web usability testing has finally opened our eyes to the fact that patrons have vastly different mental models of the world of information than librarians. For me personally, this became painfully clear in 2004 while observing a graduate student at Georgetown University during a usability testing session. [SLIDE 3] He timed out after three minutes while trying to decipher from the library’s home page where to find a scholarly article about Descartes. He vacillated between the “catalog” and “database” links on the library’s home page for 180 agonizing seconds and, in the end, he never made a choice.

Libraries have historically had difficulty marketing and presenting in an intuitive fashion what is the heart of the virtual library: subscribed electronic content, which accounts for the lion’s share of our annual resource budgets. While not inexpensive, discovery tools are now offered with a number of pricing options. Even if a library chooses to federate as many resources as possible, the annual price tag will still likely be less that one percent of the total annual expenditure for electronic resources—a small price to pay for what can be a large return on a very large investment. Additionally, implementing federated searching as a discovery tool can restore patrons’ faith in their ability to find what they need when they come to their library’s web site versus the open Internet. We will only continue to offer more and more online content in the coming years, and discovery tools provide a way to present sensible options for patrons as the number of online resources continues to grow.

The products themselves, to include the implementation process, have also evolved quite a bit in recent years. Early vendor offerings of federated search tools were clunky behemoths that required a local server installation and took months, sometimes years, to prepare for patron use. Now, vendors typically offer more lightweight hosted options that are ideal for libraries whose local technology resources are limited or lacking. Serials Solutions’ promised—and, in the case of the Auraria Library, delivered—six-to-eight-week turnaround from contract to launch is a dramatic improvement over the years-long implementation time. Generally, vendor support during implementation is better, with the vendor doing more of the setup work, depending upon the products and the options chosen. And this year, because of a new amendment passed recently in the state of Colorado, it actually took us longer to secure our contract with WorldCat Local than to implement it.
In terms of technical improvements with federated search tools, vendors have found effective ways of deduplicating results, which was an early Achilles’ heel. The practice of HTML screen scraping—analyzing the output of a database by “reading” the HTML of the results page—is being replaced by more highly structured XML Gateway technology, which improves the quality of the results returned. Additional features like clustered results, integration with other tools, supported web integration services, and impressive administration and statistics modules are now available among the various products. Notable examples in 2007 included Serials Solutions’ clustered results feature in 360 Search and Info-Graphic’s administrative module for their AGent product.

Further, customization options allow discovery tools to overlay an entire web site, unifying many resources to a single access point. Some librarians wanted to put both 360 Search and WorldCat Local on the databases page; there’s not much point spending money on a discovery tool if it’s put on a web page that no one understands in the first place. In addition to providing a single-search box on the library’s home page, many libraries are using federated search products to enhance the more traditional and usually home-grown A-Z/subject directories of databases as well as library guides and pathfinders. Almost any combination of resources and audience is possible. For example, an “English 101” bundle in an academic library could include EBSCO Academic Search Premier, Gale’s General OneFile, and LexisNexis Academic. Code for this particular search could be embedded on a class guide for English composition courses so that less time could be spent training students on the individual interfaces. More time could then be spent discussing topic selection and refinement, Boolean logic—which is supported by federated search products—and other important research concepts.

I’m pleased to report that I have found myself instinctively using WorldCat Local as launched on our home page. [SLIDE 4] There were a few of issues that arose during implementation, not the least of which included labels of the tabs on the single search box. We based our search box on the University of Washington’s home page display of WorldCat Local, copying the tab labels “books,” “articles,” “dvds” and “cds.” Then the debate began. The top issue was that librarians were concerned that students would think that they were searching all articles, so the label was briefly “Select Articles.” This was problematic, however, in that it sounded as though “select” was a verb. Then “selected articles” was proposed, but this gave the incorrect impression that this material was somehow vetted by library staff. A compromise was struck by adding a “research tip” on each of the tabbed areas of the search box. [SLIDE 5] This alerted users to additional information in a way that did not sound like an apology about what librarians were dissatisfied with. “All formats” was briefly suggested for the “all” tab, but this was rejected in favor of single-word tab labels, and also because “format” is an empty, jargony librarian word.

Are discovery tools the Holy Grail? To the Knights of the Round Table, the Grail represented an unattainable ideal that compelled the Knights to pursue it, in some cases to their own destruction. Sometimes, things fail; Auraria discontinued 360 Search this summer because OCLC is adding federated search to WorldCat Local. [SLIDE 6] I don’t think that the big picture future is so bleak for discovery tools, however. [SLIDE 7] At Computers in Libraries this past Spring, SirsiDynix Vice President Stephen Abram noted, “Criticizing federated searching is like looking at your child learning to crawl and declaring, ‘He’s a horrible accountant, I’d never hire him.’” He further noted, “It takes a village to raise this stuff.” We are finally listening to what our customers want; vendors are listening more to what we want and partnering with libraries during development. Opening these channels of communication and collaboration is a very good thing. New products that seem to be neither federated search nor NextGen catalogs, such as Serials Solutions’ Summon are emerging onto the market, and open source and other small vendor offerings will be interesting to watch in the coming years.

These nascent discovery tools are proving that they can successfully connect patrons with subscribed online content; they are more tools that we can put in our patrons’ research toolboxes, even if librarians still prefer not to use them until future developments, hopefully, will make improvements in what reference and instruction librarians find lacking. Even with all of its current technical shortcomings, discovery tools provide a means of presenting our hyperstructured universe, with all of is semi-secret classification schemes and codes, to our customers in a way that they not only understand, but have come to expect.

Notes:
1. Lampert, Lynn D. and Katherine S. Dabbour, “Librarian Perspectives on Teaching Metasearch and Federated Search Technologies,” in Federated Search: Solution or Setback for Online Library Services, ed. Christopher Cox (Binghamton, NY: Haworth, 2007) 253-78.

Why Amazon and Google are Not the Competition

Are we trying to make NextGen Catalogs into something that they don't really need to be? We constantly hear at conferences and in other professional venues that Amazon.com and Google are "the competition." Are they, really? With the exception of sales of donated materials, we're not trying to sell books. And libraries are not just books, but space, computer and internet access, services, etc. Right? Ironic that internet access--the very thing that was supposed to be our undoing--has become one of the top reasons for library use.

The big push now is "discovery systems." Is it really such a bad thing that people admit that they use our catalogs just to check on local availability, NOT for discovery? I had an Economics professor insist to me once that the default search in our catalog should be "Author," which, in the case of that advanced user, certainly suggests a preference for known item searching. (I didn't change the default to "Author," however.)

Ten or so years ago, we were concerned because users were leaving libraries in droves--as evidenced by lowered gate counts--because of the internet. Like the internet generally, Amazon is just another tool out there to help people meet their information needs. Do we feel, professionally, that we have to be the only toolbox in town? Okay, sorry, that metaphor kinda broke down.

I hear my instruction colleagues drilling into freshman heads the same thing that I did back when I did instruction: "Start your research on the Library's web page, not Google!" Why? I certainly don't. Heck, half the time, I throw "wiki" into my search terms to grab the Wikipedia articles relevant to what I'm searching. Are we, professionally, really so jealous of what we perceive as the competition? Why condemn this natural information seeking behavior, rather than supporting it and drawing it toward a conclusion--if necessary for the user's information needs--in library materials?

That Amazon.com is not our competition is corroborated, at least anecdotally, by a couple of comments that we've received from our faculty about our newly-released WorldCat Local implementaion. They compared it to Amazon.com. That may at first inspire librarian fist pumping and woo hoos. However, the comparison is--gasp!--derogatory:

"The new database seems based on Amazon.com. I don’t need suggestions, and poor ones at that, of related books when I use the library. I don’t need to see what other borrowers thought of the book. The information I need is poorly displayed. It is hard to cut and paste. It takes several screens to scan through, instead of the much quicker scroll in the traditional format (e.g., finding out what libraries have the book). It supplies distracting, if not useless information (a picture of the cover, the distance to other libraries—as if I need to know how far Provo is). Finally, the one potentially useful feature—a direct link that will let me order the title via Prospector [our consortium catalog]—is left off."

Cover art is distracting? Suggestions aren't useful? Hmmm...is there trouble in discovery paradise?

"I’m glad to hear that this database is on a trial basis! It’s all over the place, specifically in the initial search options. Where I would have been able to search specifically for the call number or author, I am left to do a basic keyword search, and then to weed through the unwanted material (while this is helpful sometimes, it is counterproductive when the exact book is known). The layout also just looks cheesy. I feel like I’m searching Amazon.com for a discounted textbook that will inevitably be tattered and torn. Besides that, there aren’t many images linked to books and that exacerbates the cheesy vibes I get from it!
I wonder if it is just that it will take me time to get used to the new look, but my first impression of it is NOT NOT NOT a good one!"

All of that said, I'm certainly not suggesting that we shouldn't adapt and move forward to better serve our users. In fact, that's exactly what I AM suggesting. I'm really excited about our implementation of WorldCat Local and how we'll shape it to the needs and expectations of our users--including the two apparently advanced ones I've quoted above. Check it out http://aurarialibrary.worldcat.org, and at the new home page at http://library.auraria.edu.

I just question what we're so jealous and afraid of, who and what we consider competition, and why we spend thousands of dollars and lots of time hand-wringing to try to be something that we don't need to be. Amazon and Google are successful because they're in tune with what their users want from them. THAT's what we need to be emulating.

Breaking in the MacBook

Back in March, I convinced the powers that be that my work laptop replacement ought to be a MacBook. (Okay, there wasn't too much arm twisting because our Systems head "is a Mac" at home.) Alas, it did not come in time for Computers in Libraries in order for me to have my full geek on, but it was waiting for me when I got back from DC. I only last week switched it to my primary computer cuz I was waiting for Adobe CS4 Suite, which I need on a daily basis for web stuff. A recent consultant's report suggested that we experiment with Macs, and according to Google Analytics numbers from the past month, 8.56% of our users are coming to the library's web site on Macs. This may not seem like much, but three years ago, we were at 2.25% of total users. That's almost a fourfold increase in Mac use in three years!

I should note that this is not my first Mac, or even my first MacBook Pro. I have a long and happy Mac history. Most of my high school papers were written on an Apple IIGS, and my desk in college sported the jaunty Macintosh Classic. The screen was literally the size of an index card. Ah, the hours I wasted playing Risk! I can still hear the happy "ding ding ding" as my armies swept through Asia and into Australia. Early grad school saw a departure from the Mac realm and computer ownership in general because I was in Europe. Re-entry came during the second go at grad school (back in the states) when my then-boyfriend-now-husband bought a PowerBook G3. A long happy string of laptops has followed: my white iBook (still in use by my mom), his PowerBook G4 and my first MacBook Pro. (Did I forget any, D?) We somehow missed iMacs, but then ended up inheriting one from my parents. We've been in our current house just over three years, and the PC boxes are where we put them when we unpacked them: in the basement, under his work table. Where they belong, bwahahaha-hah! Erm, ahem, excuse me.

Here's what I'm still getting used to, using a Mac in a work environment. If you have solutions or suggestions to any of these, let me have 'em! :) Would love to hear about any web-specific stuff, too. Was recently told about Coda at a Drupal gathering. (Thanks, Amy!)

-Entourage. 'Nuff said. It didn't carry over my task categories! But I had to redo them anyway. It seems to be syncing up okay with our Exchange server, at least. Article: "Entourage is not Outlook."

-Finding equivalents for work software. Adium works great instead of Pidgin for our IM chat client. What's your favorite file transfer client? I've heard Transmit. (And yes, I know there's a built-in terminal.) There are other little things, like a personal favorite, ColorSchemer, which I just need to buy again. Ah, well. That's one more PC license I can pass to someone on my newly-formed Web Team.

-Sharp edges on the base cut into my wrists a bit as I type. Guess that means I'm lazy and not assuming an ergonomically correct position. And the brilliant, super-sharp, clear screen more than makes up for it.

-Getting it into the network at work. Macs are supported on campus, but I gather not too widely used, so I spent much of the day a week ago Friday chatting with various campus IT help desk folks. Took a bit to figure out the right way to map to the shared drives, but got it now! Still have to connect every time I start up; there must be a way to autoconnect? If not, I can live with it.

-Still fight it to print at work, too, but this network stuff I'll figure out in time. I'd better, anyway, because we've already ordered two more!

-Still getting used to little things like right clicking, the trash can, the absence of the delete key, etc.--which is odd, because I'm totally used to that at home! Fact is, my work workflow is much different than what I do at home. I hadn't realized how much my brain was partitioned for work and home computing.

-I do like being well-versed in both PC and Mac worlds, and I'm worried that my PC "skills," whatever they are, will diminish. Then I come around and think, "So what?!"

-Supporting both at work for other users. Those who will want Macs will be folks who already have them at home and who are not afraid to try new things, so I do take some comfort in that. Meanwhile, I'm working on an inventory of all of the library software and whether there's a Mac version or equivalent. So far, so good; nothing deal-breaking, and it's not like we're going to sweep through and replace everybody. Would love to hear of anyone's experience in transitioning to supporting Macs in the workplace in a library environment! That'd be a good conference session...

But ya know what? I'm getting over it all of this. However, I will confess that yesterday, I just wanted to power through a bunch of web maintenance stuff, and I used the Dell for most of the day.

Speaking of switching to Macs, I just love this recent Mac ad. I love how it turns the whole weak/lame "I'm a PC" ad campaign on its ear when the woman says, "I'm a Megan."

Drupal Birds of a Feather Meeting

A group of about 30 Drupalphillic library types met today at Denver Open Media at 7th and Kalamath. Great representation from all kinds of libraries (public, state, academic) and roles of people in libraries (IT geeks to HR). Very tasty lunch was enjoyed by a smaller contingent at El Noa Noa prior to the meeting.

Felt a bit out of my league early on when the talk centered more around developer issues, but after a break--during which I nearly killed myself and five others turning the minivan into the Starbucks on 6th Ave--topics turned more to themes, which is the learning curve in front of me right now. Great opportunity to meet local Drupal types, and great pointers/lessons learned shared. Very helpful!

Issues of interest:

Multi-site Drupal installations: Many attendees were curious about this. Markus recommended against it; they have 15 sites, could have twice that many in the future, and there was concern that one bad one would bring them all down. Using Debian package management for upgrades/changes, which is the main reason for folks wanting to use a multi-site setup. Markus: "I am the non-multisite advocate."

Greg countered with pros: it's not sustainable to have to manage an upgrade of 40 sites.

Strategies for sharing content: Feed API for video content; integrated feed API into the video module, and each video has an RSS feed (hope I got that right...)

Organic groups: creates a new content type on your site; allows node association with groups; Amy: "It's easier than you think!" :)

Modules that I want to check out: single sign on; services; feed API; Drush (Drupal shell; used for updating); CVS (not the pharmacy-we're not on the east coast after all); Install Profile API; ezproxy module; Calendar; MERCI-for booking equipment, people, etc.

And there's a list of modules of interest to Libraries: NEED LINK :)


Books:
Leveraging Drupal Victor Kane
Cracking Drupal: A Drop in the Bucket, Greg Knaddison (one of our moderators)
Front End Drupal: Designing, Theming, Scripting, Kafer and Hogbin


Stuff I need to think about:
Dev, staging, production servers/hosts. Hmmm.

Denver Drupal Camp: Sat-Sun 27-28th of June

Douglas County's databases page: CCK module. They had problems with caching; users were being prompted on each screen for a login

Theme issues:

"If you haven't started, look at the Zen theme and name your regions accordingly."

Palantir's Zen Reference Card: http://groups.drupal.org/node/20870

Recommendation: start with a base theme and customize it. Here's a review of themes for Drupal 6:

http://www.chapterthree.com/blog/squiggy_rubio/review_drupal_6_starter_themes

RoopleTheme: http://www.roopletheme.com/ White Jazz is straightforward/customizable; on all, documentation solid, code good

Deco theme: attractive, multi-column theme that doesn't get much press

Permalinks: Drupal uses node numbers, which is generally nice, with the exception of search engine optimization

CIL 2009: Post Partying Depression

Okay, I've survived the attack of the Jammie Monsters, put them back to bed, pulled my toothbrush out of my suitcase, and left the rest of it there on the floor for tomorrow. No WAY I'm going in to work in the morning. But, I'm feeling a little sad. People often say that returning from a conference depresses them because the new ideas and energy will fizzle out when confronted by medieval IT policies, deadbeat directors, reluctant reference librarians, etc.--only picking on reference because it alliterates with "reluctant." For me, it was more sort of a doldrum about the state of the profession.

Don't get me wrong. Computers in Libraries was the first library conference I attended (2002), and it made me realize that I'd made the right career choice. I had an absolute blast, then and now. This year, I'm proud and honored to have presented along with such a great bunch of damn smart, funny, and nice people. I made new friends, met some virtual friends face-to-face, and reconnected with some of my HCC and Gtown peeps. Attended a great preconference and a number of really fun social gatherings. (Always a treat, as when I lived in DC, I missed the evening stuff!)

But, as a profession, shouldn't we be further along? Should so many sessions, at a technology conference, be so basic? I don't mean any disrespect to the presenters, because for the most part, the quality of the presentations I attended was quite good. I also realize that a lot of libraries, for the reasons mentioned above, are still struggling to catch up. A digital divide within the profession has been created: those who can download stuff onto their work computers and those who cannot. I'm one of the 6 lucky ones in my library of 80ish employees who can--that's changing, thankfully.

A lot of the folks I talked to during the Wednesday evening exodus (on the escalator, on the airport shuttle, at the gate for our flight at National) shared this frustration. For those who did share it, I recommended the LITA National Forum (always in October and a moveable feast, this year Salt Lake City). CIL was always my favorite conference--I think this was my 4th CIL?--until I went to the LITA Forum for the first time in 2006. That also probably had to do with my changing my focus from reference to systems that year with my new job at Auraria.

I think another sorely needed development that will help address this frustration is the increasing offering of "camp" style conferences. Would go to LITA camp in Ohio in May, but I think I burned through mom's kid-watching karma, and David's not back from Afghanistan til July.

So for now, I will seek solace in Dr. Darlene's prescription for seratonin delivered via chocolate.

CIL 2009: What's Hot in RSS? Steven M Cohen

RSS Z-A (mind the date)

Z: Zoho
Y: YouTube RSS Search
X: He's got nothin!
W: wwwhat's new
V: Votes Database
U: JD Supra (it's got a U in it)
T: Tic Tocs
S: Scribd (YouTube for .pdf files)
R: Ravelry (Steven dedicates this letter to his wife...)
Q: QuestionPoint
P: Page2RSS (for sites that don't have feeds)
O: Open Congress
N: Nothing (literally)
M: Mashable
L: LibraryThing
K: KillerStartups
J: Justia Dockets
I: I want to
H: Hunch
G: Google Reader
F: Facebook
E: E-Hub
D: Deepest Sender (Firefox add-on; posts links to yer blog)
C: Compfight (image search)
B: BackupURL
A: Awesome Highlighter

CIL 2009: Roll Your Own FS, Walter Warnick and Laura Solomon

Walter Warnick

Walter elegantly restated the case for federated searching NOT being dead! We may be fed up with products, but the need for a means to cross search TONS or resources--in his case, 60 government databases--will only continue to increase.


Laura Solomon

OPLIN initially implemented WebFeat in 2004; after a couple of years, librarians were fed up. Changes had been made to WebFeat, but Solomon wasn't satisfied. They also looked at Google Custom Search Beta is nifty, but of course, it can't log in to our databases.

Along comes MasterKey--runs on Pazpar 2 engine, hosting is available. Pazpar 2 engine also provides record merging, relevance ranking, record sorting, facted results.

Did usability via Kent State usability lab; folks wanted Google down to the link colors! My sidesnark: did they want fake ads?! :)

The pieces of the homemade:
OpenTranslators (WebFeat's, sold through another vendor whose name I missed)
Yahoo spellchecker API
EZproxy
Custom page design
Custom scripting

Paid: customization of the Pazpar 2 engine; ongoing cost: annual fee of translators

In action:
http://www.ohioweblibrary.org

Stephen Abram noted where Pazpar 2 comes from.