Posting to Autocat
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:44:20 -0600, Brian Briscoe wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Paul Adasiak wrote:
>Some have said that, even despite their poor bib records, the books are being found and used. Our own Collection Development librarian says this, with numbers to prove it … If, with poor records, their access is adequate, then why bother with “improved” records at all?
>Because, in reality, their acces is not adequate with the poor records. Just because a user happens to stumble across a resource by happenstance does not mean that the access to that item is very good.
The main task is to discover exactly how the patrons are finding these books. Are they using *only* the records in the catalog, or are they accessing them through the full-text search within the EBL website? Of course, this is fated to become an incredibly big and thorny issue when the millions of Google Books are eventually brought online in their entirety.
This could be an interesting project for some library student out there: to find out how many people find the EBL books through the local catalog/metadata records, versus how many find them through the full-text search in EBL. Throwing in the results from NetLibrary could be interesting as well. EBL and NetLibrary may be willing to share their statistics on this, at least in the aggregate. The results could help us determine the impact of the addition of the full-text books from Google.
One of the major challenges that the field of cataloging must face is how it will interoperate with full-text retrieval–what will be necessary for us to maintain and what can safely be tossed overboard. This type of project could make for an interesting case study.