1 of 18

Unified Discovery: What's your ideal search interface?

Online Northwest 2010

Stefanie Buck

Jane Nichols�Oregon State University Libraries

2 of 18

“Why is Google so easy and the library so hard?”

Tenopir, C. (2009). Visualize the perfect search. Library Journal, (4), Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6639354.html?nid=3306

3 of 18

New Developments

Literature Gap

A couple of things prompted us to look more closely at new options for federated searching. Because both OSU and the Orbis Cascade alliance were looking at this issue we needed to learn how it would impact our work. As we looked at library literature, we noticed that there were not many studies reporting on what librarians want in a federated search product. Even though companies developing new products may involve librarians in their product development process; we didn't see anything published. We did see studies reporting on implementation and testing done with students.

This gap left us wondering what librarians want from a federated search tool. So we decided to create the survey which some of you may have completed and we thought holding this session would be a way for us to learn more and to share with you.

Survey results showed once again that we/librarians don’t like the current federated search tools, so this is an opportunity to talk about what we would like.

4 of 18

5 of 18

Comments

Strengths= more information in one place for patrons

Weaknesses=clarity & coherence of results

Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board…

No, we will stick with Google Scholar.

I really don't see the need for any of the above when we can use Google Scholar (connected to our holdings and subscriptions)

We used MetaFind (now ResearchPro) and tested against Google Scholar (connected to our databases) and found Google Scholar results to be superior.

6 of 18

Define Terms

Federated search

Common user interface software products

Meta-search

Metabase

Aggregated search results

Portal

Simultaneous searching

Cross-database searching

Parallel searching

Broadcast searching

Integrated searching

Polysearching

7 of 18

Federated Search

Database

Search Federator

Results

Authentication

Database

Vendor prohibition�No translator�Limit searches/seats

Searches live

Library API

Repository

Database

User Request

Index

The traditional federated search tool, with which many of us are familiar, works something like this.

Searches by transforming original query, broadcasting the search to a group of databases (often Z39.50) using appropriate syntax, merges results and presents in unified format.

Requires translators usually written by library (not necessarily)

Pros

Search is in real-time (live)
Many vendors allow using federated search tools

Cons

Generally does not search FT, only title, key fields, abstracts. Often have to select which fields want to search or goes with the LCD.
Limits search operators to what is minimally acceptable.
Has to be able to access multiple, password-protected databases. Means there is a lot of maintenance and upkeep.
Limited number of results from each database or even a limit to the number of databases you can search
Databases may be excluded because of vendor prohibition, no existing “translator” limited number of concurrent sessions or pay-by-search model.

8 of 18

Federated Search Systems


Encompass (Endeavor)
MetaFind (Innovative Interfaces)
MetaLib (Ex Libris)
ZPortal (Fretwell-Downing)
Webfeat
SingleSearch (Sirsi)
Central Search (Serial Solutions)

9 of 18

Unified Search Index

Index

Repository

Content

Vendors and Publishers

Content

Library API

Database

No publisher/aggregator agreement

Federated

Results

Content

No vendor relationship�Limit searches

User Request

Now moving into next-generation of federated searching. You will often see this referred to as unified search index or unified discovery system. Many vendors moving in this direction

Basic premise is the same. Search against all the library silos of databases and catalogs and other stuff and bring back a unified list of results.

The way it works is a little different. Instead of real-time searching, you are actually search a master index of meta-data.

Main difference is the normalized unified index.

Pros

Because searches a unified index, works faster.

Results often more complete (can search additional fields, full-text, peer-reviewed, filter by date)

Can be hosted locally or by provider

Cons

“Source lock-in” – can only search those sources where publishers and aggregators provide indexes. However, more incentive now for them to do so – Google competition.

In most cases, looking at hybrid product

10 of 18

Unified Discovery Services


EBSCOhost Discovery Service
Primo Central (ExLibris)
Encore Discovery (III)
WorldCat Local (OCLC)
Serials Solutions (Summon)
California Digital Library

11 of 18

12 of 18

13 of 18

14 of 18

Participatory �Design

Foster and Gibbons. Studying Students:The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Association of College and Research Libraries. Chicago, 2007, p. 34.

We were inspired to by the University of Rochester’s use of participatory design methods to redesign their home page as described in their book: Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. We wondered if we could adapt their method to learn what librarians, you, would like for unified discovery. For those unfamiliar with what participatory design is, it “is a design framework and related methods which advocate user involvement in design….Participatory methods are often used in the natural environment of the user (e.g. a workplace) and are heavily user centered.” “The idea is to co-design with real users in realistic situations and environments to improve the quality of their feedback.” Rochester asked students to design their ideal webpage from scratch using ideas they had discussed in an earlier brainstorm. The table represents what the students came up with.

15 of 18

Back to the Drawing Board

Form small groups

Passing out materials

IRB form-sign if you want

16 of 18

Book cover

Citation

Peer-reviewed

Link to Google Scholar

My Library

Sort by

Citation information

Database

Location

🕮

17 of 18

Debrief

What did you create?
Why?

18 of 18

Thanks!

Stefanie Buck

stefanie.buck@oregonstate.edu

Jane Nichols

jane.nichols@oregonstate.edu