Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

9.0608327E-4 = product of:
  0.0063425824 = sum of:
    0.0063425824 = product of:
      0.031712912 = sum of:
        0.031712912 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031712912 = score(doc=4738,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 4738, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4738)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.

8.877766E-4 = product of:
  0.006214436 = sum of:
    0.006214436 = product of:
      0.03107218 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=4734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To investigate recent enhancements to the internet search engine Google. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on practitioner experience and recent commentary on search engine innovations. Findings - That recent innovations in Google's functionality have yet to deliver what they promise, but that it is still early to say what can genuinely be achieved in these areas. Research limitations/implications - This is an expression of opinion about a service that will be radically improved and developed in the immediate future. Practical implications - Gives some useful insights and tips on how to use existing digital library tools to achieve information retrieval results along the lines of those aspired to by Google. Originality/value - An attempt to give clear, practice-based examples of how to apply recent digital information retrieval developments to contemporary library work.

8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=2959,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding Web 2.0 technologies and their relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice. Design/methodology/approach - A broad narrative account of Web 2.0 developments combined with illustrations of how one library in particular reacted to these developments. Findings - It was found that all libraries need to evolve a Web 2.0 strategy to promote this aspect of their services, but that they will need to devise solutions to specific problems as part of this strategy. These include the range of Web 2.0 platforms that are on offer and the authentication and workload issues associated with this diversity. A single, unified library system-based approach to Web 2.0 is offered as a viable alternative to using disparate external services. Research limitations/implications - This paper does not resolve the difference between a multi-platform Web 2.0 strategy and the single, unified library system-based approach, although a preference for the systems-based approach is suggested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches is worthy of further research. Practical implications - At the level of practice, this viewpoint article offers two alternative Web 2.0 strategies which can be applied quite readily in everyday library work. Originality/value - This paper tries to offer a clear range of options for librarians interested in pursuing Web 2.0 services, facilitating successful service enhancement in the working library.

7.398139E-4 = product of:
  0.005178697 = sum of:
    0.005178697 = product of:
      0.025893483 = sum of:
        0.025893483 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025893483 = score(doc=4742,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper takes forward strands from "Evaluating the quality of library portals" by the author and places them in the context of different approaches to teaching students about information use. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece which examines the impact on user behaviour of traditional mechanical library skills training (such as "library orientation", "bibliographic instruction", or "information skills training" rather than true information literacy-based teaching). The paper points out the similarity in the effects of such teaching to the effects of offering users a more powerful mechanical information retrieval tool (such as a library portal or internet search engine) without effective support on how the information retrieved should be used for significant educational outcomes. Findings - For librarians to be custodians of the highest standards of intelligent information use, they must demonstrate a meaningful, rather than a mechanical understanding and application of information literacy in their everyday practice. Without this, information users will rightly turn to new, non-mediated forms of information use such as internet search engines, which can deal with purely technical challenges of information retrieval superficially well. Both the users and the profession itself will be the poorer as a result. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the dangers of pedagogically underdeveloped user education on user behaviour. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical insights for the application of information literacy principles to library practice. Originality/value - This piece points out the ironic similarities in the effect of a mechanistic or tool-based approach to user education and unmediated user access to internet search engines or Library portals: above all, a "more is better" approach in the information user, marked by citing too much poorly digested, poorly evaluated data.

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=2969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2969)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding the Google Book settlement in 2009, and its relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice. Design/methodology/approach - A set of projections and speculations that are both conceptual and practical in nature, based on early reactions and comments about this development. Findings - There are many philosophical and moral objections to the consequences of the Google Book settlement, and that the practical effects for academic libraries could be both positive and/or negative. The practical examples of such outcomes are designed to help clarify the implications for library and information practitioners and generate further debate. Research limitations/implications - The fact that the Book settlement is a legal arrangement between parties in a civil court makes in depth research analysis of a public nature very difficult - which is in itself one of the main themes of the paper. Practical implications - The teasing out of the real-life consequences of the settlement are intended be helpful to the library practitioner. Originality/value - This paper tries to offer an early insight into an important new development in information retrieval history from the point of view of academic librarians, in contrast to much contemporary comment, which has come from authors and rights holders.