Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012546621 = product of:
  0.025093243 = sum of:
    0.025093243 = product of:
      0.050186485 = sum of:
        0.050186485 = weight(_text_:i in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050186485 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

0.009070726 = product of:
  0.018141452 = sum of:
    0.018141452 = product of:
      0.09070726 = sum of:
        0.09070726 = weight(_text_:authors in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09070726 = score(doc=5461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Despite the social, educational and therapeutic benefits of book clubs, little is known about which books participants are likely to have read. In response, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the public bookshelves of those that have joined a group within the Goodreads social network site. Design/methodology/approach Books listed as read by members of 50 large English-language Goodreads groups - with a genre focus or other theme - were compiled by author and title. Findings Recent and youth-oriented fiction dominate the 50 books most read by book club members, whilst almost half are works of literature frequently taught at the secondary and postsecondary level (literary classics). Whilst J.K. Rowling is almost ubiquitous (at least 63 per cent as frequently listed as other authors in any group, including groups for other genres), most authors, including Shakespeare (15 per cent), Goulding (6 per cent) and Hemmingway (9 per cent), are little read by some groups. Nor are individual recent literary prize winners or works in languages other than English frequently read. Research limitations/implications Although these results are derived from a single popular website, knowing more about what book club members are likely to have read should help participants, organisers and moderators. For example, recent literary prize winners might be a good choice, given that few members may have read them. Originality/value This is the first large scale study of book group members' reading patterns. Whilst typical reading is likely to vary by group theme and average age, there seems to be a mainly female canon of about 14 authors and 19 books that Goodreads book club members are likely to have read.

0.008961872 = product of:
  0.017923744 = sum of:
    0.017923744 = product of:
      0.03584749 = sum of:
        0.03584749 = weight(_text_:i in 3789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03584749 = score(doc=3789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 3789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We examined the search behaviors of diverse fiction readers in different search scenarios. The aim was to understand how fiction readers with varied reading preferences are selecting interesting novels in library catalogs. We conducted a controlled user study with 80 participants. Two reader groups were elicited according to similar reading preference patterns. The readers enjoyed the entertainment, escape, and comfort that reading as a pleasurable activity offered. The aesthetic readers valued the artistic and aesthetic pleasures, widening vocabulary, and ability to express oneself through fiction books. We compared the search queries and search actions between the 2 reader groups. Our results demonstrated that preference patterns were associated with readers' search behavior, that is, the number of viewed search result pages, opened book pages, dwell time on book pages, and the type of search queries. Based on the findings, we present 3 search tactics for fiction books in library catalogs: i) focused querying, ii) topical browsing, and iii) similarity-based tactic. The most popular search tactic in each search scenario was "focused querying" with known author in both reader groups.

0.0052369856 = product of:
  0.010473971 = sum of:
    0.010473971 = product of:
      0.052369855 = sum of:
        0.052369855 = weight(_text_:authors in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052369855 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although much previous research has considered how we read, less attention has been paid to why we read, and the influence not only of individual or text-related factors on a reader's intention to read, but also of broader societal factors. This article presents a novel, empirically-based model of fiction reading in a public library context, taking into account the characteristics differentiating the readers of individual fiction genres. It begins with a literature review of factors motivating a reading choice or habit, and of the effects of reading different fiction genres, before introducing three previous studies by the first author into readers' attitudes towards, and engagement with, fiction and selected fiction genres. The methodologies are then summarized both for the three previous studies and the present study. The authors present a combined analysis that integrates the findings of the previous studies in order to generate a new, evidence-based model for the reading of fiction genres. Incorporating both demographic and motivational aspects, this model illustrates how the broad themes of the fiction reader profile interrelate, giving them a new causal ordering. Finally, there is a discussion of the implications of this work for library and information science research and practitioner communities.

0.0052369856 = product of:
  0.010473971 = sum of:
    0.010473971 = product of:
      0.052369855 = sum of:
        0.052369855 = weight(_text_:authors in 5266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052369855 = score(doc=5266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5266)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Through their work as instructors in a master of library science program, the authors observed a sharp increase in students' desire to adopt the reader-interest classification approach of genrefication for their school libraries' fiction collections. In order to better understand this trend, the researchers interviewed seven school librarians regarding their motivations for genrefying their libraries' fiction collections; the challenges they encountered during or after the genrefication process; and any benefits they perceived as having resulted in the implementation of genrefication. The data suggest that the librarians' interests in genrefication stem mostly from the lack of time they have to help individual students find materials, and the lack of time students are given out of the instructional day to explore the libraries' fiction collections. The participants felt that reclassifying the library's fiction collection by genre gave students more ownership of the fiction collection and allowed them to find ma-terials that genuinely interested them. The significant challenges the librarians faced in the reorganization process speak to challenges regarding the ways in which librarians attempt to provide access to diverse materials for all patrons.