Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02123692 = product of:
  0.04247384 = sum of:
    0.04247384 = product of:
      0.08494768 = sum of:
        0.08494768 = weight(_text_:web in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08494768 = score(doc=944,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many libraries manage Web sites intended to provide their users with online resources suitable for answering reference questions. Most of these sites can be analyzed in terms of their depth, and their organizing and searching features. Composing a typology based on these factors sheds light on the critical design decisions that influence whether users of these sites succees or fail to find information easily, rapidly and accurately. The same analysis highlights some larger design issues, both for Web sites and for information management at large

0.015927691 = product of:
  0.031855382 = sum of:
    0.031855382 = product of:
      0.063710764 = sum of:
        0.063710764 = weight(_text_:web in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063710764 = score(doc=1156,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Non-academic questions regarding special services, phone numbers, web-sites, library policies, current procedures, technical notices, and other pertinent local institutional information are often asked at the academic library reference desk. These frequent and urgent information requests require tools and resources to answer efficiently. Although ready reference collections at the desk provide a tool for academic information, specialized local information resources are more difficult to create and maintain. As reference desk responsibilities become increasingly complex and communication becomes more problematic, a web database to collect and manage this non-academic, local information can be very useful. At the Oregon State University, librarians in the Reference Services Management group created a custom-designed web-log bulletin board to deal with this non-academic, local information. The resulting database provides reference librarians a one-stop location for the information and makes it easier for them to update the information, via email, as conditions, procedures, and information needs change in their busy, highly computerized information commons.

0.013708373 = product of:
  0.027416745 = sum of:
    0.027416745 = product of:
      0.05483349 = sum of:
        0.05483349 = weight(_text_:web in 1232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05483349 = score(doc=1232,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 1232, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Library users who are Web users expect customization and interactivity. MyLibrary is a Cornell University Library initiative to provide numerous personalized library services to Cornell University students, faculty, and staff. Currently, it consists of MyLinks, a tool for collecting and organizing resources for private use by a patron, and MyUpdates, a tool to help scholars stay informed of new resources provided by the library. This article provides an overview of the MyLibrary project, explains the rationale for the development of the service in the library, briefly discusses the hardware and software used for the service, and suggests some of the directions for future developments of the MyLibrary system. MyYahoo!, MyCNN, MyBookmarks, MyThis and MyThat. Internet users have demanded a personal face to the World Wide Web, and Web portals and information providers have responded. Why not MyLibrary? The Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) has defined MyLibrary-like services as the number one trend "worth keeping an eye on". "Library users who are Web users, a growing group," the experts agree, "expect customization, interactivity, and customer support. Approaches that are library-focused instead of user-focused will be increasingly irrelevant." In response to the needs of web-savvy patrons, the Cornell University Library (CUL) implemented a MyLibrary service this year, making finding and using library resources easier than ever. MyLibrary is an "umbrella" service for two new products: MyLinks and MyUpdates. Other products are in development. MyLibrary's MyLinks is a tool for collecting and organizing resources for private use by a patron. These resources may or may not be "official" Cornell University Library resources. Our patrons best understand this service as a "traveling set of bookmarks". Most patrons of the library use a variety of machines to access Internet resources. For example, you may have a computer at home and one at work. Why should you create your bookmarks twice, or carry around a diskette containing your bookmarks? Students who rely on lab computers never know which machine they will use next. With MyLinks, a patron's favorite sites are just a click away from any machine.

0.013004904 = product of:
  0.026009807 = sum of:
    0.026009807 = product of:
      0.052019615 = sum of:
        0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052019615 = score(doc=702,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2006 the University of Manitoba's (UM) Libraries and Learning Technologies Centre collaborated to create an online tutorial to support the development of international students' information literacy skills. The International Student project addressed the unique needs of foreign students by using a broad spectrum definition of information literacy, which includes supporting development of social and cultural skills as well as information-seeking ones. In addition to informational content, the developers incorporated Web 2.0 functionality to enable students to interact outside of the classroom. The final product was placed in the university's new Virtual Learning Commons, a webspace designed to be a central location for online learning and discussion.

Object

Web 2.0

0.010587957 = product of:
  0.021175914 = sum of:
    0.021175914 = product of:
      0.042351827 = sum of:
        0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 6478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042351827 = score(doc=6478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 8.2001 18:03:22

0.010587957 = product of:
  0.021175914 = sum of:
    0.021175914 = product of:
      0.042351827 = sum of:
        0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042351827 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 7.2016 16:22:54

0.008669936 = product of:
  0.017339872 = sum of:
    0.017339872 = product of:
      0.034679744 = sum of:
        0.034679744 = weight(_text_:web in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034679744 = score(doc=1200,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In April 2002, the dominant Internet search engine, GoogleT, introduced a beta version of its expert service, Google Answers, with little fanfare. Almost immediately the buzz within the information community focused on implications for reference librarians. Google had already been lauded as the cheaper and faster alternative for finding information, and declining reference statistics and Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) use in academic libraries had been attributed in part to its popularity. One estimate suggests that the Google search engine handles more questions in a day and a half than all the libraries in the country provide in a year. Indeed, Craig Silverstein, Google's Director of Technology, indicated that the raison d'être for the search engine was to "seem as smart as a reference librarian," even as he acknowledged that this goal was "hundreds of years away". Bill Arms had reached a similar conclusion regarding the more nuanced reference functions in a thought-provoking article in this journal on automating digital libraries. But with the launch of Google Answers, the power of "brute force computing" and simple algorithms could be combined with human intelligence to represent a market-driven alternative to library reference services. Google Answers is part of a much larger trend to provide networked reference assistance. Expert services have sprung up in both the commercial and non-profit sector. Libraries too have responded to the Web, providing a suite of services through the virtual reference desk (VRD) movement, from email reference to chat reference to collaborative services that span the globe. As the Internet's content continues to grow and deepen - encompassing over 40 million web sites - it has been met by a groundswell of services to find and filter information. These services include an extensive range from free to fee-based, cost-recovery to for-profit, and library providers to other information providers - both new and traditional. As academic libraries look towards the future in a dynamic and competitive information landscape, what implications do these services have for their programs, and what can be learned from them to improve library offerings? This paper presents the results of a modest study conducted by Cornell University Library (CUL) to compare and contrast its digital reference services with those of Google Answers. The study provided an opportunity for librarians to shift their focus from fearing the impact of Google, as usurper of the library's role and diluter of the academic experience, to gaining insights into how Google's approach to service development and delivery has made it so attractive.

0.0045979274 = product of:
  0.009195855 = sum of:
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = weight(_text_:web in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01839171 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.