One-Stop Metasearch Tools: Friendly Time Saver or Confusing Quagmire?

RUSA/MOUSS Catalog Use CommitteeALA Annual Conference

June 22, 2003

Ed TallentBoston College Libraries

One-Stop Metasearch Tools: Friendly Time Saver or Confusing Quagmire?

RUSA/MOUSS Catalog Use CommitteeALA Annual Conference

June 22, 2003

Ed TallentBoston College Libraries

Research Style: The Issues

Searching approach How do students start their research?

Knowledge How do they learn about available resources?

Choosing resources What motivates them to use the resources they use?

Resistance to change Students deal with change in the library very well, but does their behavior change?

Searching approach

On their terms only: keyword dominance. Ignore subject structures, use basic searches

Trial and error. Work with results, try different terms, do not use Refine options

Resource blur. Not interested in librarian distinctions between database and e-journal; content is supreme.

Don’t make me think! In and out. Interface needs to be clean and basic.

Do I need to look in all those volumes? As in the print world, there is a desire to follow the path of least resistance, not put too much

time into the research, to be satisficed!

Knowledge

They didn’t read the news today, oh boy. Screens are not read, they are scanned; too much text is not helpful.

Time is not on their side: how to learn? Information overload; cannot keep up with the pace; too many pressures to take the time to

learn about new library resources.

I know what I know (and that’s enough): utter pragmatism. So, they will stick with what has worked in the past; not risk takers when it comes to using

library resources;

OPAC Yes, users understand pretty well what an OPAC does. Can we capitalize on this or at least

learn from this experience?

Choosing resources

Reading lists. Choosing other resources from course readings, reserves and required readings.

Recommendations from ________. Teacher, roommate, parent, ….

References from readings. Follow up on readings, links from footnotes and bibliographies.

What’s in the library? Students tend to have a somewhat conservative impression of what resources the library

has, will sometimes seek information outside of the library that can be more easily (and thoroughly) accessed via the library; search engines used more heavily to locate resources.

Where is the library in this picture? It’s not a discovery tool the way it should be; too often it is used when the student want to

find know items

Resistance to change

Do what works until…. Students will work with something until it doe does not work or it fails; what do they do then?

Non-experimental. The approach to resource use is conservative; not willing to take a chance on using

resources that might not succeed

Work vs. leisure split. Their attitude toward library resources is pragmatic; they do not want bells and whistles, but

resources that are utilitarian and efficient; the amount of time they want to spend on the use of library research tools is budgeted;

MetaQuest: The Issues

Dealing with pragmatism: I’ve logged in, what do I gain? Immediate benefits of MetaQuest are not obvious;

Too much text, too many steps. Again, reading the screen is not a priority;

You’re making me choose! Students want to start searching right away;

What’s so special? We offer other ways to search multiple databases simultaneously; we need to make

clear why the MetaQuest approach is worth their while. See the following examples.

Issues, continued Minimal personal customization.

For example, only one profile and limited options on determining the number of records to display on each screen.

Merging search results. Given the way students, search the maximum number of records that can be

merged is too low.

Display issues. Displays of full text etc can vary from vendor to vendor; this can frustrate the

student.

Lack of alerts. These are important if we want to keep MetaQuest in the student’s

mind;

Lack of statistics. We need to know what is being used;

Database choices. Some disciplines offer more resources to search than others; the

library needs to commit to a resource like this and, for example, make Z39.50 access a high priority;

What Works? The concept.

Students want this service; students want a way to begin; students need to be exposed to more resources; the library needs to respond to interdisciplinary searching;

Quick and easy searching. A basic approach to starting a search is valued;

Brief result with citation (local enhancement). There is a desire for as much information as possible immediately up

front;

Title for more information: almost intuitive.

SFX: service and content. Linking to full-text, the library catalog, etc saves the time (and clicks)

of the user and is valued;

Linking out. The link to the native interface is always available and is always an

option for those who need more in-depth searching;

Where are we headed? Simplicity and a quick search.

The new release will offer a quick search of 10 resources and will be less texty;

Deep linking. We are experimenting with linking into MetaQuest from other parts of the web site – list of

online databases, Research Guides, etc

Deal with blur. Adding e-journals to the next release of MetaLib is a step forward, but again

students do not make the distinctions libraries do – we need to continue working on this integration;

Database decisions. The library needs to think differently about database decisions and think

about Z39.50 and Open URL more seriously;

MetaQuest in the Library services context. How do we present this tool in our package of overall library services?

A discovery tool! This is desperately needed and we need to move aggressively in this

direction.

Boston College

This is the current draft design of our future rrelease of the most current version of MetaLib. Still, lots of work to be done, butwe are headed in the right direction, we believe.