Online Library Catalogs: Uses and Limitations

Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in June 2010

Introduction

Mi and Weng (2008, p. 5) note that the information –seeking behavior of academic library users has undergone significant changes in recent years. Internet search engines have become the preferred tool over the library online public access catalog (OPAC) for finding information. Libraries are losing ground to online search engines, and Google and Amazon.com are the two Web services commonly compared to the library catalog.

Academic libraries are heavily impacted by this change since many college students are satisfied with the information they find on the Internet for their assignments. Students end up not taking advantage of the high quality resources in their libraries (Mi & Weng, 2008).

Description of Catalogs

Taylor (2004) said that “catalog shows what exist in the collection written by certain authors, having certain titles, or on certain subjects” (p. 8). Further, Taylor notes that the catalog is a location device to indicate where in the collection the item will be found, assuming it is not circulating among users” (p. 8).

Bopp and Smith (2001) stated that “a catalog is composed of representations or surrogate of the bibliographic objects including books, journals, audio and video materials, maps and other non-print items. These representations are called bibliographic records” (p. 71). According to Bopp and Smith, the bibliographic record in a card catalog was printed on a set of cards while in an online catalog, the bibliographic record consists of machine-readable information, known as MARC (machine-readable cataloging record) encoded in a digital format. In a way, MARC is the means by which computers exchange, use, and interpret bibliographic information (Fritz & Fritz, 2003).

Taylor (2004, p. 36-37) said that catalogs have different formats, namely: book, card, Computer Output Microform (COM), and online public access catalog (OPAC). Chu (as cited by Creel, 2008, p.13-14) said that OPACs have been classified as having three generations: a) the first generation is the card catalog in electronic format; b) the second generation has enhancements such as additional subject access points; and c) the third generation merged OPACs into something more similar to the online catalog with remote access.

Hildreth (2001) made mention of two types of OPACs: a) the Web-based OPAC, and b) the Text-based OPAC. The main difference between the two OPACs is the user interface style and interaction capabilities. The Text-based OPAC used conventional text-based command and menu-driven interface, while the Web-based OPAC featured a "point and click" graphical user interface (GUI) and has hypertext searching and browsing capabilities. Both OPACs however contained the same catalog database and searchable indexes, and both were accessible via the Internet. The Web OPAC was available on the World Wide Web, and the text-based OPAC was available via Telnet access on the Internet.

Efficient and deficient characteristics in current online library catalogs

Hildreth (as cited by Taylor, 2004) stated that “ the online public access catalog is the first major development that brings the benefits of automation directly to the user as a means of expanded access to library collections and as a means of organizing and preserving bibliographic information for effective self-services” (p. 109).

Several scholars, researchers, and library and information science practitioners however have raised their concerns and observations about the limitations of the current the online library catalogs.

Borgman (as cited by Taylor, 2004, p. 114) expressed the view that OPACs are (still) difficult to use because their design does not consider the searching behavior of library users. Borgman added that the long-term goal of system designers is to develop intuitive systems that require the least amount of instruction.

Taylor (2004) stated that online catalogs have not yet been standardized. Taylor noted that “writers in the field have called for standardization, so that patrons can move from one catalog to another, or search multiple catalogs from the same location and find records displayed in the same manner” (p. 38). In a study aimed at revitalizing the OPAC, Mi and Weng (2008) found the “ huge differences among online catalogs in terms of interface layout, search options and search languages, behind-the-scenes search algorithms, search results displays, display labels and the corresponding bibliographic data, and what data was chosen for display” (p. 17). In their view, these disparities in OPAC’s features suggested the great differences in the amount of attention, energy, and time entailed by each library to designing its OPAC.

Mi and Weng (2008, p. 5) observed that current academic library OPACs search results are not sorted using relevance ranking systems unlike search results delivered by online search engines. They noted that search results sorted using relevance ranking systems are more user-friendly than the ones currently employed by academic library OPACs. Likewise, Wakimoto (2009, p. 421) made the observation that digital collections and institutional repositories are not part of online catalog thereby creating “information silos” within the library system. This is in contrast with current discovery tools which include metadata from digital libraries and repositories.

Further, Mi and Weng (2008, p. 7) noted that online catalogs still use "Boolean keyword" search as the default and require users to add quotation marks to define phrases. Mi and Weng added that information seekers find Google-like search engines easy to use because the need to enter Boolean connectors (AND, OR, NOT) between search terms is eliminated. They opined that this is logical because users usually look for records that contain all the terms that they enter.

Mi and Weng (2008) also noted the lack of value-added information in online library catalogs such as book cover image. Book covers can help a user recognize or remember a book he or she has earlier seen or encountered. Online library catalog can provide value-added and contextual information by linking those images to tables of contents, summaries, sample passages of text, and reviews.

Trends, solutions, and new standards for the next generation library catalog

Many researchers have expressed concerns on the declining use of online library catalogs (Casey, 2007; Matheson & Davidson, 2007; Mi & Weng, 2008; Wakimoto, 2009). Matheson and Davidson (2007) opined that users expect more from libraries because they have become more familiar with the World Wide Web and Web 2.0 applications found in commercial web sites (such as Amazon.com) and search engines (such as Google). As articulated by Matheson and Davidson (2007, p. 61) Amazon.com integrates into its website search functionality not normally included in libraries, including limited full-text search options. In addition, Amazon provides personalized features including recommendations to customers based upon algorithms that take into consideration the users’ purchase history in relation to the history of other users.

Monnich and Spiering (2008) also suggested that providing a Web 2.0 recommender system, such as the one used by Amazon.com will add value to the library catalog. Recommender systems offer customers hints (or tips) about other interesting products and thereby increasing sales. The recommender system is currently used by Amazon, whereby any title contains a link: "customers who bought this also bought ..." These referrals are based on analysis and evaluation of the buying patterns of Amazon customers.

Casey (2007, p. 17) advocates the need for change of online library catalog, into what he terms as Catalog 2.0. He surmises that the next version of OPAC should incorporate certain attributes of Web 2.0 such as “user participation, customization, maximum usability, and enhanced discovery” (p. 18). He notes that the popularity of Amazon.com can be attributed to its value-added features such as customer reviews, starred aggregate ratings, alternate selections, book cover art, and links to books that other people doing similar search are buying (p. 17).

Casey (pp. 18-21) enumerated some attributes that he envisions the next generation of catalog should offer its users. These include: relevancy ranking, clean interface, spell checking, faceting, advanced search operations, full-text searching of all holdings, professional reviews, similar searches feature, user-added tags, customer-written reviews, blogs, option to allow reputation ranking, aggregated rating system, suggest to a friend link, RSS feeds for the catalog and library website, and citation creator for various formats.

References

Bopp, R. E., & Smith, L. S. (2001). Reference and information services: An introduction (3rd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Casey, M. (2007). Looking toward catalog 2.0. In N. Courtney (Ed.), Library 2.0 and beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow’s user (pp. 16-23). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Creel, S. (2007). Are online catalogs for children giving them what they need? Children’s cognitive development and information seeking and their impact on design. Unpublished dissertation, University of North Texas.

Fritz, D. A., & Fritz, R. J. (2003). MARC for everyone: A practical guide. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Hildreth, C. R. (2001). Accounting for users' inflated assessments of on-line catalogue search performance and usefulness: an experimental study. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved June 12, 2010 from http://InformationR.net/ir/6-2/paper101.html

Matheson, S. & Davidson, S. (2007, January). The evolution of providing access to information: Is the online catalog nearing extinction? Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 26 (1), 57-89. Retrieved June 12, 2010, from University of North Texas Electronic Resources, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Mi, J., & Weng, C. (2008, March). Revitalizing the library OPAC: Interface, searching, and display challenges. Information Technology and Libraries, 27(1), 5-22. Retrieved June 12, 2010 from the University of North Texas, Library Literature and Info Science Full Text database.

Monnich, M., & Spiering, M. (2008, May/June). Adding value to the library catalog by implementing a recommendation system. D-lib, 14(5/6). Retrieved June 12, 2010, from http://www.dlib.org/may08/monnich/05monnich.html

Taylor, A. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Wakimoto, J. C. (2009, July). Scope of the library catalog in times of transition. [Electronic version]. Cataloging &Classification Quarterly, 47(5), 409- 426. Retrieved June 12, 2010 from the University of North Texas Electronic Resources, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.