Lorcan Dempsey, at the eponymous Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog, pessimistically but elegantly tackles libraries and the Long Tail, pointing out that libraries exhibit classic–this term shall have to do–Short Tail characteristics, including redundant inventories, cripplingly high transaction costs, and bad resource navigation. That last prim comment is directed both at individual tools, such as online catalogs and overly-complex databases, and at the sum of the total of those tools. Lorcan’s observation that 20% of our resources account for 90% of our transactions would bankrupt libraries if they were publicly-owned businesses.
However, the piece has a classic problem with any work I’ve read from the oracles at the Big O: it’s largely divorced from actual OCLC practices. For example, Lorcan says: “Google introduced a major innovation with its ranking approach. Amazon is interested in rich interconnection through reviews, wishlists, reader selected lists, the various phrases (capitalized and statistically improbable), and so on. In each case, simple aggregation is not good enough: we are moving towards smart aggregation.” Nice point, but Stu Weibel, another Big O guru, recently pointed out just how poorly the Big O has implemented user reviews in Open WorldCat–an issue I badly want to write about, but 85 days away from the end of my last semester, I find myself completely absorbed in my studies for every last minute. As for OW records being discoverable in Google, only if you have a neutron microscope; whereas Amazon results “miraculously” float to the top with nearly any similar resource.
In any event, an interesting manifesto I have no quarrel with. I loved the Big O’s symposium about the Long Tail, but at the time had some trouble drawing the connection with libraries. During that afternoon I had the uneasy feeling we were acknowledging and celebrating our imminent demise. Lorcan has simply printed the obit. We can change things, but it will take a few brave souls, not to mention the cooperation and leadership of large organizations whose mantra has to be “act now,” not “do as we say, not as we do.”
Posted on this day, other years:
- Neologists Unite - 2012
- Blogs Worth Reading - 2005
ummm… obit, pessimistic, bankrupt, … I didn’t think that that was the post I was writing 😉
I don’t feel pessimistic about libraries at all, nor do I ever feel that their demise is imminent.
I do believe that we are looking at a generation of systemic change, and we are all trying to understand a little more of what needs to change. Libraries have been co-evolving with the network for some time now. There have been several shifts, notably the adoption of resource sharing and shared cataloging, and later the move to remote access to A&I and electronic journals. This is a natural evolution in our flat network world, as organizations and services co-evolve with network possibilities. And this is just as much a part of the Web 2.0 discussion as the focus on interactivity, social networking and so on.
And OCLC? I hope that the connection between what I say in this entry and what we are doing is clear. OCLC aggregates the long tail for a large number of libraries. Through OpenWorldCat and what comes after we are looking at whether we can mobilize that collective resource on the open web to address some of the issues I raise. And build the connections that are needed to make it work. This is in early stages and a lot needs to be worked through.
Incidentally, I do not think that there is much to be gained by comparing libraries to businesses. See http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/000915.html
“Lorcan’s observation that 20% of our resources account for 90% of our transactions would bankrupt libraries if they were publicly-owned businesses.”
Nope… doesn’t he know about the Bradford distribution? Any situation like a library, 20% of the resources get 80% of the attention (check outs, page views, downloads, etc.). It’s like a law. Book stores are the same way… every book isn’t an Oprah title 🙂
OTOH- he’s right that we need to provide better access, nobody’s arguing that.
“Lorcan’s observation that 20% of our resources account for 90% of our transactions would bankrupt libraries if they were publicly-owned businesses.”
Nope… doesn’t he know about the Bradford distribution? Any situation like a library, 20% of the resources get 80% of the attention (check outs, page views, downloads, etc.). It’s like a law. Book stores are the same way… every book isn’t an Oprah title 🙂
OTOH- he’s right that we need to provide better access, nobody’s arguing that.
What about those reviews on OW, Lorcan? Eh wot?
Christina – a couple of things.
First, this is Karen’s characterization: I did not actually say anything about a business in this context. Libraries have different missions; comparing them to businesses in this sense doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Second, sure I know about Bradford. (And this is 90/20, not 80/20.) Here are four thoughts. My entry is about how effectively the aggregate long tail of library collections is made available and used. And about how we can improve this. The purpose of quoting two figures at the beginning was to give an indication of how much (or little) of the long tail is actually prospected in the current model. The 90/20 figure was introduced as a data point, alongside the ILL figure, to give some sense of use of collections and across collections. You are saying that it is not surprising. That may be so. Whether it is surprising or not doesn’t affect the discussion. Second, these levels of use, across multiple physical collections, will increasingly prompt thinking about whether there are better ways of arranging systemwide resources (within a consortium, state or country). Third, this is a preliminary consideration focusing on books. It would be very interesting to look at the pattern of use in large digital collections. It would also be interesting to explore whether systemwide infrastructure like OhioLink has changed patterns of use. OhioLink aggregates demand and aggregates supply across Ohio libraries. It would also be interesting to do more work on overlap between collections and circulations. We have done some – it would be good to do more. Finally, think about Ranganathan’s Laws. One of those is ‘every book its user’. Aggregating demand should help with this. We are clearly some way off meeting the aspiration expressed in this ‘law’.
Lorcan, you may not be pessimistic, and that’s fine, but I am. Perhaps a better phrase is “sense of urgency.” I don’t think we have the time we need to do what we have to do before the last dodo dies.
I think a lot of us are cautious when the Big O starts talking about something like developing the One True Opac–and a lot of us are wondering exactly why we do need local integrated library systems–because of Big O’s tendency to move forward aggressively on a good idea and then smother it to death with its own bureaucracy. The Big O has done a good job of analysing the state of the state of libraries (even though I’m far more concerned by the results than they are, perhaps because I’m aware that most libraries can’t move forward in a timely manner), but I wonder if the Big O has surveyed attitudes about itself. If it’s going to toy with big ideas such as The One True OPAC, it needs trust and street cred. I’m just sayin’.
Finally, the Long-tail potential of digital collections is a different animal altogether than that of books. The whole long tail premise is that digital materials lend themselves to long-tail success due to the nature of the Web. I realize you’re pointing to large consortia as a possible example of this happening in the nondigital world, but I’m wondering just how much we can compare the two. I agree that analyses of the success of large sharing consortia would be valuable. Then again, you might be thrilled by the answer, and I might be depressed, because I’m closer to the reality of the feudalism of most of LibraryLand.
“including redundant inventories” — there’s an interesting article in the new Bulletin from ASIS&T (Feb/Mar 06, to eventually be freely available online: http://www.asis.org/bulletin.html) called “Should Libraries Acquire Books That Are Widely Held Elsewhere? A Brief Investigation with Implications for Consortial Book Selection” by William H. Walters. I think all libraries should evaluate their collections in terms of shelf availability models and their missions. Many things can be moved to off-site storage or in the case of public libraries, weeded. Still– there will exist an 80-20 average (we need to make up that 10%).