http://www.web2learning.net/archives/265 Web 2.0 and programming tips from a library technology enthusiast, What I Learned Today... covers blogs, rss, wikis and more as they relate to libraries. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:13:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/265#comment-1062 VALIS » Blog Archive » Quick roundup Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:27:42 +0000 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/265#comment-1062 [...] Speaking of catalogues, Karen Schneider has a post titled How OPACs suck (part 1) at ALA Techsource Blog. It’s a well-written explanation of why OPACs need search engines (in order to enable relevance ranking). It explains how relevance ranking is determined by analysing term frequency versus inverse document frequency (e.g. how often a term shows up in a given document, compared to the database as a whole). I was also pleased to see a post on What I Learned Today on open-source library software that mentioned two New Zealand products Koha and Greenstone, and the Open Source Software Bibliography written by my former lecturer Brenda Chawner. A while back there was a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Britannica. Now Britannica has responded, criticising the study’s methodology. Librarian in Black has a roundup, and writes about the problems her institution found when they trialled Britannica. Too many irrelevant hits, and a too-small font size were the key issues. [...] [...] Speaking of catalogues, Karen Schneider has a post titled How OPACs suck (part 1) at ALA Techsource Blog. It’s a well-written explanation of why OPACs need search engines (in order to enable relevance ranking). It explains how relevance ranking is determined by analysing term frequency versus inverse document frequency (e.g. how often a term shows up in a given document, compared to the database as a whole). I was also pleased to see a post on What I Learned Today on open-source library software that mentioned two New Zealand products Koha and Greenstone, and the Open Source Software Bibliography written by my former lecturer Brenda Chawner. A while back there was a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Britannica. Now Britannica has responded, criticising the study’s methodology. Librarian in Black has a roundup, and writes about the problems her institution found when they trialled Britannica. Too many irrelevant hits, and a too-small font size were the key issues. [...]

]]>