Evaluating the quality of library portals

Nicholas Joint

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages337-341
    Number of pages4
    JournalLibrary Review
    Volume54
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2005

    Fingerprint

    search engine
    information retrieval
    Internet
    habits
    methodology
    trend
    evaluation
    evidence
    Values

    Keywords

    • portals
    • libraries
    • performance measurement
    • quality assurance
    • methodology

    Cite this

    Joint, Nicholas. / Evaluating the quality of library portals. In: Library Review. 2005 ; Vol. 54, No. 6. pp. 337-341.
    @article{dc949537f53e45109565d974e03fb454,
    title = "Evaluating the quality of library portals",
    abstract = "To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with {"}one-stop shop{"} Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the na{\"i}ve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.",
    keywords = "portals, libraries, performance measurement, quality assurance, methodology",
    author = "Nicholas Joint",
    year = "2005",
    month = "8",
    doi = "10.1108/00242530510605458",
    language = "English",
    volume = "54",
    pages = "337--341",
    journal = "Library Review",
    issn = "0024-2535",
    publisher = "Emerald Publishing Limited",
    number = "6",

    }

    Evaluating the quality of library portals. / Joint, Nicholas.

    In: Library Review, Vol. 54, No. 6, 08.2005, p. 337-341.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Evaluating the quality of library portals

    AU - Joint, Nicholas

    PY - 2005/8

    Y1 - 2005/8

    N2 - To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.

    AB - To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.

    KW - portals

    KW - libraries

    KW - performance measurement

    KW - quality assurance

    KW - methodology

    U2 - 10.1108/00242530510605458

    DO - 10.1108/00242530510605458

    M3 - Article

    VL - 54

    SP - 337

    EP - 341

    JO - Library Review

    T2 - Library Review

    JF - Library Review

    SN - 0024-2535

    IS - 6

    ER -