DITF March 29, 2024 Meeting
Mar 29, 2024
Attendees
Here: Christian Ward, @Jill Strykowski, Corinne Ornelas, Dolly Lopez, Can Li, @Christina Hennessey, Heather Cribbs
Absent: Tim Fluhr
Agenda
Goal: assign ourselves to topics. Come up with 'next steps' and suggested deliverables for each group.
Topic | Notes |
|---|---|
Relevancy ranking and view settings | Table created by CH (See spreadsheet)
More than 150 cases |
FRBR and Dedupe | People didn’t like the way it grouped things We’ve all suffered the Google effect Does it help the end user People didn’t see “4 more versions” to click and then to click down to the right view |
Resource and material type | Secondary resource types - is this coming over to this group? |
Title/portfolio matching | CH: “We heard at this meeting that there is an internal setting that might help with exact title match searching (Ex Libris has to set it up, not us), but it might have to be done at the consortial level, and only one field could be ‘boosted’ in this option.” Response: ExLibris wasn’t sure what this reference was, they told CH to put in a ticket Check in with Nikki DeMoville - ask if she can share her background information, examples and solution/development requests CL: it’s clear how things are blended - using the API - Can is experimenting with that. Active process of adjusting boosting 5 records with highest relevancy score. More than 50% use articles. They had a problem where too many books were showing up at the top. Lens norm - shorter the field the more precise the match. Microfilm as wanting to be lower that other mediums of “books” Do Rapido results have ranking too? - CL hasn’t gotten to that stage yet in her API investigation. How do they treat these records differently from locally or CDI. Why did people make these changes:
boosting stuff we pay for? open access resources showing up at the top - and the records are not great
More than 150 cases |
Faceting | User testing from SJSU OA tagging and unpaywall?? More than 150 cases |