I have always been a fan of the idea of creating a mediated search engine – one in which the results have been reviewed in order to ensure a lean, relevant results list.

The reality of the idea is, shall we say, a different matter.  The process is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and usually falls short in the relevance category.

Springo may be the reality that falls closer to the ideal.  Focusing on topic-based searches, they provide results that reflect sites that people most use when they are seeking solutions to more generalized questions, such as e-mail software, movie reviews, or open source software.

The results aren’t perfect, but they do appear relevant.  Most of what I notice are the sites I would expect to be top-tier, but aren’t.  It is a great resource, especially for those who might otherwise find it challenging to wade through several dozen results to find what they need.

My other observation is that I almost immediately began to use the URL to form my search strings, rather than use the provided interface.  It just seems faster and easier to do so.  Plus, it would be nice to be able to right-click (Windows-centric) in order to open results in a new tab.  Minor quibbles, though, for an effective tool that has been a long time coming.

found via Library Journal (print edition, 1 November 2009)

As the Google Books settlement works its way to becoming reality, it is becoming apparent that Google Books will be transformed into something very much resembling a library.

Think of how this might change our roles in society.

found via LISNews

TinEye is an image search engine with a twist:  you provide it with an image, and it returns a list of websites utilizing that image.

I can quickly think of a few really good uses of this service:

• You have an image that you downloaded sometime in the past, but you don’t remember where you got it.
• You have found an image that would be perfect for a project, but you aren’t sure who the owner is, or what the usage terms might be.
• You are the owner of an image, and want to ensure that it isn’t being mis-appropriated by others.
• You have an image, and want to locate a site with a higher quality or different version of the image.

found via a comment thread in MetaFilter

Feedmil is a search engine for RSS feeds.  It does this specific task very, very well.  Search for feeds relating to any keywords you wish, and modify your results using a set of slides that emphasize/de-emphasize words that show up in your results.

I wish they had a more detailed “about” page, especially information on how they determine popularity, authority, quality, and relevance.

found via RSS4Lib

Google has made the jump into supporting Microformats as well as RDFa, calling their implementation “Rich Snippets”!

This is great news on several different levels. Semantic markup within web pages provides a way to target searches much more effectively.  TechCrunch provides an excellent example:

“If I was to write a post that mentioned “The President” without naming him, Google probably wouldn’t realize that I was talking about President Obama – it might think I was referring to another US president, or perhaps the leader of a company. But using RDFa I could tag the words “The President” with “Barack Obama”. That tag would be visible to machines spidering the page for indexing (resulting in smarter search results), but wouldn’t be shown to users reading the post. In effect, it’s a way to tell search engines about your content without exposing your visitors to extraneous text.”

In addition, sites that provide well-structured metadata have the potential to be much more usable (and useful).  Library web sites, especially OPACs and Resource pages, should include structured information that details the context of the displayed content.  Using microformats in our web sites will benefit everyone involved over time.  As David Peterson notes on the SitePoint blog:

“Now that Google is supporting structured data it is high time to learn how to use this stuff.”

A brief rant, if you will accomodate me for a moment:

I encountered a disclaimer in an e-mail that strikes me as extreme enough to mention:

This email, and any attachment, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, copying, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

This came as part of a response from a company I had asked about the availability of an item.  Note that, by a strict interpretation of the statement, only the specific recipient of the message can use the information contained within.  If the e-mail had been from the company’s legal department, or if it hadn’t been about a product with a great deal of publicity and interest, there might have been some justification.

I know that legal boilerplate such as this seems to go along with incorporation, and that many of the employees of this company must stifle a groan every time they send information on their products, but these statements can be worded in such a way that they don’t throw a giant blanket of silence over simple sale information.  Or, perhaps, the statement can be reserved for those departments that handle legal, fiscal, and personnel matters, and a “lighter” disclaimer be used for general public communication.

This is something that falls into the same general category as Copyfraud, in that it attempts to place a much stronger restriction on something that doesn’t legally deserve it.

Or am I supposed to take the information about whether a particular item is available for sale to the grave?

My own disclaimer:  I changed the language of the disclaimer a tad, even though a quick internet search revealed several companies using the same wording as the e-mail.

This is just one of my passing thoughts, which I suspect is understood by many, but not necessarily expressed this way:

Google’s PageRank is, for all practical purposes, a form of social networking applied to the concept of a particular html tag.  The ranking system is built upon the idea that someone, somewhere, decided that something on their web page was so associated with another web page that it needed to be wrapped in <a> </a> tags with the web page’s address referenced.  Thousands (millions!) of people finding it imperative to add these tags around their text, and thereby making it possible to judge the importance of specific web sites by aggregating these millions (billions!) of tags.  Will we look back at this and call it the beginning of social networking on the web?

the thought passed through my head while reading Stefano’s Linotype…

File this as a future wish-list item for your online catalog:

There is a new and interesting way to connect an OPAC search result for a journal to the full-text journal articles, and it is called ticTOC.  The application of this shows just how effective a well thought out mashup can be.

Last December, I ran across a blog post on RSS4Lib about the TicToc project, which has been in existence for a couple of years, but had just officially launched. I never got around to posting it, but I made a point to watch for further information.

TicTOC provides, via an RSS feed, the table of contents for the current issue of whatever journal you search for.  There are currently over 12,000 journals included in their service.  Read the RSS4Lib post (above) for a more detailed description.

There is now at least one library, Wageningen UR Digital Library in the Netherlands,  that has created a mashup in their OPAC that shows just how powerfully this can enhance an OPAC search.

Locate a journal using their e-journal search, or go straight to the result screen for the Journal of zoology : proceedings of the zoological society of London.

1. Click on “Show recent articles” on the right side of the screen.
2. To display an article’s abstract in the OPAC, click on “Show abstract”.
3. To get to the full text of an article, click on the title of the article, then click the full text link on the publisher’s site.

Two clicks from the journal result in the opac to the full text of an article in the current issue.  I am not sure what would need to be done to deal with proxys and journal databases, but for articles retrieved through the publisher’s web site, this is very straightforward and useful.

This appears to be a great service, and the Wageningen UR Library has done a fantastic job in creating the mashup.  I look forward to seeing how this is integrated into other collections.

found via RSS4Lib

Jessamyn posted this link, in an effort to help identify the library.  I wasn’t the first to come up with the correct answer, but it was a treat to scan several pages of Google Images containing library frescos before finding this result.

Why you can’t find a library book in your search engine is an article in The Guardian.  It is a good overview of the broader issues surrounding the OCLC Licensing problem, and is written for the general reader (i.e. this is the article you should recommend to all your non-library friends (and perhaps even some of your library friends).

found on Librarian.net

Think of Middlespot as a Zotero-like organization tool for web searches.  Perform a search, and you have several ways to explore the search results, as well as saving collections of results in what they call a “Workpad”.

The fastest way to learn what this can do is to view their slideshow tutorial.  If you think it has potential, then don’t forget to check out their tools (including a way to incorporate Google search results into your workpad).

from MetaFilter

A Useful Amplification of Records That Are Unavoidably Needed Anyway is an essay by Brett Bonfield which, dare I phrase it this way, usefully amplifies several of the major web-based entities which are intertwined with libraries.  These include (but aren’t limited to) OCLC’s WorldCat, Amazon, and LibraryThing.  Brett clearly understands libraries, and does a great job detailing the interrelationships between all involved.

Not directly related to the essay, LibraryThing has posted an expansion of their Common Knowledge fields for Authors and Events.  This is an interesting read, as it addresses in a real-world way the need for authorities and relationships.

About 2 million images from the LIFE Photo Archive have been digitized and are available via Google Image Search.  What is even better is that, over the next few months, the remaining 8 million images from the collection will be added.  Many of these have never been published, so there ought to be some historically interesting and significant gems in this collection.

You can search the collection by using the above link, or add “source:life” (without the quotes) to your image search query.

via the Official Google Blog

The 2008 Presidential Election Search Engine is a Google Custom Search Engine created by the University of Kansas Library.

It is a great resource in that one can find the needles of information in the haystack of campaign rhetoric.

found via “Organizing the 2008 Presidential Election”, from College and Resource Libraries, October 2008, p. 540.

APML stands for Attention Profiling Markup Language.  Its purpose is to permit a standardized way to gather and transfer your interests from site to site across the web.  It is built using XML, and is definitely a new technology that may or may not catch on.  It could become an important element of using the web, because of the benefits it offers to users.

For example, Amazon.com tracks what you purchase, what is on your wish list, and even what you view (while logged in).  If you incorporated this into your APML file (which could be stored with an online service, on your computer or flash drive, etc.) your interests could be applied to other APML-compatable websites.

This has the potential, as with much web 2.0 technology, of creating privacy issues and complications.  It also could save users an incredible amount of time and effort, as resources relating to their interests would gain relevance and become much easier to find.  Think of the potential for searching news sites, link services such as Digg, and many other specialized discovery tools.

And yes, as John Fudrow suggests, it has a lot of potential for libraries.  Imagine how our users could benefit from this, especially when you add “suggested by others who liked this” and other social connectivity tools.

UNdata is a search tool for the many informational databases that the United Nations maintains. It is straightforward, easy to use, and effective in attaining what you need.

If only the UN as a whole worked so well

via OSDir

Intelways is an interesting search site.  It isn’t a meta search tool, but it does harness multiple search engines to create an improved experience.

As with many things on the web, the best way to understand it is to try it.  Enter a search term, then select a category above the search bar, or a specific search tool below the search bar.  This tool makes it easy to perform a search one one engine, then switch to another to see a different set of results without having to retype the query or load the search pages.

One note to add, however: this site has been around for a while, but has changed its name a couple of times.  Follow the link below if you are curious about the history of the site.

from ResourceShelf

Wikia, the search engine designed around the concept of wikis, has been launched in alpha.  This means that a) it isn’t going to work as well as anyone wants, and b) no fair comparing it to Google et. al., except in the theoretical.  In fact, we usually wouldn’t see software until the beta stage of development; this shows how much Wikia will rely on users.

There isn’t all that much to see yet, but the idea of an annotated search engine where the users provide feedback about the search results, which will then be used to improve future results, is tantalizing.  Search 2.0 anyone?

via Open Access News

USA.gov Mobile is a great little search tool for government web pages and toll-free numbers (and it is well designed for your PC, even though it is made for mobile browsers).

found via ResourceShelf

I have encountered a few interesting items relating to online, full-text books during the past few days, and thought they would make a good snapshot of where things stand at this time:

• Google Book Search : the Good, the Bad & the Ugly is an article in the current issue of Campus Technology which gives a great, non-technical overview of what the project is doing, and where it might be going. (found via LISNews )
• Google Book Search: Document Understanding on a Massive Scale (Pdf) is the text of Luc Vincent’s keynote at the ICDAR 2007 conference. Don’t read it simply because he heads Googles Optical Character Recognition (OCR) team – read it because it is fascinating and informative! (posted to NGC4lib by Owen Stephens)
• Finally, there is The Top Inventions of 2008 by Michael Hart (inventor of the e-book and founder of Project Gutenberg). This isn’t your standard, run-of-the-mill predictions article. This looks at technology that is just around the corner (USB 3.0, Flash memory capacity, and the number of OCR scanned books) and realizes that we will soon be able to carry around more full-text books on a USB flash drive than exist in most libraries. Think about how that possibility will change our profession. (found via Open Access News )