Librarians like to search

There has been a lot of talk recently about the effect of the Internet (and new media in general) on reading habits – and the suggestion that people are increasingly disinclined to read a text slowly, thoroughly and attentively, from beginning to end, absorbing and reflecting on it. While I am sure there have always been people who read instruction manuals and others who take the new gizmo out of its box, throw the manual aside and find out what it does by doing it, I suspect that more and more people, because of shortened attention spans, the endless distractions of the online world, less time to do the same number of things or just improved multi-tasking skills, are now hoppers and flitters.

What strikes me about this is that we are still constructing catalogues for the methodical searcher, for the person who will carry out a search and then refine the results by facets, even going so far as to follow a “breadcrumb” trail and re-trace her steps as necessary. Do we still have users who carry out a search this thoughtfully? Or (and old habits die hard, so it may still be the way that old users behave), do we still have as many as we used to have – and is it what new and young searchers do?

I think that people are increasingly inclined to do a search and, if they don’t find what they want, they don’t look at the results and try to analyse where it went wrong, how to put it right. They just try a different search. And they expect to get the answer immediately, not at the end of a sequence of refining and filtering steps. I think (you may or may not agree) that we are wasting our time when we demand or design catalogues with “Advanced Search” functions, with Boolean operators and ranks of facets. We should be concentrating on speed and display instead, before the hoppers and flitters have hopped and flitted off.

Remember the old mantra - Librarians like to search. Everyone else likes to find.

What should we be saying about ourselves?

So, what has brought all this on? Well, having persuaded everyone that it would be a really good idea if we started to promote bib services a bit more, several opportunities have arisen, both in print/online and in person at open evenings and the like. And it has been borne in upon me that it really isn't very easy.

What do we want to tell people about what we do? What images do we use (a picture being worth a thousand words)?

I really don't think that cataloguing is a spectator sport. It is undeniably interesting for the person doing it, but thought processes are invisible and silent. It would be a rare talent who could make the process of cataloguing engaging and, anyway, do the processes actually matter? Demonstrations of cataloguing tend to turn into accounts of which button gets pressed and what the subfield codes ought to be, which is all good stuff but not likely to capture the attention of a passer-by.

People are important and pictures of people invoke human interest or just naked curiosity, but a surprising number flatly refuse to be photographed. Many cataloguers shun the limelight and are not natural performers - and a reluctant performer is worse than no performer at all.

If you rule out cataloguing and cataloguers, it leaves the catalogue itself as the thing being promoted, which is as it ought to be. I think I should be focussing on the catalogue and what it can do for people. Does anyone have a good idea of how to present it? Has anyone produced successful publicity and demonstrably increased catalogue use? I can't be the first person trying to do it...

What do cataloguers think they do?

Following on from my previous post, and leaving aside any natural inclination cataloguers may have to be meek and mild - because people like that get sent to work in Bib Services Departments and once there, perpetuate the type by tending to appoint people like themselves, the loud and proud often seen as "not fitting in here" - is there something about a cataloguing job that makes it difficult for people to understand, let alone promote, the value of what they do?

I am struck that cataloguers tend to describe their job in terms of tasks. They talk about describing and indexing library materials, using standard rules and tools; they talk about the intellectual effort and judgement required to allocate classification and subject headings; and they talk about these things very well and explain what they do and what influences their decisions. But in answer to a question like, "What does your job as a cataloguer consist of? What do you actually do?", the reply is about input not outcomes. They describe what they do, not why they do it. Why don't they reply, "I help people find all the good stuff that is in our library - I help people find what they want"?

I don't know how true this is of other library staff. Do they too see their job in terms of stamping books, or tidying the shelves, or sending out overdues? Or do they see more clearly than cataloguers do where their jobs fit in to the service that the library provides to its users?

In all of this, I don't mean to denigrate cataloguers. I am just genuinely perplexed by how bad they are - or, to be fair, how bad we are, because I am one of them - at talking about their job and its importance. And in my next post I will explain why I am thinking about this, what it is that has brought it on.