Ranking library materials
| Date | 20 November 2009 |
| Published date | 20 November 2009 |
| Pages | 584-593 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830911007682 |
| Author | Dirk Lewandowski |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Ranking library materials
Dirk Lewandowski
Department of Information, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences,
Hamburg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss ranking factors suitable for library materials and
to show that ranking in general is a complex process and that ranking for library materials requires a
variety of techniques.
Design/methodology/approach – The relevant literature is reviewed to provide a systematic
overview of suitable ranking factors. The discussion is based on an overview of ranking factors used
in web search engines.
Findings – While there are a wide variety of ranking factors applicable to library materials, today’s
library systems use only some of them. When designing a ranking component for the library
catalogue, an individual weighting of applicable factors is necessary.
Research limitations/implications – While the paper discusses different factors, no particular
ranking formula is given. However, the paper presents the argument that such a formula must always
be individual to a certain use case.
Practical implications – The factors presented can be considered when designing a ranking
component for a library’s search system or when discussing such a project with an ILS vendor.
Originality/value – The paper is original in that it is the first to systematically discuss ranking of
library materials based on the main factors used by web search engines.
Keywords Libraries, Information media, Information management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Most information systems today use some kind of ranking system to bring order to
their results lists, which contain large amounts of data, leading to a situation in which a
user is not willing or able to review all the results found. Users are now used to good
relevance ranking, e.g. in web search engines, which produce some relevant results at
least, even for very broad or unspecific queries. Someone who is used to such relevance
ranking from general-purpose web search engines cannot understand why the search
experience at libraries is in general inferior, and the search results in particular are not
as good as might be expected from institutions that focus on quality-controlled
information, i.e. the best information available.
In this article, I will focus on ranking for library materials. I am certain that the
future of the library catalogue is dependent in large part on its ability to produce good
results lists, but also the future of the library itself depends on its search systems. I
think that this future will be determined by the ability of the catalogue to produce
relevant results, even if a user’s query is very broad or vague.
This article shows that ranking in general is a complex process. This holds true for
search engines as well as for the libraries’ OPACs. It demonstrates how sear ch engines
operate and how their methods could be applied to the library catalogue.
Before ranking material in the library catalogue, one must first discuss what is
really meant by “library material.” While today’s OPACs mainly index “bundles”
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
LHT
27,4
584
Received 10 May 2009
Revised 3 July 2009
Accepted 24 July 2009
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 27 No. 4, 2009
pp. 584-593
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/07378830911007682
To continue reading
Request your trial