On Nov 6, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Cynthia, it's been a while but I wanted to give you feedback... > > Ranking on importance based on library ownership and/or circulation is > something that I've seen discussed but not implemented -- mainly due to the > difficulty of gathering the data from library systems. But it seems like an > obvious way to rank results, IMO. > > Too bad that one has to pay for BISAC headings. They tend to mirror the > headings in bookstores (and ebook stores) that people might be familiar with. > They capture fiction topics, especially, in a way to resonates with some > users (topics like "Teen Paranormal Romance").
I believe that they were created specifically for bookstores. The problem is that the publishers (likely with support of the authors) get to decide where stuff should be filed. As I help manage the Friend's bookstore at my local library branch, I've seen "Creation Science" (on an 'E' book with archealogists & dinosaur bones on the cover) and a few others make me cringe. -Joe ps. I haven't seen "Teen Paranormal Romance" specifically as a heading (although yes, I've seen those books) ... I'm waiting for "Amish Paranormal Romance" (although I don't know if "Amish Romance" is an official BISAC heading). pps. The nature of the BISAC headings make them less useful for determining if a book's actually on the shelves. It's fine for general browsing, but it reminds me of the filing system from Black Books (from 0:40 to ~1:45): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZVDr4r9HEw > On 10/22/14 1:25 PM, Harper, Cynthia wrote: >> So I'm deleting all the Bisac subject headings (650_7|2bisacsh) from our >> ebook records - they were deemed not to be useful, especially as it would >> entail a for-fee indexing change to make them clickable. But I'm thinking >> if we someday have a discovery system, they'll be useful as a means for >> broader-to-narrower term browsing that won't require translation to English, >> as would call number ranges. >> >> As I watch the system slowly chunk through them, I think about how library >> collections and catalogs facilitate jumping to the most specific subjects, >> but browsing is something of an afterthought. >> >> What if we could set a ranking score for the "importance" of an item in >> browsing, based on circulation data - authors ranked by the relative >> circulation of all their works, same for series, latest edition of a >> multi-edition work given higher ranking, etc.? Then have a means to set the >> threshold importance value you want to look at, and browse through these >> general Bisac terms, or the classification? Or have a facet for >> "importance" threshold. I see Bisac sometimes has a broadness/narrowness >> facet ("overview") - wonder how consistently that's applied, enough to be >> useful? >> >> Guess those rankings would be very expensive in compute time. >> >> Well, back to the deletions. >> >> Cindy Harper >> Electronic Services and Serials Librarian >> Virginia Theological Seminary >> 3737 Seminary Road >> Alexandria VA 22304 >> 703-461-1794 >> char...@vts.edu > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600