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
>> [email protected]
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [email protected] http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
