Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM, James Weinheimer: > > Finally, the "less access" is not a false premise but an indisputable fact. > That must be acknowledged. To maintain that it is not less access is to > ignore reality. Perhaps some may claim that it is a sad, necessary step > toward the radiant heights of FRBR, but the immediate effects, lasting into > an unknown number of years, will be "less access". > Certainly. One may think of a moderating measure: Lets say, abstracting a bit, we are after person XYZ with a qualifier of Q. A search algorithm may then present exact matches first and those lacking Q thereafter. More logic along this line is feasible and is probably being used in some catalogs.
But please, don't call this kind of searching "relevance ranking". True relevance is something very different, it is something only persons themselves can judge. I mean, not even a skilled reference librarian can easily know what the client really means when given just two words and not a real question. Of course, "relevance" is just a convenient metaphor and may thus be excused? No, it may not. It is intellectual dishonesty, not proper for libraries, to use language clients may and will interpret in a wrong way and then build up wrong expectations that are bound to be disappointed. And critically thinking readers can be expected to turn it back, and then their backs, on the catalog and the library. Bernhard Eversberg
