[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposed change in Vendor Listing Policy

[Rogan Hamby]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Sharp, Chris <csharp at georgialibraries.org>
wrote:

> Rogan,
>
> Thanks for your feedback to my questions.  I'll respond in-line:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rogan Hamby" <rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net>
> > I'm only speaking for myself here but I don't think it's necessary
> > but nor is the listing itself. It's a nice thing to do as a
> > community to help people find resources in a way that's hopefully a
> > bit more curated than just heading to Google (or Duck Duck Go or
> > whatever). To me if we're going to curate there is a point of
> > balance to find between burdensome and providing the value of that
> > curation.
> >
> > Since the users are going through the listings on an Evergreen
> > vendors listing to find their Evergreen services it makes sense to
> > me to link through to those services directly. You're correct that
> > users could write separate emails and go browsing through each site
> > for content but that's a lot more cumbersome than clicking through
> > and the purpose of the curated list is convenience to me. If not,
> > why are we doing it?
>
> I'm all for usability and the ease of finding information on websites.  We
> are librarians after all. :-)  The problem I have is that this policy is
> *requiring* some sort of content change on the vendors site as a condition
> for being allowed a listing on the vendor page.  Do we have standards for
> what constitutes a sufficient response to this requirement?  If I'm a
> vendor and I just copy and paste the information already on the wiki onto a
> page on my site with a "contact us for details" statement, for instance,
> would that suffice?
>
> If we include this as a *suggestion*, not a requirement, I'm totally on
> board with that.
>
>
There was some discussion during the meeting about it being suggested
versus required.  To me those elements that make it more user friendly
should be required or we start diluting the purpose.  That's why we have
the existing requirements we have.  If we started expanding requirements
beyond that intent I think that becomes a more dramatic shift we would have
to really look at.  However, that's not to say that we should pile
requirements on until they become problematic for either the website team
to maintain or vendors to provide.  But, at least at this stage the web
site team has said they can maintain it and I haven't heard from any
vendors.

I was the one that asked that we have discussion on the main list hoping
that if we had vendor concerns we would hear from them here.  But, since
it's to provide more direct linking to their own marketing material I would
think they would actually be in favor of it.  Web use studies always show
that the more clicks someone has to follow through the less likely they are
to do so so I imagined this as a vendor friendly policy change.  If I'm
wrong I'm sure they will correct me.

Now, if they just copy and past what they provided from the wiki onto a
page of their own.... well, while I don't think that would be the best move
on their part from a sales stand point nor is it our job to judge.  As I've
said I don't think it's our role to judge the veracity of content.  Caveat
emptor and all that.




>
> > One point you brought up I'm not clear on. You ask, " Isn't the onus
> > of reviewing such companies on potential customers seeking
> > support/development work?" There is nothing in this proposal about
> > reviewing the content on the vendor's sites. The accuracy or
> > veracity of their claims of what they can support is not covered
> > here. There was a similar topic brought up because of a vendor and a
> > letter written to the board that we still need to discuss and decide
> > how we would handle it as a community but for now that issue was
> > lessened in urgency by the vendor themselves taking their site
> > offline. If I misunderstood what you're asking let me know.
> >
> >
> > I don't see this is as an issue that is particularly intersectional
> > to the RFP process. I think a vendor listing page may be used for a
> > lot of reasons and one of them maybe to find folks they invite to an
> > RFP but there are a lot of scenarios that are much less, well,
> > intensive also. And being friendly to that range of uses is
> > important I think.
>
> Sorry, I can see that I have conflated two tangentially related issues.
> My larger point is that I think we shouldn't make the vendor listing page
> into more of a problem than it is.  I'm totally fine with vetting the
> vendor as we allow the posting and doing occasional checks on whether the
> postings are up-to-date.  Requiring the link back to the project is
> something I can live with too, since it gives the project more exposure.
> When we start requiring specific content on vendor websites, however, that
> feels like we're meddling in details that should be up to each service
> provider.


The only content we're asking to link to is the Evergreen services for a
vendor that asked to be linked on a listing of Evergreen services.  I'm not
asking to verify, evaluate or judge that in any way.  I'm not sure how
we're meddling in their details as we would only be providing what they
supply to us.

Kathy's feedback (as the person doing that maintaining) was that it was
something she was willing to add to her existing maintenance and I'm
willing to help.  I do think you have a good point that we have to be very
careful about adding those kinds of responsibilities which is why if there
are other policy change concerns people feel we should be looking at to add
that would reduce the importance of this and may take up the time of the
volunteers running the vendor page I hope we hear about those on this list
as well so it can all be discussed together in context.


> --
> Chris Sharp
> PINES System Administrator
> Georgia Public Library Service
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, Georgia 30345
> (404) 235-7147
> csharp at georgialibraries.org
> http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
>



-- 

Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA
Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services,
York County Library System

“You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit
me.”
― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20140908/cecd8906/attachment.htm>