[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration

Rogan Hamby rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net
Thu Sep 25 15:20:14 EDT 2014

I don't see an issue with doing analysis of circulation patterns on the
backend so long as nothing identifying is exposed.

For example, if all I saw as a patron was a tab in my opac that said "you
thought The Yiddish Policeman's Union was Awesome!  Some others do did also
thought this was Awesome .... " I don't see that as different from doing
the same thing with circulations.  It's not telling patrons even what the
points of comparison were unless they only had a single item in their
circulation history and even then it doesn't tell them how many other
patrons, how much, etc....

I'm dubious about subject headings also but wouldn't want to dismiss it out
of hand.  It might work.  Without doing some experimenting I could see it
going either way.  Some fixed fields I could see working, like fiction and
non-fiction.  Age groups?  Well, at least I can tell you I can't rely on
those in my catalog.  :)

However, I also worry that reading recommendations based on circulation
history could easily grow into a much more complicated task, especially
depending on how we deliver those recommendations.  Looking at a single
boolean value tied to the user and item (circ table?)  could still be quite
a project by itself especially once all the useful bits and pieces are
built in.

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM, McCanna, Terran <
tmccanna at georgialibraries.org> wrote:

> Agreed - it's a great idea in theory, but I'm not sure how well it would
> work in actual practice. Even in a single library, genre subject headings
> are usually pretty inconsistent in the MARC records because of copy
> cataloging, and that usually gets even more inconsistent in a consortium of
> libraries. Perhaps it could be partially weighted on genre subject
> headings, but not overly reliant on them? It might be worth considering the
> fixed field values for fiction vs. non-fiction and for age groups, too.
> I love the idea of providing recommendations based on other people that
> have similar taste ("other people that liked this book also liked these
> books...") but if the data is tied to actual patrons (and I'm not sure how
> it couldn't be) then quite a few library systems would face legal privacy
> issues and wouldn't be able to use it. We're currently using a commercial
> service to pull in reading recommendations because the recommendations
> can't be tied back to any of our patrons.
> Terran McCanna
> PINES Program Manager
> Georgia Public Library Service
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, GA 30345
> 404-235-7138
> tmccanna at georgialibraries.org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rogan Hamby" <rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net>
> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <
> open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:02:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration
> I can see some challenges to tracking genre and I'd be hesitant to put too
> much value on it. There are ways to catalog it but in my experience
> actually relying on it being in records (much less being consistent) is
> very unreliable in organizations that do a lot of copy cataloging / don't
> have centralized and controlled cataloging and there quite a few in that
> boat.
> That concern aside, I've always thought this would be a fun and
> potentially valuable thing to add.
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Vanya Jauhal < vanyajauhal at gmail.com >
> wrote:
> Hello everyone
> I'm Vanya, from India. I'm a candidate for OPW Round9 internship with
> evergreen.
> While discussing the idea of Awesome Box integration with Evergreen, Kathy
> and I discussed the possibility of making the Evergreen support for Awesome
> Box more interpretive using Artificial Intelligence.
> What if we could train the system to give weightage to people's "awesome"
> tags on items, depending upon how much their previous tags are appreciated
> by other people.
> For example: Let's say you tag a book to be awesome. Now, if 100 other
> people check that book in, and (lets say) 80 of them also tag it to be
> awesome- it will mean that your opinion matches a majority of people. On
> the other hand, if 100 other people check that book in and (say) only 5 of
> them tag it as awesome, this would mean that your awesome tag is not in
> coherence with the majority.
> So, in the former case, your awesome tag can be given more weightage as
> compared to the latter.
> Also, the weightage may vary according to genres. So- you may have a good
> taste in mystery books but your taste in classical literature might not be
> the same as the majority crowd. So- the weightage of your awesome tag in
> mystery would be higher than classical literature.
> We can even extend it to provide recommendations to users depending on
> their coherence with other users with similar taste.
> I am looking forward to your suggestions and feedback on this.
> Thank you for your time
> Vanya
> --
> 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


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
― 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/20140925/dd0efefb/attachment.htm>

More information about the Open-ils-general mailing list