[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] SPAM Re: Awesome Box Integration

Fri Sep 26 11:42:02 EDT 2014

We anonymize our data as much as we can without causing problems in the system. We archive old circulations and do not even allow patrons to opt in to store their reading histories. Yes, there are still remnants of the data there, and we obviously can't clear out data related to current transactions or to fines, but it is our intention to maintain as much patron privacy as possible. In fact, we take patron privacy far more seriously than most of our patrons do. System administrators that have direct access to the data can get all sorts of information if they take the time to find it, but the patron's complete circ history isn't available in their record or through a report. This limits the amount of information that any staff person can find out about anyone else, and it ensures that any Patriot Act or other information requests for circulation history have to come to the managing office where we can ensure that the request meets the letter of the law and that frontline circ staff at some remote branch aren't being pressured into giving out all of that information to members of government or law enforcement that should not have access to it without following proper procedures. I would hope that all library systems are taking equal care.

As long as the Awesome Box functionality is designed to hide its ties to individual patrons, then I think it's great, but I think it would do a disservice to patrons to simply dismiss privacy issues out of hand.

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: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:55:27 AM
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: Awesome Box Integration

FWIW, there isn't any reason for patron data to be exposed and privacy issue on a display level here. The privacy discussion is really a distraction from the Awesome Box discussion in my opinion. Some libraries may anonymize (or wipe) older data while others don't but that data existing and using it under the hood is a totally different thing from exposing it users (my point). Now if you do wipe it you obviously don't want to suddenly have features that depend on it, an important point for those who do wipe it (and I wonder if their libraries are expressly exempt from record retention laws) but that was Kathy's point about configurability. And even if you did use historical circulations integrated for awesome box that doesn't mean it has to be used the same way for all type of users with different anonymization of data. Of course, I doubt that some who think their data is wiped understand that it probably is not. Evergreen does not natively erase or anonymize old information, it's just inaccessible to casual users, which is not the same as not existing. That's a fairly common mistake for users not familiar with the database layer. 

Clear as mud? So, as I said I suspect that if we don't want to completely derail this with tangents it's probably best to put the privacy issue aside and look at Awesome box features not tied to patron specific data. 

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Ruth Frasur < director at hagerstownlibrary.org > wrote: 

I don't have anything of value to add to this other than while, of course, I love the idea of reader recommendations and Awesome Box integration in any form, I also think there would HAVE to be some type of anonymizing (sp?) of patron data. I don't think this is impossible BUT, as Rogan has said, there is a definite danger of project creep. My suggestion, fwiw, is to find some first/second step for Awesome Box integration and focus more on building a foundation (that may or may not have truly visible/useful features for end users) on which others (or other projects) could expand. 

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Rogan Hamby < rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net > wrote: 

I'm concerned with project creep as well as I noted in one of early missives. If this is stored independent of patron data (which actually I think it should) then I think we should also track circs since the feature was turned on so it could say "3 out of 4" people found it awesome. 

Stepping back a bit to recommendations and anonymizing records, we don't anonymize historical circs. We don't expose that data and take staff level access to it pretty seriously. Due to varying state and county regulations dictating minimum record retentions we're still at least 2 years out from being to safely wipe our oldest records. Maybe more. 

And anonymizing it closes certain opportunities. Some are mundane like addressing old conflicts and billing questions but those can be big in their own right. As the circ manager who talks to the upset patron I may have a different point of view on that. :) 

Analyzing circulation patterns is far more interesting though and I am long term interested in recommendations. In the age of Anazin, Netflix and everyone else this is not just valuable but expected. It's perhaps the patron request I hear most. 

Coupled with some holds features it would be a great great boon for home bound services which I feel are a critical function of libraries, at least in my state where it's a strong traditional service. I assume elsewhere as well though I know mileage varies. 

And it was the building block of several functions that GA PINES identified as critical for TBS support during the Loblolly conference. We may never fully support TBS programs in Evergreen but I thought GA PINES collected a lot of great ideas and input there and would hate to discard that. 

On Thursday, September 25, 2014, Kathy Lussier < klussier at masslnc.org > wrote: 

Hi all, 

Great discussion so far! 

We had a bit of a discussion about privacy concerns in IRC after Terran sent her original message. One approach we were discussing was storing the awesome tags in an anonymous fashion, except in cases where patrons have opted into saving their circ history. In those cases, the user has already consented to having this information saved and could have a more enhanced experience with the recommendation engine. Others who were part of the discussion could elaborate or correct me if I'm not articulating the ideas correctly. The discussion can be found at http://irc.evergreen-ils.org/evergreen/2014-09-25#i_126632 . 

In relation to genres, Vanya said: 

Maybe, as a solution to that, we can have a hierarchical algorithm for categorizing. In other words, we can allow the administrator to decide whether the categorization comes all the way down to genres, or just takes into account the overall weight of the user's awesome tag. 
I like the idea of making this configurable, because there may be systems where data identifying genre is a little more clear cut. Better yet, how about if we allow an Evergreen site to define the categories that are used. Some sites may use the MARC fixed fields for fiction/non-fiction. Other sites may decided that values stored in the 655 MARC field work for them. 

Is there something already exists in Evergreen that we could leverage for this purpose? My first thought was MVF. 

I do have one general recommendation speaking with my OPW admin hat on. It really is a general recommendation for any of the OPW candidates who might be following along. I mentioned in IRC today that I'm not a developer, but I've managed a lot of development projects, and one thing I try to watch out for is project creep. As we continue to talk about the project and think of new configuration options to make it a more flexible project, it can also become a very large project that isn't as easy to manage. 

Therefore, as you think through how you plan to implement the project, I recommend breaking it up into distinct milestones. You might want to start with smaller tasks as you ease into the project (e.g. collecting the awesome tags and sending them along to the Awesome Box site), and then move on to the larger components once you become more familiar with the system. 

Kathy 

Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative (508) 343-0128 klussier at masslnc.org Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier #evergreen IRC: kmlussier On 9/25/2014 6:40 PM, Tim Spindler wrote: 

Overall, I really like the ideas talked about but I agree with Terran that something would have to be done with circ data related to patrons. We use the purge function to anonymize our patron data but I could see other ways of dealing with this. We also have retention policies related to retaining patron circulation data. 

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Rogan Hamby < rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net > wrote: 

I suppose I don't understand the concern on your part as at that level if someone could access the raw db they could just query someone's circulation history, fine payments, etc... since those are recorded as transactions unless you're doing something to anonymize or wipe those as soon as they're done. Even then someone could see all current transactions at that level. 

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, McCanna, Terran < tmccanna at georgialibraries.org > wrote: 

This relies on the circulation and rating data still being tied to the patron in the system, though - yes, it'd be on the database side and not on public view, but it's still creating a picture of a patron's reading history that has privacy implications. Of course, this feature should be set for systems to enable or disable, so that systems that are concerned about privacy simply won't turn it on. (PINES, for example, limits the retention of circulation history in the system as much as we can because of our privacy policies, so any feature that is linked to a patron's history would be unusable for us.) 

If ranking data were stored completely independently of the patron, then library systems would be able to use it without privacy concerns, and patrons wouldn't even need to be logged in to use it - but then it wouldn't be able to give completely customized recommendations to a specific patron, either. It's a definite tradeoff. 

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: "Vanya Jauhal" < vanyajauhal at gmail.com > 
To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" < open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org > 

Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:41:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration 

Hello Rogan 

This is exactly what I had in mind. All the recommendation processing will take place in background, and all the user will see is a recommendation and not the information of any other patron. This way his experience with Awesome Box will get enhanced. 

And yes, we can maybe, start off with some broad level genres, like, as you mentioned, fiction, non-fiction, documentaries, etc. Then, depending upon the infrastructure of the system and the response of that categorization, we can build upon the algorithm accordingly. 

You are right- it would be a big task in itself, but since the number of parameters involved are few and explicit, it gets simplified to an extent. 

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Rogan Hamby < rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net > wrote: 

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 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 me.” 
― C.S. Lewis 

-- 
Tim Spindler 
tjspindler at gmail.com 

P Go Green - Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary. 

-- 

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 

-- 
Ruth Frasur 
Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township Library 
10 W. College Street in Hagerstown, Indiana (47346) 
p (765) 489-5632 ; f (765) 489-5808 

Our Kickin' Website Our Rockin' Facebook Page and Stuff I'm Reading 

-- 

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