[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration

[McCanna, Terran]

Agreed!


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: "Tim Spindler" <tjspindler at gmail.com>
To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 3:28:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration



Kathy, 

I think that's a good point. I think Rogan and others have cautioned about feature creep also. I think in the end I would be happy to first to see integration with Awesome Box and then as a second phase some of the other issues. 



On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Kathy Lussier < klussier at masslnc.org > wrote: 


Hi all, 



Basically, I wouldn't let the quality of genre headings in your catalog 
determine whether Awesome Box uses genre headings. Too much in the history 
of genre use makes clean headings difficult. I would, however, begin 
considering how to clean up those headings so Awesome Box could be fully 
implemented. 

I just want to throw out a reminder that full implementation of "Awesome Box" is really collecting the data for items that have been returned to an awesome box in the library and sending that information along to http://awesomebox.io/ . I think Vanya has some good ideas to then use that same data in Evergreen in other ways, which is great and may start a foundation for even more development. But, in my mind, these other components are gravy. Exciting gravy, but gravy nonetheless. 

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 9/26/2014 2:22 PM, Hardy, Elaine wrote: 


Genre headings can be corrected so that they are current to the thesauri 
your library uses. LCGFT and GSAFD authority records are available, for 
example. However, authorities for genre headings is relatively recent and, 
as a result, many libraries did not retain or add genre headings to bib 
records in the past. Of course, adding subject headings to fiction is 
relatively recent as well. Some older fiction titles may just have genre 
headings, if anything at all. 

Copy cataloging should not make a difference in whether headings are used 
correctly or whether your library chooses to use genre headings. Although I 
suppose your bibliographic utility will. If you obtain most of your records 
from LC or OCLC, then certainly newer titles will have extensive genre 
headings. With the advent of LCGFT, more catalogers do add genre headings to 
bib records. GSAFD use was spotty but has increased. What could make the 
difference is whether you use vendor cataloging since your library might 
have to pay extra for use and maintenance of genre headings. Particularly if 
you use the vendor as a source for your title records. 

If your catalogers are afforded the time to correct and add genre headings, 
then whether they copy catalog or create all title records originally won't 
matter. What their process and procedures are does. 

If your genre headings have not been kept up to date (which is likely true 
of all of us), then I suggest cleaning them up as much as possible if 
Awesome box ratings will include them. And approaching cataloging staff to 
see if including use and maintenance of genre headings can become part of 
their workflow. Keep in mind that, not only could it increase the time it 
takes for items to get to the shelf, if you out source, it might increase 
costs. If you use a vendor authority service, genre heading maintenance may 
already be a part of the service. 

I'm not sure that beginning with broad categories would solve any problems 
since anything other than literary form (fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, 
etc) is going to be in, or not, a 655. Again, whether LitF in the fixed 
filed is coded properly depends on the quality of your bib records. Some of 
the prePINES records have very little coding of any kind in the fixed 
fields -- about 200,000 out of 1.7 million or so bib records. 

Basically, I wouldn't let the quality of genre headings in your catalog 
determine whether Awesome Box uses genre headings. Too much in the history 
of genre use makes clean headings difficult. I would, however, begin 
considering how to clean up those headings so Awesome Box could be fully 
implemented. 


Elaine 

J. Elaine Hardy 
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager 
Georgia Public Library Service 
1800 Century Place, Ste 150 
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 

404.235-7128 
404.235-7201 , fax 
ehardy at georgialibraries.org 
www.georgialibraries.org 
www.georgialibraries.org/pines 


-----Original Message----- 
From: open-ils-general-bounces at list. georgialibraries.org 
[mailto: open-ils-general- bounces at list.georgialibraries. org ] On Behalf Of 
McCanna, Terran 
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:33 PM 
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration 

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 








-- 
Tim Spindler 
tjspindler at gmail.com 




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