Planned serendipity
We all know the difference between "searching" and "browsing." When we search, we're looking for something pretty specific. Maybe not an exact item, book, movie, shoe, etc., but something within a specific set of boundaries. Browsing is more... serendipitous. You go into a store -- let's say... a book store, shall we? -- and you wander around, picking up stuff that catches your eye... moving somewhat aimlessly... following a trail or two or not.
It's fun. And we find unexpected things this way. In many cases, though, the freedom we feel due to the unspecific nature of our quest is somewhat illusionary. Whomever is creating the space in which you browse has had a lot to do with what you find and how. "Staff Recommends" shelves, end-caps, bargain tables, posters, positioning... all these things combine to guide your browsing experience. Of course you still are in control; that's not the point. But neither are you randomly choosing from among an infinite number of materials in a random, uniform vacuum.
I'll give you an example. For a couple months, a couple years ago, I ended up buying a number of books that all had only one major thing in common: they all had bright, almost neon green covers. This was a fashion in cover design at the time, and after reading one that was good, I somehow was attracted to that color. And while the books in question weren't related... neither were they entirely dissimilar. Only certain kinds of authors and stories will be comfortable with a cover the color of radioactive lime.
Online, browsing is both more unfettered -- you can follow links from page to page and site to site very easily -- and less free. You can't jump as easily, let's say, from a page about sketching to one that has blank sketchbooks, unless the link is built in. In a live store environment, there is a greater chance for serendipity, because the "links" only have to be provided by physical proximity.
So... how to build interesting, serendipitous browsing experiences online? One way is to create a set of materials that don't, on the surface, have anything in common... like my electric green books (though, I guess, they only had something on the surface in common).
For example, the American Book Review recently created an awesome list of the "100 Best First Lines from Novels." They're all novels, yes... and many of them would probably make a list of "best novels" in general. But it's very interesting to move from book-to-book based on a criteria like "best first lines." You don't browse the same way as you do when you go by subject, author, time period, etc.
It's a way to induce directional browsing... an opportunity for planned serendipity.
I liked this particular list so much, I added it as a WorldCat.org list:
100 Best First Lines from Novels
Fun stuff. Happy browsing.
On June 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM Paul Capewell said:
This is an interesting concept... It is quite hard to 'browse' as you say with online catalogues. Creating lists would be one method (with the onus on people to create them - something I should get round to trying on WorldCat!).
Another thing that springs to mind is the hyperlinked article-jumping that the likes of Wikipedia have brought on. It's easy (I find) to get lost twenty or thirty links deep, simply by clicking through to more related/linked articles.
Another method are those fun tree diagrams which expand in neat flash-animated designs - with related words or musical artists for example. Is there a similar one for books, perhaps using Amazon's data? (Do Amazon allow that data to be used?)
Any other online browsing concepts?
On June 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM Andy
said:
Paul: I agree... getting lost in link-land is a real hazard. Happens to me all the time.
As for other methods of book data (and other) visualizations, try some of these:
http://imagine-it.org/amazong/vissimweb.htm
http://amaznode.fladdict.net/
http://www.touchgraph.com/TGAmazonBrowser.html
http://oskope.com/
http://www.coverpop.com/pop/fiction/
http://www.visuwords.com/
If you find others, let us know.
Also... not all book related, but the Flickr mashup work of KrazyDad is also worth a look:
http://www.krazydad.com/colrpickr/ and
http://www.coverpop.com/
On June 17, 2008 at 5:42 PM Jeffrey Beall said:
I think the Amazon reviews will be a disincentive for submitting reviews to WorldCat.org. I think I will just put my reviews on Amazon and know that they will eventually be migrated over to WorldCat.
On the other hand, the Amazon reviews are intended for an audience that is considering buying a book. On WorldCat, the users aren't always there to buy a book; they are there to see if the book would be useful for their research or reading needs. These are two different things. I am not sure the Amazon reviews are a good fit.
On June 23, 2008 at 10:08 AM bobrobboy
said:
Jeffrey, Thanks for the comment. I apologize for the delay in posting it. Frankly, I lost it in amongst the other comments and spam. Sorry! :(
I don't disagree with your evaluation of Amazon reviews and how people use WorldCat.org. They tend to be seen in a different light. But I think that the two can co-exist and help people better evaluate content based on their current need.
An Amazon review might help someone decide to purchase an item, but at the same time it can help someone determine whether the item is worth even checking out from their library.
A WorldCat review may carry more weight with some users depending on their current need regardless of whether the review appears on Amazon.com or WorldCat.org.
In either case, we think bringing more evaluative content into WorldCat.org will help people satisfy their information needs. We also think it will increase the likelihood that those people will go to their library!
We are also expanding the reach of WorldCat.org by linking some of our content, such as reviews, into other Web sites. We hope to expose people on many other sites to our--more weighty--evaluative content.