Recently in Search Category
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.
[BTW... You now know the ugly truth: I am not a programmer; see “code stuff” and “pushed/pulled” above]
The upshot of all this, though, is that sites like WorldCat.org can provide a link back to Google Books. Sometimes that will mean the full text of the book, sometimes not. For example, Cory Doctorow’s great novel, “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom,” is available in full. So the WorldCat.org page for that book shows a link under “Get it” to “View Item Online (Google Books).” This takes you to the Google Books page for that work and the full text.
It’s not just a one-way street, though. If you find a book in Google Book Search, you can often follow a link for it back to local libraries through WorldCat.org. So, suppose you locate the Google Book page for "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria. You'll find that the entry for this work is a limited preview. But you'll also find a link under the "Buy this Book" choices to "Find this book in a library," which (you guessed it), takes you back to the WorldCat.org page for it.
Fun stuff.
I ran across this interesting post yesterday on how adding the right kind of additional data to a dataset did more to improve its searchability and relevance than creating a more complex algorithm to search it. Worth a read for those search-geeks out there like myself.
We have daily conversations here about how to improve the relevance of WorldCat's search and find ourselves tweaking the algorithm almost monthly, but it's amazing how much more relevant the results became (back in the early days of '06) just by adding the count of libraries that hold an item into the "data pool." This gets me excited to start folding user-contributed data (tags, reviews, what-have-you) into the mix as it makes sense and as critical mass builds. The benefits to discoverability could be tremendous.
