Monica's blog

I believe that there are two types of searchers (and I’m pretty sure that we have all fallen into either category depending on our situation):

The first searcher is the one who requires reliable information FAST.  An example of a searcher in this category would be the frantic undergraduate student who has a twelve-page history paper due the next day and they will take any relevant resources.  Their search is not for amusement.  It is just to get to the end.  They hope the process is as quick and painless as possible.

The second searcher is the browser.  This type of searcher no only looks forward to the end result, but also enjoys the process of obtaining their results.

Although both of these searchers have existed before folksonomies were implemented, the act of tagging has truly enhanced the second searcher’s, a.k.a the browser, experience.

After going through our week’s readings, I did notice some valid concerns about this new wave of cataloguing.  One concern is that our grassroots method of subject classification is not specific enough.  Liz Lawley indicates this in her article Social Consequences of Social Tagging. She states,  “[…] I don’t share the optimism that so many of my colleagues in this field seem to have that the collective “wisdom of crowds” will always yield accurate and useful descriptors” (Lawley).  Carol Ou, author of White-Paperish Thing, also wonders if folksonomies hinder the precision of a user’s search results.  These fears have merit, especially for the individuals who love the classic library classification system.

However, folksonomies are in no way replacing the classic catalogue nor are they drastically altering it.  Instead, the classic catalogue has a partner: one to meet the needs of those who love the search.

There are several reasons why I think that we should include Folksonomies within our library catalogue. My top three are:

1. An expert tagger doesn’t exist.  Anyone can do it.  This encourages more users to contribute to the library system, creating a fresh community of taggers.

2. Because there isn’t an expert method of tagging, there also isn’t an expert method of searching.  This will hopefully be more encouraging for timid library users.  Individuals get to choose the methods that work for them instead of having to figure out the methodology behind a librarian’s search.

3. The path to discovery opens up.   A user’s initial subject entry could take them to a whole other realm of resources.  For example, I searched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows within the Oakville Public Library catalogue.  Within this novel’s information page, I received a tag cloud of the subject matter within Harry Potter.  The tag cloud offers the subject, “dark.”  I clicked on this tag and found the movie Changeling within the list of “dark” subjects.  If I were a member of the Oakville Public Library, I would not only borrow Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but also Changeling due to this search.

I believe that it is great for a library to include both types of cataloguing systems to fit the needs of the two types of searchers.