A Comparison of Searching Functionality of a VuFind Catalogue Implementation and the Traditional Catalogue

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager “classic” catalogue. VuFind is an opensource product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the “classic” search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each. Introduction Since 2009, VuFind, an open-source product, has been in development as an alternative to the traditional Voyager catalogue used by the libraries in the University System of Georgia for more than ten years. The Georgia implementation is named GIL-Find after the consortium of academic libraries in Georgia, known as the GALILEO Interconnected Libraries, or GIL. GALILEO is Georgia’s electronic library, which includes a collection of databases available to students from kindergarten through college as well as to public libraries, and many resources are free to all Georgia citizens. GIL was a natural extension of GALILEO, linking all of the university system libraries with a common system for creating a union catalogue and sharing resources among the 35 institutions comprising the consortium (University Systems of Georgia, n.d.). VuFind, the open-source software on which GIL-Find is based, was developed at Villa Nova University (University Systems of Georgia, n.d.). Because LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2012 (“Losing the Battle for Hearts and Minds? NextGeneration Discovery and Access in Library Catalogues,” edited by Kathryn La Barre), pp. 208–217. © 2012 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 12_61_1_skinner_208-217.indd 208 8/28/12 9:14 AM 209 vufind versus traditional catalogue/skinner VuFind is free and open source, it can be modified by institutions choosing to adopt it. Thus, almost every library using VuFind as the basis for their library catalogue has an implementation that has been customized by local developers. Here, GIL-Find will be discussed as the Georgia implementation of VuFind. GIL-Find remains in development even now for the Georgia libraries, with enhancements and improvements regularly added to the original implementation. A very significant recent development is the conversion of the union catalogue from the “classic” format to GIL-Find as the primary or default interface for users. Fortunately, all GIL-Find development is occurring at the state level so that each individual library does not have to adapt the software locally. In fact, it would be unlikely for more than a few of the largest universities in the Georgia system to have the staffing or the expertise to adapt an open-source product such as VuFind at the local level. Georgia Southern was one of the pilot institutions for the GIL-Find project, and a librarian from Georgia Southern served on the implementation committee. The committee represented the thirty-five institutions in the Georgia System and comprised approximately fifteen librarians from various institutions as well as a state-level technical expert. All of the Georgia institutions except one have identical implementations of GILFind. Georgia Tech is the exception, having utilized local resources to enhance the Georgia Tech version of GIL-Find. After a year of beta testing, Georgia Southern University decided to implement GIL-Find as the default interface to the library catalogue in spring semester 2011, while retaining a link to the Voyager “classic” catalogue. This report examines differences between the “classic” and GILFind interfaces and provides examples of differences in search results. Whether the “classic” or GIL-Find interface is truly an improvement over the other may be largely a matter of opinion depending on one’s experiences with each interface. However, there are significant differences between the two that should be explored before libraries decide to give up some traditional catalogue functionalities. The ideal situation for libraries is to provide one catalogue interface with all of the functions needed by all users, since the proliferation of search boxes on the library Web site often causes additional confusion for library users (Breeding, 2010, p. 33). The GIL-Find interface utilizes color, book cover images, and a large variety of icons for a pleasing overall look and feel. However, GIL-Find does lack some of the more in-depth search capabilities of the classic catalogue. For example, the GIL-Find implementation does not utilize crossreferences in the authority files. This brings forward a number of questions that will be addressed here. What impact will this have for library users? Will keyword searching make up for the lack of cross references? GIL-Find does not provide left-anchored searching for specific titles or 12_61_1_skinner_208-217.indd 209 8/28/12 9:14 AM 210 library trends/summer 2012 other search terms. Does keyword searching make up for the loss of the left-anchored search? One obvious advantage of GIL-Find over the classic catalogue is that the searcher experiences a Google-like search environment. Each search almost always returns “something,” and the searcher is not left emptyhanded as so often occurs with the more precise “classic” catalogue. In the case of the “classic” catalogue, if the searcher does not choose the right option for a search, a message may display that there are no results or no items found. Students, our most frequent searchers, often do not know how to select the search options best suited for their tasks. For them, GIL-Find results in a more rewarding experience regardless of whether they construct the best search or even if they do not find the best materials that the library has to offer them. For librarians, the results in GIL-find can seem overwhelming in terms of sheer numbers. For students used to large numbers of result sets, these numbers are not daunting, according to librarian observations, because they often look at the first screen or so and ignore the remaining results. The Classic Catalogue Very few people who work in a library or regularly use a library would argue that the traditional online library catalogue needs no improvement. The interface and functions have clearly not kept up to date with contemporary Web-based search tools. The lure of the single search box via Google is impossible to deny. Many studies indicate that library users first turn to Google while searching. In fact, many library users also search sites like Amazon before turning to the library catalogue to verify availability and location of library materials. It is essential that libraries seek to provide search tools that meet student expectations to ensure that premier library resources are utilized. Library personnel cannot sit back and feel satisfied with antiquated software and search tools and expect today’s users to be content. Even with the improvements GIL-Find brings, retaining access to the “classic” catalogue is critical for several reasons, among them, the more precise levels of searching it supports and the fact that GIL-Find lacks the same range of basic functionalities. GIL-Find does not provide access to online reserves or to materials in the automated retrieval system; thus, users are redirected to the “classic” catalogue in order to access online reserves and to make requests for stored materials. Making these functions available in GIL-Find is on the enhancement request list, so hopefully this is a temporary solution. However, it is not ideal for the catalogue user to have to go back and forth between the two very different catalogue interfaces in order to complete these routine functions. Another reason for retaining a link to the “classic” catalogue is the fact that more precise searching is best supported by the “classic” version. The Web page 12_61_1_skinner_208-217.indd 210 8/28/12 9:14 AM 211 vufind versus traditional catalogue/skinner explaining GIL-Find attempts to alert users: “GIL-Find sits on top of the Voyager software. It is not a replacement for the catalogue. Indeed, many users will want to continue to use Classic WebVoyage.” The Web page includes a chart for users explaining the basic differences between the two interfaces (University Systems of Georgia, n.d.). The user interface for the “classic” catalogue, WebVoyage, is neither intuitive nor visually appealing. The WebVoyage interface is more typical of second-generation online catalogues. The functions are similar to, though more extensive than, those of the card catalogue. Although there are search limiters, such as title or author, these must be decided ahead of time or before a search is conducted. Most users “search by keyword,” which is the default search option in WebVoyage. Unless a catalogue searcher knows how to search in the “classic” version, he/she is very likely to get no results. For example, if a student types a title in a “subject” box or misspells a word, the student will most likely get a response of “No results located.” When that happens, the student is likely to give up and rely on Google, where there is no need for correct spelling and there are always results no matter what search terms are entered. VuFind/GIL-Find GIL-Find is colorful and visually appealing and includes all the bells and whistles ascribed to next-generation catalogues, including the much sought after single search box.