This session was a panel consisting of four presenters, each addressing a different aspect.

Ross MacLachlan of the Phoenix Public Library
Endeca: Developments in the OPAC World

The Phoenix Public Library uses Endeca because:
it is a search engine
it harvests data
it enables guided navigation
it is commerce driven
it is API-based

They wanted their site to be:
customer-centric not librarian-oriented
easy to use with not a lot of halls to go down

They have been able to:
Integrate Endeca data with bibliographic data
Integrate Endeca data with library data
Integrate Endeca navigation API

They opted to adopt BISAC (Book Industry Standards And Communications) and abandon Library of Congress subject headings because it:
Facilitates browsing
Is hierarchical (LC is not entirely hierarchical with its comma and dash conventions)
Take advantage of order records that come with BISAC headings
Is configurable in Endeca

Within the first 3 months, circulation increased 15%, web traffic increased by 27%. In a post-implementation study, the site received a 92% approval rating.

——

Grace Lillevig, Harris County Public Library, Houston, Texas
PAC 2.0 Patron Reviews

Patron reviews are available on almost all other sites (retail, social, etc.). Lillevig presented four options for adding patron reviews to a library website.

1. Blog
Often used for staff-generated reviews only because an account is required
Easy to set up
example: Madison Public Library. Patron role: comments only.
example: Seattle Public Library Shelf Talk. Patron role: comments only.

2. Wiki
Includes content from users
Easy to set up
Open, closed, or moderated
example: Palo Alto City Library. Patron submissions are moderated before being posted.
example: East Bonner County Library. Patron submissions are posted directly.

3. Custom database
Time, money, and expertise required
Customizable
example: Denver Public Library. Patron submissions are moderated before being posted.
example: Harris County Public Library. Patron submissions are moderated before being posted. Uses PERL. Book reviews, movie reviews, and Spanish reviews are all kept separate on the site.

4. Commercial options
May integrate directly into catalog
Some include content from other sources/libraries
Sometimes less control and/or moderation
example: Chilifresh.com. Has some (but not a lot) of content so far (still building).
example: Aquabrowser My Discoveries
example: Evanced Solutions Summer Reader. This product is completely separate (does not integrate with PAC) and is staff moderated.

Things to consider:
Moderation
Staff time
Cost
Customization
Usability

——

Kitty Little, Queens Library
Language and Access

Globalization means that you must know who your customers are.

Queens is the most ethnically diverse county in the US, which has a big impact on everything they do. The Queens Library PAC has multiple skins for the site in multiple languages, created by staff fluent in those languages. The Ann Arbor District Library PAC is available in multiple languages but use machine translation instead. They have a suggestion tool for fixing translations but have received none in the six months the languages have been available.

The Queens library uses MARC 880 fields (support vernacular). They also use BISAC and are happy with it. Spanish language subject headings are native in their catalog.

——

Amy Cantu, Ann Arbor District Library
Blogging the PAC: Staff Training and Buy In (PDF)

(department heads, etc.). The AADL site went live in 2005 and is one big blog, pulled from a variety of specifically focused blogs (director’s blog, library news, etc.). All staff are invited to blog, and some are required to. Staff may blog using their staff account (real name) or separate blogging account (name of choice, many use a cute pseudonym).

Make it relevant:
Media mentions
Local events
Hot and new
Staff interests

Make it Fun:
By-lines and beats
Informal style -ok to have a personality, ok to be controversial
Tagging
Comments

Make it simple:
Easy input – Drupal (very robust open source software)
Few rules
No worries

Most comments are made on the director’s blog and the teen gaming blog. They’ve received ~20,000 comments in 3 years. They haven’t had problems with spam or inappropriate comments. Staff were very concerned about cursing/etc. in comments but it’s not been a problem at all.

——

Answers to attendee questions:

TLC is the reseller of Endeca for libraries (much more affordable than retail price). Being a development partner can also decrease the initial cost.

At HCPL, a staff member reviews every single review submitted. Summer reading reviews are so numerous it’s a full-time job to moderate, which is a considerable cost in staff time.

The Phoenix Public Library has integrated reviews and ratings from Amazon (free) and Rotten Tomatoes (fee) into the catalog but you have to click through to those sites to add your own (so not completely integrated).

——
I found this session interesting and informative, but it was not necessarily the information I was expecting. I’d like to learn more about how libraries are making their PACs more 2.0-y in the sense of hacking/altering their ILS to integrate tags, user content from social media sites, allowing patrons to integrate their library accounts with their accounts/content from social media sites, etc. Much of this information relates more to the library website than the PAC specifically. Still, I learned a lot and thought this was a very valuable session.