Serials Solutions Offers Central Search
I just received an email from Serials Solutions about their new product called Central Search. According to Serials Solutions, Central Search is a "powerful federated search engine, allows patrons to search disparate digital resources from a single, easy to use interface. Combining industry leading search technology with robust results handling, Central Search dramatically reduces the time required to search multiple resources, while introducing your patrons to the richness of your collection."
I am disappointed but not surprised. Soo many questions and concerns regarding this product. How does this handle databases that have very specific controlled vocabulary such as Medline? The best was to use a database like Medline is to know the MeSH headings, use them appropriately. In my opinion this can not be done effectively with a product like Central Search. To me it seems like Central Search is a glorified Google Scholar that access just your databases and journal subscriptions. Do we know anything about Central Search's ranking or relevancy for search results? How does it handles synonyms or different spellings? My guess is that it is a natural language search engine. A Natural language search engine used to search controlled vocabulary database is just a disaster. People are lulled into thinking they have searched everything (and searched it well) thoroughly when they search something like Central Search or Google Scholar.
Like I said I am not surprised that Serials Solutions has created a product like this. Unfortunately the masses demand this kind of product. Look at all of the students and researchers who think Google Scholar is wonderful and solves their information needs. We as librarians have failed in alerting our users to the pitfalls of such searching.
The only place I think Central Search might work well in is a public library. The reason is that most public libraries do not have scientific controlled vocabulary databases. Their databases tend to be more natural language and work well with the various demands of the public library user. However, I just don't see how Central Search can search multiple databases effectively when you have a diverse selection of databases and you have both natural language and controlled vocabulary databases. Hey, if Serials Solutions can prove me wrong, I will blog about it.
1 Comments:
Greetings - I just saw your post about Central Search. I realize it's a bit late, but I thought I'd like to respond, if I may. I'm one of the co-founders of Serials Solutions, so I admit to some bias here, but I think there are still some valid points that might be worth exploring.
Central Search is definitely not for everyone, but I'd say I think it's for most people. I agree that it'll be great in public libraries, but also very useful in academic libraries, especially undergraduate libraries. For the advanced, experienced searcher, it'll be a good tool for quickly and easily checking beyond the usual range of resources. I do agree that for someone who is focusing on using, say, Medline, or another complex database, they'll likely want to start and end there.
I can imagine a few cases where I wouldn't want to use Central Search, primarily when the terms I want to use are not supported by Central Search. For instance, if I want to search by the time period covered in an article, as I can in America: History & Life or Historical Abstracts, then I'd want to go directly to the database and search there. Similarly, if I want to search using unique fields, thesauri, or other specialized tools that appear in just a single or a few databases, then I'd want to use the database's structure. No federated search tool is going to be able to take complete advantage of those resources.
That said, if I want to do a quick check of other fields, without searching each database, Central Search could be incredibly powerful. Say, for example, that I'm doing research on a topic that is covered by medical and social work databases. I know how to use Medline effectively, and I do my searches there. Just to be sure I didn't miss anything that might not have been indexed by Medline, I use Central Search to search my collection of social work databases -- or, I just search the entire universe of databases that I can access. Sure, the quality of the results will be diminished, and I'll get all sorts of irrelevant stuff. But who's to decide what's relevant and what's not, other than the person evaluating the results? Perhaps I'll find useful information, even from a general subject database, which I wouldn't have found in Medline. There are dozens of reasons why this might be the case. If I find just a handful of relevant or semi-relevant articles, then the search was worth its time -- there's no way I could have searched all 25, 50, or 100, of my other databases as quickly as I could through Central Search.
Or, perhaps I'm starting to tackle a subject about which I know very little. A quick search of general subject databases will give me an overview of issues related to the topic, so I could have a better idea about what terms to use when I'm using Medline's controlled thesaurus. I can also find out which databases are returning the most and best results, so I have a better idea about where to start my focused and more extensive searching.
Or maybe I'm doing research in a medical library for a lay person, and I know that even if I find relevant articles in Medline, they won't be able to read and comprehend what's published in the medical journals. They may need less technical articles, so that they can better understand the issues. Perhaps they would do best to start there, and once they have that background they can move to the resources cited in Medline.
And, it's always worth pointing out that while many librarians are experts at using MeSH headings and developing intelligent, accurate search queries, many of our patrons are not. Of course, this includes not just undergraduates, grad students, and the general public, but also our highly educated professionals. As the saying goes, "Librarians like to search, patrons like to find." If Central Search gets people using the library's resources, and gives them a peek at all that the library has to offer, then it effectively promotes the library and its resources in comparison with Google Scholar, or even just plain Google.
No tool is perfect for every need. There are certainly situations in which Central Search won't be the best tool for getting the best possible results in the least amount of time. But in many, many other situations, and not just in academic or public libraries, I think librarians and patrons will find incredible results from using Central Search.
I welcome any comments or responses --
Peter McCracken, MLS
Co-founder, Serials Solutions
www.serialssolutions.com
peter [at] serialssolutions.com
Post a Comment
<< Home