I don't have anything of value to add to this other than while, of course, I love the idea of reader recommendations and Awesome Box integration in any form, I also think there would HAVE to be some type of anonymizing (sp?) of patron data. I don't think this is impossible BUT, as Rogan has said, there is a definite danger of project creep. My suggestion, fwiw, is to find some first/second step for Awesome Box integration and focus more on building a foundation (that may or may not have truly visible/useful features for end users) on which others (or other projects) could expand.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.ha...@yclibrary.net> wrote: > I'm concerned with project creep as well as I noted in one of early > missives. If this is stored independent of patron data (which actually I > think it should) then I think we should also track circs since the feature > was turned on so it could say "3 out of 4" people found it awesome. > > Stepping back a bit to recommendations and anonymizing records, we don't > anonymize historical circs. We don't expose that data and take staff level > access to it pretty seriously. Due to varying state and county regulations > dictating minimum record retentions we're still at least 2 years out from > being to safely wipe our oldest records. Maybe more. > > And anonymizing it closes certain opportunities. Some are mundane like > addressing old conflicts and billing questions but those can be big in > their own right. As the circ manager who talks to the upset patron I may > have a different point of view on that. :) > > Analyzing circulation patterns is far more interesting though and I am > long term interested in recommendations. In the age of Anazin, Netflix and > everyone else this is not just valuable but expected. It's perhaps the > patron request I hear most. > > Coupled with some holds features it would be a great great boon for home > bound services which I feel are a critical function of libraries, at least > in my state where it's a strong traditional service. I assume elsewhere as > well though I know mileage varies. > > And it was the building block of several functions that GA PINES > identified as critical for TBS support during the Loblolly conference. We > may never fully support TBS programs in Evergreen but I thought GA PINES > collected a lot of great ideas and input there and would hate to discard > that. > > On Thursday, September 25, 2014, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Great discussion so far! >> >> We had a bit of a discussion about privacy concerns in IRC after Terran >> sent her original message. One approach we were discussing was storing the >> awesome tags in an anonymous fashion, except in cases where patrons have >> opted into saving their circ history. In those cases, the user has already >> consented to having this information saved and could have a more enhanced >> experience with the recommendation engine. Others who were part of the >> discussion could elaborate or correct me if I'm not articulating the ideas >> correctly. The discussion can be found at >> http://irc.evergreen-ils.org/evergreen/2014-09-25#i_126632. >> >> In relation to genres, Vanya said: >> >> Maybe, as a solution to that, we can have a hierarchical algorithm for >> categorizing. In other words, we can allow the administrator to decide >> whether the categorization comes all the way down to genres, or just takes >> into account the overall weight of the user's awesome tag. >> >> >> I like the idea of making this configurable, because there may be systems >> where data identifying genre is a little more clear cut. Better yet, how >> about if we allow an Evergreen site to define the categories that are used. >> Some sites may use the MARC fixed fields for fiction/non-fiction. Other >> sites may decided that values stored in the 655 MARC field work for them. >> >> Is there something already exists in Evergreen that we could leverage for >> this purpose? My first thought was MVF. >> >> I do have one general recommendation speaking with my OPW admin hat on. >> It really is a general recommendation for any of the OPW candidates who >> might be following along. I mentioned in IRC today that I'm not a >> developer, but I've managed a lot of development projects, and one thing I >> try to watch out for is project creep. As we continue to talk about the >> project and think of new configuration options to make it a more flexible >> project, it can also become a very large project that isn't as easy to >> manage. >> >> Therefore, as you think through how you plan to implement the project, I >> recommend breaking it up into distinct milestones. You might want to start >> with smaller tasks as you ease into the project (e.g. collecting the >> awesome tags and sending them along to the Awesome Box site), and then move >> on to the larger components once you become more familiar with the system. >> >> Kathy >> >> >> Kathy Lussier >> Project Coordinator >> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128kluss...@masslnc.org >> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier >> #evergreen IRC: kmlussier >> >> On 9/25/2014 6:40 PM, Tim Spindler wrote: >> >> Overall, I really like the ideas talked about but I agree with Terran >> that something would have to be done with circ data related to patrons. We >> use the purge function to anonymize our patron data but I could see other >> ways of dealing with this. We also have retention policies related to >> retaining patron circulation data. >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.ha...@yclibrary.net> >> wrote: >> >>> I suppose I don't understand the concern on your part as at that level >>> if someone could access the raw db they could just query someone's >>> circulation history, fine payments, etc... since those are recorded as >>> transactions unless you're doing something to anonymize or wipe those as >>> soon as they're done. Even then someone could see all current transactions >>> at that level. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, McCanna, Terran < >>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This relies on the circulation and rating data still being tied to the >>>> patron in the system, though - yes, it'd be on the database side and not on >>>> public view, but it's still creating a picture of a patron's reading >>>> history that has privacy implications. Of course, this feature should be >>>> set for systems to enable or disable, so that systems that are concerned >>>> about privacy simply won't turn it on. (PINES, for example, limits the >>>> retention of circulation history in the system as much as we can because of >>>> our privacy policies, so any feature that is linked to a patron's history >>>> would be unusable for us.) >>>> >>>> If ranking data were stored completely independently of the patron, >>>> then library systems would be able to use it without privacy concerns, and >>>> patrons wouldn't even need to be logged in to use it - but then it >>>> wouldn't be able to give completely customized recommendations to a >>>> specific patron, either. It's a definite tradeoff. >>>> >>>> >>>> Terran McCanna >>>> PINES Program Manager >>>> Georgia Public Library Service >>>> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >>>> Atlanta, GA 30345 >>>> 404-235-7138 >>>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Vanya Jauhal" <vanyajau...@gmail.com> >>>> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" < >>>> open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:41:02 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Rogan >>>> >>>> This is exactly what I had in mind. All the recommendation processing >>>> will take place in background, and all the user will see is a >>>> recommendation and not the information of any other patron. This way his >>>> experience with Awesome Box will get enhanced. >>>> >>>> >>>> And yes, we can maybe, start off with some broad level genres, like, as >>>> you mentioned, fiction, non-fiction, documentaries, etc. Then, depending >>>> upon the infrastructure of the system and the response of that >>>> categorization, we can build upon the algorithm accordingly. >>>> >>>> >>>> You are right- it would be a big task in itself, but since the number >>>> of parameters involved are few and explicit, it gets simplified to an >>>> extent. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Rogan Hamby < >>>> rogan.ha...@yclibrary.net > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see an issue with doing analysis of circulation patterns on the >>>> backend so long as nothing identifying is exposed. >>>> >>>> >>>> For example, if all I saw as a patron was a tab in my opac that said >>>> "you thought The Yiddish Policeman's Union was Awesome! Some others do did >>>> also thought this was Awesome .... " I don't see that as different from >>>> doing the same thing with circulations. It's not telling patrons even what >>>> the points of comparison were unless they only had a single item in their >>>> circulation history and even then it doesn't tell them how many other >>>> patrons, how much, etc.... >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm dubious about subject headings also but wouldn't want to dismiss it >>>> out of hand. It might work. Without doing some experimenting I could see it >>>> going either way. Some fixed fields I could see working, like fiction and >>>> non-fiction. Age groups? Well, at least I can tell you I can't rely on >>>> those in my catalog. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> However, I also worry that reading recommendations based on circulation >>>> history could easily grow into a much more complicated task, especially >>>> depending on how we deliver those recommendations. Looking at a single >>>> boolean value tied to the user and item (circ table?) could still be quite >>>> a project by itself especially once all the useful bits and pieces are >>>> built in. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM, McCanna, Terran < >>>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed - it's a great idea in theory, but I'm not sure how well it >>>> would work in actual practice. Even in a single library, genre subject >>>> headings are usually pretty inconsistent in the MARC records because of >>>> copy cataloging, and that usually gets even more inconsistent in a >>>> consortium of libraries. Perhaps it could be partially weighted on genre >>>> subject headings, but not overly reliant on them? It might be worth >>>> considering the fixed field values for fiction vs. non-fiction and for age >>>> groups, too. >>>> >>>> I love the idea of providing recommendations based on other people that >>>> have similar taste ("other people that liked this book also liked these >>>> books...") but if the data is tied to actual patrons (and I'm not sure how >>>> it couldn't be) then quite a few library systems would face legal privacy >>>> issues and wouldn't be able to use it. We're currently using a commercial >>>> service to pull in reading recommendations because the recommendations >>>> can't be tied back to any of our patrons. >>>> >>>> >>>> Terran McCanna >>>> PINES Program Manager >>>> Georgia Public Library Service >>>> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >>>> Atlanta, GA 30345 >>>> 404-235-7138 >>>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Rogan Hamby" < rogan.ha...@yclibrary.net > >>>> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" < >>>> open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org > >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:02:58 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration >>>> >>>> >>>> I can see some challenges to tracking genre and I'd be hesitant to put >>>> too much value on it. There are ways to catalog it but in my experience >>>> actually relying on it being in records (much less being consistent) is >>>> very unreliable in organizations that do a lot of copy cataloging / don't >>>> have centralized and controlled cataloging and there quite a few in that >>>> boat. >>>> >>>> >>>> That concern aside, I've always thought this would be a fun and >>>> potentially valuable thing to add. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Vanya Jauhal < vanyajau...@gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello everyone >>>> >>>> I'm Vanya, from India. I'm a candidate for OPW Round9 internship with >>>> evergreen. >>>> >>>> While discussing the idea of Awesome Box integration with Evergreen, >>>> Kathy and I discussed the possibility of making the Evergreen support for >>>> Awesome Box more interpretive using Artificial Intelligence. >>>> >>>> What if we could train the system to give weightage to people's >>>> "awesome" tags on items, depending upon how much their previous tags are >>>> appreciated by other people. >>>> >>>> For example: Let's say you tag a book to be awesome. Now, if 100 other >>>> people check that book in, and (lets say) 80 of them also tag it to be >>>> awesome- it will mean that your opinion matches a majority of people. On >>>> the other hand, if 100 other people check that book in and (say) only 5 of >>>> them tag it as awesome, this would mean that your awesome tag is not in >>>> coherence with the majority. >>>> So, in the former case, your awesome tag can be given more weightage as >>>> compared to the latter. >>>> >>>> Also, the weightage may vary according to genres. So- you may have a >>>> good taste in mystery books but your taste in classical literature might >>>> not be the same as the majority crowd. So- the weightage of your awesome >>>> tag in mystery would be higher than classical literature. >>>> >>>> We can even extend it to provide recommendations to users depending on >>>> their coherence with other users with similar taste. >>>> >>>> I am looking forward to your suggestions and feedback on this. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your time >>>> >>>> Vanya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA >>>> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, >>>> York County Library System >>>> >>>> >>>> “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to >>>> suit me.” >>>> ― C.S. Lewis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA >>>> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, >>>> York County Library System >>>> >>>> >>>> “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to >>>> suit me.” >>>> ― C.S. Lewis >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA >>> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, >>> York County Library System >>> >>> “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to >>> suit me.” >>> ― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Tim Spindler >> tjspind...@gmail.com >> >> *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless >> it's really necessary.* >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > > Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA > Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, > York County Library System > > “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit > me.” > ― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis> > > -- Ruth Frasur Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township Library 10 W. College Street in Hagerstown, Indiana (47346) p (765) 489-5632; f (765) 489-5808 Our Kickin' Website <http://hagerstownlibrary.org> Our Rockin' Facebook Page <http://facebook.com/hjtplibrary> and Stuff I'm Reading <http://pinterest.com/hjtplibrary/ruth-reads/>