Google’s New Algorithm

Google Headquarters

Google just changed it algorithm for the better just in time for the weekend!  In an announcement on the Google Blog yesterday, Google will now rank recent content higher on its search results than older content.  This move is to move them back into competition with the likes of Twitter, Facebook, and Bing (Bing indexes Twitter & Facebook) which account for the bulk of the most recently posted internet content.

According to today’s NY Times article, “Google makes more than 500 changes to its algorithm a year, but most affect only a small percentage of results.” This change is one of the largest this year and is anticipated to affect about 35% of Google’s search results, according to CNBC.

This move and timing is a brilliant economic decision as we move into the shopping season and the various Black Friday discount shopping lists.  Shoppers want to know the most cutting deals on products and store discounts.  Businesses continue to reach shoppers individually through Twitter and Facebook, and I suspect that Google sees the potential for its business advertisers (its bread and butter) to walk away from Google should its advertisers fail to see the return value they expect from Google Ads.  Money speaks and Google listens!

From a non-economic perspective, people who want the most leading information can still use Google.  Sports fan should rejoice (I am) because they can follow their favorite teams (e.i. Willamette University) and get up to the second scores. The 2012  presidential election race will also begin in a few short weeks too.  Google must cover the most up to date information or face becoming obsolete.

According to the Google Blog, there are three main areas that the changes aim to impact:

1. Recent events or hot topics. For recent events or hot topics that begin trending on the web, you want to find the latest information immediately. Now when you search for current events like [occupy oakland protest], or for the latest news about the [nba lockout], you’ll see more high-quality pages that might only be minutes old.
2. Regularly recurring events. Some events take place on a regularly recurring basis, such as annual conferences like [ICALP] or an event like the [presidential election]. Without specifying with your keywords, it’s implied that you expect to see the most recent event, and not one from 50 years ago. There are also things that recur more frequently, so now when you’re searching for the latest [NFL scores], [dancing with the stars] results or [exxon earnings], you’ll see the latest information.
3. Frequent updates. There are also searches for information that changes often, but isn’t really a hot topic or a recurring event. For example, if you’re researching the [best slr cameras], or you’re in the market for a new car and want [subaru impreza reviews], you probably want the most up to date information.

So as you’re checking out the most recent sporting event or shopping during the upcoming holidays, Google might be able to help you out even better than before!

Notes on the 2011 Oregon Library Association Conference

 

OLA 2011 Logo

I attended the 2011 Oregon Library Association Conference (PDF of program), and came away with the following notes.  It was a wonderful conference!  One nice aspect about the OLA conference is that most of the programs load their PowerPoint presentations and handouts into the Northwest Central web site.  For those who are not familiar with Northwest Central, it is a very nice resource for continuing education networking for library staff in the Pacific Northwest. I attended these programs:

 

They Blinded Me with Science: Turning Qualitative Research into Action
Presenters: Hannah Gascho Rempel, Uta Hussong-Christian and Margaret Mellinger
April 8th, 2011.

http://www.nwcentral.org/files/2011_OLAPresentation.pptx

Basically, this program talked about the Oregon State University Library’s experience of gathering qualitative data through surveying & performing case studies of students and using the info to help support their push to create a physical space within the OSU library specifically for graduate students. It covered different types of information (qualitative versus quantitative), the different types of gathering and evaluating information (using SWOT & TOES analysis, Action Research analysis which is related to the education field, and participatory research analysis).  They focused on the themes of space, services & support for graduate students.  The project was not successful in pushing for the short-term, so they placed this on a medium to long-term list of goals.  The presenters also talked about the importance of communication & networking throughout various stake holders.

All Textbooks on Reserve in the Library!
Presenter: Tony Greiner
April 8th, 2011.
http://www.nwcentral.org/files/OLA%20Textbook%20Presentation.pptx

Abstract from the ACRL-OR web site.  Using grant money, in the fall of 2010, Portland Community College Library tried an experiment at its Cascade Campus Library. It established the goal of the library having at least one copy of every required text for every course taught at the campus that fall. The concept was that putting the texts on reserve might reduce the environmental impact of students buying books, and it would provide immediate access to the texts for students waiting for financial aid. This program will be in two parts- a ‘how we did it’ and a ‘what happened.’ The ‘how we did it’ will give details on how to manage such a project and lessons learned, and ‘what happened’ will present data on changes in circulation, gate count, and anecdotal evidence from the students.

Grantwriting for Youth Services Librarians (and others!)
Presenter: Deborah Hopkinson
April 8th 2011

http://www.nwcentral.org/files/Deborah%20Hopkinson%20Grantwriting%20for%20Youth%20Services%20Librarians%20OLA%202011.ppt

Abstract from Online Northwest.  This presentation provides an overview of the process of grantseeking and proposal writing, and lists some specific resources that may be applicable to youth services librarians. The presenter, also an award-winning children’s author. is vice president of advancement at Pacific Northwest College of Art and former director of foundation relations at Oregon State University Foundation.

Mash-it Up: Cool Tools for Collection Management
Presenter: Robin Paynter
April 7th, 2011.

Abstract from the ACRL-OR web site.  Data mash-ups (data sources pulled together to create new useful information) can be developed on either the local library level or by professional library groups to suit the needs of collection development librarians. Mash-ups are increasingly easy to produce and can be useful in working with faculty, informing collection analyses, and providing additional information during journal cancellation projects. Laurel Kristick (Oregon State University Libraries) will discuss an OSU project using Journal Citation Report and SHERPA RoMEO data to facilitate discussions with faculty to help them make informed decisions on depositing peer-reviewed journal articles in their ScholarsArchive@OSU. Robin Paynter will discuss the ACRL EBSS Psychology Committee Task Force project she lead which developed a new data-rich methodology to create the latest edition of the Committee’s longstanding publication, Core Psychology Journals.

Watzek Rocks: Marketing the College Library
Presenter: Elaine Gass Hirsch & Nikki Williams
April 7th, 2011.

Abstract from the ACRL-OR web site.  Interested in better promotion of the Lewis & Clark College library, the Watzek Library Marketing Team was formed in 2004 to coordinate outreach to our primary clientele of undergraduates and faculty. Building on the team’s successes and with the subsequent creation of a librarian position with focus on library advancement activities, the library’s marketing approach continues to evolve. Additional constituencies, including staff, alumni and donors, are included and there is a developing partnership with the college’s division of institutional advancement. This session will discuss Watzek Library’s marketing successes and learning experiences and showcase our promotional materials.

About the Book Banner

Jumbled Book Banner, 2011

About the new banner.  To put your fears at rest (or not), these books really are in a jumbled pile and are sitting outside in the sun.  In fact, they’re in a very large dumpster with thousands of other journals.  But don’t worry–they are supposed to be there!

During the summer of 2010, my library withdrew 15-20,000 journal volumes.  I can’t remember the exact number off the top of my head, but it was an incredible amount which equates to thousands of linear feet.  It was sad to see them go, but we have digital copies of these journals as part of the JSTOR collection, and were in desperate need of space.  We also have a library policy (paraphrased) that says we’re to avoid duplication as much as possible.

Library staff spent weeks prepping the withdrawn journals, identifying appropriate journals, talking with faculty that would be affected by this withdrawn items, organizing volunteers, pulling journals from shelves & placing them on book carts (we used every available book cart in our building & had them stacked & ready to go for the Big Day).

The Big Day came, and a large dumpster was deposited in the middle of the campus parking lot instead of right in front of our library building. The reason for putting the dumpster in the middle of the parking lot was that it was the easiest spot to leave & pick up the dumpster.  I wasn’t sure if it was to be a little more subtle about the project (lessen the likelihood of people asking why the library’s putting a ton of journals in a dumpster), but the dumpster was so large that it was impossible to miss.

All library staff for the most part were on deck, ready to help. We also had a large crew from our facilities department with two small motorized carts to help.  We filled both of the motorized vehicles to the point of almost blowing tires, then took the journals out to the dumpster to be pitched.

It took all morning during that hot summer day, but we filled the gigantic dumpster. The problem was that we were only half way done!  We had thousands of volumes left to discard.  So we got another gigantic dumpster the following day, and repeated the process with even more people involved.

Overall, the entire process went very smoothly.  We only had one journal series that were accidentally removed.  Those were eventually found half way under the mound of journals in the dumpster and quickly restored to their rightful place on the shelves.  There were also a number of people who were dumpster diving for the old classic.

After many hours of moving books (what a workout!), we began the long process of shifting journals.  This took a week to complete even with shifts of people working together.  I took pictures throughout the entire project–it’s not every day you see thousands of journals in a dumpster!

Feel free to use these images.  I just ask that you don’t sell these photos though and to cite them; you got them from the Library Shop Talk blog.  Thank you and enjoy the photos!

 

Journal Mound 1

Journal Mound 2

Red Book Spine in Day Light

 

 

Books in the Blue Sky

Loaded Book Carts

The Dumpster

Yellow Electric Cart

Journal Stacks Before Removal

The Stacks

After Removal

 

 

E-Books Through HarperCollins

The e-book world was shaken up by recent policy changes from HarperCollins regarding their e-book collections.  In February and March, messages from various library-related email started to fly that a major book publisher, HarperCollins, had placed a limit on the number of times (twenty-six times) an e-book could be viewed before it would be withdrawn from a library’s electronic collection.  After this number is reached, libraries and consumers would then be obligated to purchase the e-book again.

Many individual librarians have threatened to boycott HarperCollins if they do not change this new policy.  The American Library Association’s President, Roberta Stevens, issued an official press release that criticized HarperCollins for the decision, and encouraging the publisher to work with libraries to develop contemporary policies that are in the best interest of publishers, libraries, readers, and authors alike.

It is understandable that publishers want to make money from selling books, and e-books are considerably different than their print counterparts.  They do not take up valuable shelf space, they do not physically wear down as traditional books do, they do not cost as much to produce and distribute (see former post on this topic), more people have mobile devices to access e-books than ever before and are accessing e-books (see former post on this topic).

Part of the issue is the timing of this new policy.  The decision by HarperCollins comes at a time when library resources are scare, and librarians are upset that their money-strapped institutions will be asked to pony up more money for a book that they already purchased, especially without first being consulted. I also recognize that the e-book industry is changing and growing very rapidly, and that publishers want to harness control of this growth before it gets out of hand.

Also, during economic hard times, print books can last much longer than 26 uses if there is the need (and if ever there is a need, it is now).  Then ask why place a limit that exists (artificially) for print books on e-books which have extremely different limits to time and physical space (or access).

From the amount of complaints and national attention (international really) against this new pricing scheme, one should ask if this new policy is really worth pursuing for HarperCollins.  The publisher might make more money in the short-term, but may tarnish their good-standing relationship with libraries and the hard-working tax paying public that support libraries.  Hopefully, this decision does not backfire on the publisher, and that HarperCollins will visit this controversial policy at a more appropriate time.

Below is an email from Mr. Josh Marwell, President of Sales at HarperCollins Publishers.  This was distributed publicly on the Libs-Or email list:

10 East 53rd Street
New York, N.Y  10022-5200
Telephone: 212 207-7000
Fax: 212 207-7909

HarperCollins Publishers

March 1, 2010

HarperCollins is committed to libraries and recognizes that they are a crucial part of our local communities. We count on librarians reading our books and spreading the word about our authors’ good works. Our goal is to continue to sell e-books to libraries, while balancing the challenges and opportunities that the growth of e-books presents to all who are actively engaged in buying, selling, lending, promoting, writing and publishing books.

We are striving to find the best model for all parties. Guiding our decisions is our goal to make sure that all of our sales channels, in both print and digital formats, remain viable, not just today but in the future. Ensuring broad distribution through booksellers and libraries provides the greatest choice for readers and the greatest opportunity for authors’ books to be discovered.

Our prior e-book policy for libraries dates back almost 10 years to a time when the number of e-readers was too small to measure. It is projected that the installed base of e-reading devices domestically will reach nearly 40 million this year. We have serious concerns that our previous e-book policy, selling e-books to libraries in perpetuity, if left unchanged, would undermine the emerging e-book eco-system, hurt the growing e-book channel, place additional pressure on physical bookstores, and in the end lead to a decrease in book sales and royalties paid to authors. We are looking to balance the mission and needs of libraries and their patrons with those of authors and booksellers, so that the library channel can thrive alongside the growing e-book retail channel.

We spent many months examining the issues before making this change. We talked to agents and distributors, had discussions with librarians, and participated in the Library Journal e-book Summit and other conferences. Twenty-six circulations can provide a year of availability for titles with the highest demand, and much longer for other titles and core backlist. If a library decides to repurchase an e-book later in the book’s life, the price will be significantly lower as it will be pegged to a paperback price point. Our hope is to make the cost per circulation for e-books less than that of the corresponding physical book. In fact, the digital list price is generally 20% lower than the print version, and sold to distributors at a discount.

We invite libraries and library distributors to partner with us as we move forward with these new policies. We look forward to ongoing discussions about changes in this space and will continue to look to collaborate on mutually beneficial opportunities.

To continue the discussion, please email library.ebook@HarperCollins.com

Reading Level Feature by Google

Google recently came out with a new feature that sorts results by reading level.  For example, if you were an elementary or middle school child looking up an information for a school report, you would perform an advanced search and select a basic reading level. There are a few options for refining your results to a specific reading level (see screenshot below).

 

Screen shot of Google's "Reading Level" options.

 

 

This is one of the first general internet search engines that offers this function (at least that I’m aware of).  There are many other subscription-based databases that offer similar tiered reading level search/refining capabilities, such as EBSCOHost’s Middle Search Plus which uses a Lexile reading level system to rate literary grade levels of literature.

It would be interesting to find out how Google categorizes pages into reading levels.  Does it use a controlled vocabulary?  If specific words appear a designated number of times or sequence, would be considered advanced?  Or perhaps if there is a lack of advanced terminology, such as scientific names used for classification, would be considered basic or intermediate?

And could this somehow be used as a filter?  For example, perhaps searches for explicit language or sexual content at a basic reading level would not yield results.  While this would be very helpful for parents to help screen objectionable material from their children, it might create a hurdle for adults who are studying a language (perhaps doing a report on a health topic in a second language.  This is not the best example since adults tend to be more sophisticated searchers and this should not be much of a barrier for them, but you get my point.

This is a wonderful resource for those interested only in a specific reading level range, such as scientists who want the technical information, or school aged children who might want to exclude the really technical literature. Below are directions from the Google Support Page that lists how to use this new feature.

Features: Reading level

Sometimes you may want to limit your search results to a specific reading level. For instance, a junior high school teacher looking for content for her students or a second-language learner might want web pages written at a basic reading level. A scientist searching for the latest findings from the experts may want to limit results to those at advanced reading levels.

To limit your search results to a specific reading level, follow these steps:

1. On the search results page, click Advanced Search below the search box.
2. Next to “Reading level” within the “Need more tools” section, select your desired reading level (basic, intermediate, or advanced) or choose to show all results annotated with reading levels.
3. Click Advanced search at the bottom of the page.
4. At any time, you can click the X in the right corner of the blue bar beneath the search box to go back to seeing all results.

Self-Driving Cars by Google

 

Google's secret car project (image source: NY Times)

 

If you live around San Francisco or Los Angeles, you may have seen one of seven unique self-driving Google Prius cars pass by.  While these are not Transformers or futuristic cars from the Minority Report, but they can drive around without humans (although these tests have included a human driver and software engineer as backup).

According to the NY Times, these seven cars have logged an impressive 1,000 miles without human intervention, and over 140,000 miles with very little human assistance.  And the Official Google Blog states that the goal of this project is to “help prevent traffic accidents, free up people’s time and reduce carbon emissions by fundamentally changing car use,” of which “1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents [according to the World Health Organization].”

Some people are already criticizing Google for branching into the auto industry and other industries, such as associates from the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate 1 & 2).  Two of the arguments include how Google should focus its energy & resources into its core business of searching instead of deviating into new areas.  Google is also using the “old-fashioned” research & development models (R&D) of large corporations to innovate instead or relying on contemporary research and investment methods such as the “Silicon Valley” which uses private investors for funding new projects.

Supposedly, the Silicon Valley model is more efficient, but I don’t follow this logic.  There are many ways to innovate, and in terms of incentive for further creation & development of a product, why limit yourself to one model if others work comparatively well too? Also, this venture is in its early infancy, so time will tell whether Google does spin-off a new company separate from its parent Google corporation.

As for Google branching into new industries, I think the more competition the better.  It’s possible that if Google strays too far from its core business, what it has historically done really well in, that the company could suffer financial setbacks or stagnate their innovative success. However, it is a noble goal for Google to help save lives with this new technology, and it is very welcome (although a little scary to trust technology with your life–traveling at high speeds with risk of computer malfunctions).

However, I think that Google is looking at traffic patterns & accidents from an information perspective.  Of the tens of thousands of fatal car crashes are reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration each year, many due to human error and could be avoided. Technology already exists in some car models, such as backup cameras in the Toyota Prius, that should be included in all new cars as standard features.  With “robotic” cars, much of the human error can be removed from the equation.

 

DARPA Grand Challenge (image source: Wikipedia)

 

Keep in mind that driverless cars have already been created by various organizations over the years.  Some have competed in the Department of Defense’s DARPA Grand Challenge. The army could employ this technology to deliver food, supplies, or perhaps a bomb through dangerous destination without having to put human life in jeopardy, or pulling out troops under fire without risking the life of a driver who traditionally needs to be exposed to navigate streets or terrain.

 

The Jetson's (image source: Wikipedia)

 

My mind keeps bringing up images of the automatic cars in the Minority Report, or the self-driving flying machines in the Jetsons.  I’ve seen many nick name references to these cars, such as Goomobiles. I’d like to through my own terms in the mix and call the cars either “Goobers” or “Gobsters” just to spice things up and be silly.

Google’s Digital Literacy Tutorial

I recently stumbled upon an information literacy tool put together by Google for educators called the Digital Literacy Tour.  It appears to have been around since at least September 15, 2009.  I’m not sure how I ran across this resource, but the parallels with educating users about the digital environment caught my attention and deserve discussion.

Image source: google.com/educators/digitalliteracy.html

This is an excellent resource for educators who want to discuss aspects of safety, ownership (copyright in disguise), courtesy, honest, and how to avoid some of the threats or dangers of the Internet.  It is also tied into the larger Google for Educators site, which has resources classrooms, classroom activities and posters, an educator’s discussion group (email list), and information about a Google certification program for the professional development of teachers.

The three “Workshops” provided on the Digital Literacy Tour includes the topics of detecting lies and staying true, playing and staying safe online, and steering clear of cyber tricks.  Each consist of four or five resources (videos, guidebooks, handouts, and a presentation to accompany a lesson).  The workshops are geared toward K-12 primary & secondary education students and educators of those age groups.  Parents should also take a look at the Digital Literacy Tour so that they are aware of the issues (plus they may even learn a thing or two)!

While the videos are short in length (roughly under 2 minutes long–see example), they do a good job of educating students on the basics of being a responsible Internet citizen in entertaining ways.

The instructor guidebooks are under 30 pages, and packed with useful info.  Below is a sample table of contents from the Playing It Safe Online guidebook.  There are a few lesson plans with subsections of topics for educators to cover, and all of the lessons are short and to the point which make them ideal for working these topics into the curriculum on the side OR devoting an entire class(es) to the topic at hand.

Image source: google.com/educators/digitalliteracy.html

Sample Overview of the Playing It Safe Online Guidebook
Teaching Tips 1
Lesson Plan 1: Personal is Personal 2
Lesson Plan 2: Be Respectful to Yourself and Others 5
Lesson Plan 3: Be Street Smart 8
Instructor Toolkit:
Lesson 1: I Know/I Want to Know 13
Lesson 1: Video Summary Staying Safe Online, Part 1 14
Lesson 1: Guidelines for Creating Strong Passwords 15
Lesson 1: Password Activity: Answer Sheet 16
Lesson 1: Reputation Management: Profile 1 – Answer Sheet 17
Lesson 1: Reputation Management: Profile 2 – Answer Sheet 18
Lesson 1: Reputation Management: Profile 3 – Answer Sheet 19
Lesson 2: Video Summary Staying Safe Online, Part 2 20
Lesson 2: Online Citzenship Rules 21
Lesson 2: Actions to Take with Online Bullies 23
Lesson 3: Video Summary Staying Safe Online, Part 3 24
Lesson 3: Street Smart Activity: Answer Sheet 25

Image source: Google's "I Keep Safe document"

The student handouts (see example) include activities that help students identify key characteristics of digital information and the Internet, such as a checklist comparing three different web sites and common domain name extension (e.g. .edu, .com, .org, .gov).

And to round out the resource, there is a PowerPoint document for each of the workshop topics that educators can use for classroom presentations (see example).  The outline of each parallels the videos that students watch.  This allows the educator to go at their own speed to cover the topic at hand.

Overall, this will be a very useful resource for educators (and parents) to educate their students on “digital literacy.”

Google Instant Has Arrived

Google Instant has arrived on the scene this week.  This new Google search philosophy brings the list of results to searchers while they are typing, and the results are constantly changing as the users modify their search criteria (screen shot below).

Screen shot of Google Instant in action.

Basically, you won’t have to wait for your results to show up, at least with a Google search.  This brings a challenge to Google’s closest competitors, Yahoo! and Bing (by Microsoft).  These search engines will probably try to match Google’s change since Google has been the major innovator of late (perhaps it is from the 80/20% work/personal project time philosophy which has spawned Google’s innovative streaks).

This change has also stirred up negative feedback in the advertisement world where business have built their advertisement schemes around a more static model of advertisement placement.  Honestly, this change should not affect advertisers much.  In fact, advertisers should be ecstatic because more people will see advertisements as they modify their search parameters.  Because the results page is dynamic, the results and ads change constantly with each character change.  And Google has not changed the way it ranks and displays ads.

Also, there is potential for users to become even more savoy searchers as they see their results change with their choice of words. They may explore alternative search strategies that pop up that they might not have considered before, which may lead them to becoming more accurate and efficient searchers (assuming that they learn from the suggested phrases & words).

Google has posted a video on YouTube introducing Google Instant (below).

What do you think about Google Instant? I’d love to hear your opinion!

Cell Phones Use Among Adults (Pew Study)

Cell phones in the lives of American adults

By Amanda Lenhart

September 2, 2010

Texting by adults has increased over the past nine months from 65% of adults sending and receiving texts in September 2009 to 72% texting in May 2010. Still, adults do not send nearly the same number of texts per day as teens ages 12-17, who send and receive, on average, five times more texts per day than  adult texters.

The original purpose of the cell phone is still the most universal – nearly every cell phone user makes calls on their phone at least occasionally, and the average adult cell phone owner makes and receives around 5 voice calls a day…

Read more at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Cell-Phones-and-American-Adults.aspx

NetFlix Categories Replaces Dewey Decimal

(Image source: Cronknews) Librarians embrace the classification change at the College of Eastern Nevada.

I ran across this interesting farce from the Cronk of Higher Education (take off of the Chronicles of Higher Education) through a recent ALA email release.  It describes how an academic library drops its subject headings for the NetFlix method of organizing content.  Originally, I thought this was real, which it isn’t.

Just for fun, I wondered what would happen if this were real?  One can understand switching a movie collection to match those of the NetFlix, but to incorporate the book collection (plus all other materials) into this classification system would really be something!

There has been a consistent push for libraries to satisfy students and improve how library patrons access literature and all forms of information.  Several libraries of late have moved to alternative classification systems to make browsing their collections more intuitive.  Some have even moved to systems similar to some well-known large book chains.

However, let’s take a look at a few assumptions should a library ever make a big jump to use commercial movie organization system.  They would have to change their entire collection of literature and all other types of info to fit into broad entertainment categories.  They would loose their refined subject categories, sub-categories, sub-subcategories, etc.  Would the library find other institutions who would partner with them in their venture, and how would the ties to other libraries be affected in a system that is not widely adopted.  What would happen should the business fold (the chances of which would be significantly higher during these economic hard times)?

According to the Cronk of Higher Ed article, the institution in question, the College of Eastern Nevada, experience a lot of support for this move.  I just wonder what would happen to library users who would not be familiar with NetFlix.  Let’s say that the families of students, their financial support, had a NetFlix subscription. The family decides to cancel their NetFlix subscription to save money for rising tuition costs, car insurance for their students, or perhaps to offset a loss of a family job.  Or even more likely, they never had a NetFlix subscription in the first place.  Entering the library would truly be a completely different world, more so than it is already to some people.

Below is a screen shot from the Cronk of Higher Education post comparing the standard Dewey classification system with NetFlix.

Assuming the left column is equivalent to the right, one would have some very surprising browsing results.  The entertainment content and selection is considerably different from the educational content of an academic library.  Lets say, for example, a student was looking for literature on the social justice movement of African-Americans in the 1960s & 70s.  Might she naturally look under the Documentary section (listed above).  Also, some of the categories would seem counter intuitive, such as the Sci-Fi and Fantasy collections.  I have to laugh at the thought of trying to find a book on cell biology in a science fiction section.  At any rate, enjoy the Cronk of Higher Ed reading.

Click here to read related classification and metadata topics…