The History of Cataloging:

Comparing the Transition from Card Catalogs to OPACs with

the Transition from OPACs to Whatever's Next
by Jeffrey Beall

Looking back from the perspective of today's library technology

environment, the most surprising thing about the shift from card catalogs to
online catalogs is that the migration occurred without controversy. A better
technology appeared, and libraries replaced the old technology with the
new, better one. There was no Working Group on the Future of Card
Catalogs, there was no fool ranting "Card catalogs must die," and there
was no whiny and arrogant article published with the boorish title "How card
catalogs suck, part 1."

The transition happened quickly and efficiently. Today, however, there is a

strident group of so-called experts calling on libraries to abandon
technology and standards when there is no adequate replacement for
them. The squabbles of these malcontents are personal, and instead of
arguing in favor of something new, they limit themselves to bashing the old.
Believe me, if a suitable replacement came along for OPACs, libraries
would rush to it, just like they did when a replacement for card catalogs
arrived.

This cadre of "experts" has used many different tactics to get libraries to
abandon their current discovery systems and standards. In fact, they've
used just about every tactic imaginable, except the one that would be most
successful, a better replacement.

They’ve tried personal attacks (Hillmann), insults (Bisson), ridicule

(Tennant), anger (Schneider), wishful declarations (Eden), marketing hype
(Burke), and boring self-promotion (West). Many of the calls to abandon
our current technologies and standards come from businesses that would
benefit from essentially selling the same technology to libraries under a
different name and with a new spin. These products include AquaBrowser,
WorldCatLocal, and Encore, products that in some ways are actually worse
than the earlier technology. Should libraries buy new products and adopt
new standards just to improve the profitability of SerialsSolutions and
Metadata Management Associates? We're smarter than that. We will
change when something better comes along. We won't change just
because cynical librarians use personal attacks, insults, ridicule, anger,
quixotic dreaming, and predatory marketing.

Some may argue that something better has come along, namely web
search engines, such as Google. Many library users have indeed switched
to Google. But libraries, on the other hand, haven't, and they are not about
to abandon their online catalogs in favor of internet search engines. Most
library print and other analog holdings are not accessible through Google,
and free search engines in general have major weaknesses when used as
library discovery tools. These weaknesses include no synonym control, no
separation of homonyms, no access to other languages unless you search
in that language, large results sets, and insufficient access to proprietary
online material, and so on.

Libraries, catalogers, and library patrons are not resistant to change. They
want better technologies and standards. Romantic visions of the future and
strident condemnation of the MARC format are not a deliverable. In order to
convince us to relinquish something, you have to deliver something better.

2010-05-05