After working with Yahoo Mindset there seems to be the seed of a good idea here. As the slider pictured above shows Mindset allows users to determine where they are on the Shopping to Research continuum and help to narrow down the search results to help the user get appropriate results. The concept is definitely interesting. As with any new idea it is also in need of refinement. First I'm not sure the scale of research vs. shopping works well for many searches. Of three searches I tried on a variety of topics from computers to homes and refrigerators, the results were disappointing with the best results still coming from Yahoo.

The concept and the interface deserve following, however. With a great AJAX interface the slider works seamlessly and could be a boon to libraries desirous of having the ability to search and then allowing patrons to narrow or broaden the search to see fewer or more results. Possibly an advanced search users will really spend time with. Prior to implementation thought has to be given to how such technology will work with screen readers and other adaptive technologies.

Google announced the Google Custom Search Engine on Monday. The tool allows Google users to create and publish search engines to search specific pages or sites. A bookmarklet enables one to quickly add a web page or site to the custom search engine they have created. Creating a search engine involves visiting the Google site and setting a few parameters.

Getting started is the easy part. The opportunity to make full use of the Custom Search Engine tool will take considerably longer. The documents are pretty complete and show how to use several impressive features including context and annotations. Search engine creators can also create custom pages that are included in the creator's website. A simple custom search engine for the community of law library and technology related sites is here.

Over the coming months, a major topic of discussion here at LibraryLaws.org will be the challenges faced by law libraries in creating usable online catalogs (the artists hopefully eventually formerly known as OPACs). The catalog problem is an extremely popular subject of debate throughout the Library 2.0 blogosphere. To see just one example of the excellent questions being raised, take a look at Karen Schneider's ongoing series over at ALA TechSource, "How OPACS Suck" (Part 1 and Part 2).

In recent months, many new tools have been developed that raise the bar for online catalogs and force ILS vendors to reconsider their current offerings. The most impressive is the new Endeca powered catalog at North Carolina State University. By completely bypassing their ILS feature package and using tools developed in the world of e-commerce, NC State and Endeca have created a catalog the actually returns usable search results and provides patrons with easy to use features that make searching the catalog a surprisingly brainless endeavor.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of law libraries will be unable to follow NC State's lead. Most academic law libraries are either members of a much larger consortium of university libraries or simply "piggyback" onto whatever ILS that consortium uses (even if the law library isn't technically a member of the consortium). This leaves the law library with little or no control over which ILS it uses or what specific features of that ILS are activated. As for public, court, and firm libraries, the funds simply don't exist to invest in a high end integrated library system. With few exceptions, the cheaper solutions adopted by these institutions translate into fewer available features for their online catalog (if they even have one). This also holds true for many independent law school libraries that are not affiliated with a larger university.

Truth is, most law libraries simply have to make do with what they're given. This leaves little opportunity for improvements to the library's online catalog. That is why direct access to the underlying data is so important. Innovative Interfaces, for example, provides libraries with the option of using an Oracle database to store all of the data used by the ILS. But it costs extra. And unless you work for an academic law library whose university library system has opted to purchase the Oracle (or equivalent) feature, the odds of getting direct access to your library's data are steep, to say the least.

But in those instances where direct access is possible, the sky is the limit, provided you have systems personnel capable of building tools to make use of the data. Your library is no longer limited to the features available on the ILS or to the limited number of features actually activated by your university library system. With direct data access, you can build any search interface you want. ANY search interface.

Of course, then you have to have to "roll your own" relevance ranking algorithm that will bring back meaningful search results. Then again, it can't be that hard to improve on the algorithm built in to a typical ILS...