JUST AS THE JOB of organizing information on the Internet-seemingly a job for librarians--has been appropriated by dotcoms like Yahoo, the commercial sector has challenged another core library function: reference.
It's not just do-it-yourself searching. Now several sites offer experts-some credentialed, some not--to answer questions. AskJeeves, which is basically a tweaked and targeted search engine, gets three million questions a day. Those unsatisfied with Jeeves's answers can use Jeeves's free AnswerPoint, in which members of the user community ask or answer posted questions by e-mail. Alternatively, they can click to Exp.com, a pay service that advertises on Jeeves, and peruse the prices and credentials of various experts.
A host of other sites--based on user fees and/or advertising support--have sprung up, with names like AskMe.com and AskAnything.com, which has recruited librarians. One new site, Webhelp.com, even provides free, albeit balky live help (see p. 50) to the confused surfer.
To librarians, this represents a threat--and an opportunity. The volume of reference questions is generally down, though use of library e-resources is rising. Yet people spend a substantial amount of time seeking answers on the net. Libraries can't compete directly with the commercial sector, nor is it their mission to do so, but they must remind the public that they offer free, effective service.
It's time, says Diane Kresh of the Library of Congress (LC), "to reestablish libraries as the epicenter of knowledge in their communities." LC's ambitious Collaborative Digital Reference Service (CDRS), still in test phase, promises to link numerous libraries in an international network that will share reference expertise, thus connecting remote users from member libraries with member experts wherever they are.
This isn't the first time library service has burst the bonds of the building-witness phone reference and remote access to library resources--but the Internet has changed the scale and the boundaries. Libraries now must decide whether to serve only their own patrons (via authenticating library cards) or a broader community.
Numerous libraries have begun to offer e-mail reference, often through a handy web form, responding to patrons' questions in hours or days. The Internet Public Library (IPL) (
The year 2000 brought the advent of live reference. Several libraries, especially academic ones, have used or adapted chat or commercial call center software to communicate with surfers in real time and send web resources to their browser. The vendor LSSI caused a stir at the 2000 annual conference of the American Library Association (ALA) by unveiling the first commercial adaptation of such call center software.
Advances in collaboration have paralleled those in technology. Several libraries have looked to consortia to launch regional reference services. For example, consortia around Los Angeles (the 24/7 Reference Project at Metropolitan Cooperative Library System) and San Francisco (Bay Area Libraries Project) have begun training librarians and testing software for live reference service. CDRS, in LC's words, "will provide professional reference service to researchers any. time, anywhere, through an international, digital network of libraries and related institutions." It won't go live for a few months, though, and initially won't be accessible to end users; 24/7 access may be offered in the future by CDRS and other library projects.
The e-reference establishment of the library role will take time, especially given that dot-coms spend millions in advertising. Consider that press coverage of the new dot-com Q&A sites pretty much ignores the existence of library reference desks.
"The AskJeeves of the world did not steal our users," declared Joe Janes of the University of Washington (UW), speaking last October at the second annual Virtual Reference Desk (VRD) conference in Seattle. "We gave them away, and it's time to get them back."
It took AskJeeves's Penny Finnie to point out that libraries are large public entities, not as nimble as venture capital-backed dot-coms: "You're being a little hard on yourselves. You didn't give users away. The Internet came along."
Tallying up the recent changes, R. David Lankes, director, Information Institute at Syracuse University, NY, speaking at the VRD, conference, declared, "We are in the middle of a reference revolution. We're at a turning point."
One inevitable lesson: libraries aren't the only game. For a good number of users, especially for basic questions (say song lyrics), the web--whether unmediated or via expert help--will be "good enough." The library niche may be that of a quality alternative--think PBS/ NPR--in an increasingly commercialized world, especially since libraries have the advantage of providing print resources and proprietary databases.
In workshops, Anne Lipow of Library Solutions Institute and Press requires librarians to send test questions to both a commercial and a library site. About one-quarter of the time, she estimated, the dot-com did it better, as the libraries pointed to sources, not answers. Then again, she noted, dot-coms don't necessarily value sources and citations.
"We're not interested in competing with the private sector," declared Kresh, director of LC's Public Service Collections, of CDRS. "There's room for both." Indeed, she has been seeking commercial sponsors/partners for the project and last month announced a collaboration with OCLC--"a significant step forward."
Major questions remain. Librarians must be trained (and retrained) to cope with this fast-changing field. Best practices must be established. Software must be adapted for library standards and sensibilities. Libraries must advertise their presence and their services. And if we do build it, and they come, how do libraries define their service area, pay for it, and guarantee timely and effective service?
"At times I'm very pessimistic," acknowledged Catherine Friedman, chair of the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) of ALA, citing the lack of money for marketing. "Then I'm optimistic because--as the Internet continues to grow, and there's more and more incorrect and impersonal information-we provide excellent service."
Library interest in e-reference has grown significantly. The initial one-day VRD conference on digital reference, in 1999, attracted 220 attendees. The two-day conference last year drew more than 500.
The atmosphere was optimistic, but academic Charles McClure offered some skepticism. "What's the correct answer fill rate in a digital environment?" asked McClure, of Florida State University's School of Information Studies. "We don't know." Moreover, libraries are hardly situated to develop reference service for a boundary-less web word, since their potential user bases overlap, said McClure, adding that many library schools ignore digital reference.
While RUSA hopes to issue standards for digital reference within the next year or so, its national task force on the future of reference will take at least two or three years to offer a "vision" for the upcoming five or ten years.
Interestingly enough, several successful noncommercial Q&A projects are not library ones. AskEric, funded by the National Library of Education, handles 1400 inquiries a week, half from teachers in classrooms, the rest from a mix of administrators, researchers, librarians, and the general public. The VRD coordinates a set of subject-oriented dot-orgs, from Ask Dr. Math to the teen advice site Go Ask Alice! The commercial About.com, which casts itself as "The Human Internet," puts a face with each subject.
Will the library gateway be forgotten? Not necessarily. Noted UW's Janes, "The specialist-generalist debate has been going on for 100 years, and we haven't resolved it. Why not have a model with both, with a generalist at the entry point?"
Indeed, LC's CDRS follows that model, casting reference as a worldwide search for expertise, matching the question from the originating library (filed by a librarian on behalf of a patron, at this point) with the appropriate member library. At the IPL Reference Center, the initial query goes to a generalist and then is routed to specialists. Still, many reference librarians handle e-queries on their own.
If there's one project that will put libraries on the map, it's the CDRS. Membership in late December approached 100, including numerous academic libraries, as well as public libraries, consortia, museums, and AskA services.
So far, the CDRS project has made great progress in building and testing the system rather than fully operating it. Three phases have tested the complicated network that routes questions among libraries, the service level agreements signed by libraries, and, of course, reference questions.
Still to come--and part of the yearlong OCLC agreement--are a portal that integrates all the project's technology, such as an automatic sign-up screen for new members. Also, OCLC will contribute to a developing Knowledge Base of answers, as well as maintain system infrastructure.
Still, major questions remain, even as the project ends its final pilot phase, likely next month. In the test phase, questions have been limited to ten per library per week, so scale remains an issue. A logo/brand and best practices are still being developed. Only when the technology is proven sound, said Kresh, will CDRS consider offering the service to end users from their homes, or real-time service. Still, she said, "I do envision it as being the gateway to everything."
Since LC and member libraries cannot be expected to donate time and staff perpetually, how to pay for CDRS? Well, the agreement with OCLC will provide significant support in terms, of software and infrastructure, though Kresh couldn't specify the dollar value.
Kresh has also met with LSSI and may look beyond library vendors. "We could conceivably partner with a Google or a Yahoo to use their search engine or help them create a better search engine," she added. LC is also exploring the possibility of a subscription model and may also consider a partnership with a dotcom expert site, which could help with marketing.
Kresh sees resistance to commercial partners more as a "psychological issue" than a legal or technical one. "I think we all have to realize that in order to be viable and relevant, we have to be easy to locate and available and able to answer questions with the same rapidity as some of the commercial services," said Kresh.
In fact, Kresh doesn't think libraries should aim for an NPR niche model: "I think libraries can be all things to all people--not that all libraries can. That's where partnerships and collaborations come in."
While a small library might gain from joining CDRS and accessing worldwide expertise, what can it offer to the network in exchange? Kresh says that some may have a special collection but acknowledges that achieving equity is fuzzy.
Said Multnomah County Library Coordinator of Reference and Information Services Rivkah Sass, whose library has joined CDRS, "I see this as one more aspect of consortial buying. Because LC is the closest thing we have to a national library, it makes sense to get in on the ground floor and help design it."
Not every question is perfect for e-reference; those requiring detailed interactions, or involving many in-house sources (like genealogy), or those posed by children, may work better in the library. Within e-reference, certain questions are better for real-time responses (e.g., ready reference), while questions requiring more research work better via e-mail, giving the librarian time to delve deeper.
Not all libraries will adapt. Dale Askey of the University of Utah said at the VRD conference that "we have some real generational problems," noting that some post-tenure librarians resist learning new technology. He also pointed out that some foreign-born librarians aren't taught ten-finger typing, which could slow response.
Librarians engaging in e-reference via e-mail must transfer some existing skills but also avoid erroneous assumptions-like misjudging patrons because of their syntax, spelling, or user name-and recognize some new parameters-like the importance of engaging a patron who poses a vague query rather than conducting a full-blown reference interview. Tone is important as well; Sara Weissman of the Morris County Library, NJ, points out that chat requires an economy of language, while e-mail requires a softening.
The number of reference queries can be increased, as the IPL has learned, simply by rotating the link to its opening page. LSSI's Steve Coffman suggested that libraries seeking e-patrons put the reference icon on all sites, from city hall to the schools, where questioners might visit.
Real-time software allows librarians to send web sites to a user's browser while chatting with the user (see p. 50) as well as provide an instant transcript via e-mail. LSSI's software has been adapted from E-gain, a web product that allows companies to communicate with their customers in real time. Dozens of academic and public libraries have contracted with LSSI, but most remain in the testing phase.
Though LSSI is the only library vendor in the game, more than 50 vendors are working on the basic software, so it's not languishing in a library ghetto but rapidly improving. Indeed, the 24/7 Project is testing four software tools (E-gain, Webline, WebEx, PlaceWare), and LC's CDRS is expected to test several. Testing involves adaptation; software developed for customer service or web conferencing doesn't emphasize library concerns like privacy.
Emerging technology offers much potential, including the capacity to not only push web sites to a user but also to move that user's cursor (which requires a software download), talk over the Internet, and--something already in place at a library in Denmark--conduct videoconferences.
Though dozens of academic libraries now offer real-time reference (see the registry at
One knotty area has been database licenses: reference librarian Monika Antonelli said UNT has been forced to snail-mail rather than e-mail articles to patrons. In the next few years, the library will continue to reallocate staff to serve remote users and probably add voice chat. The library operates its live reference 10 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Now, like some other pioneers, it is looking to partner with a library in Australia or New Zealand to provide basic live reference service during the night.
If e-mail reference requires several adjustments, real-time reference, said Antonelli and others, adds some further adjustments, like the capacity to multitask. As in phone reference, librarians must remind a patron on hold that they're busy looking for an answer and remember that the phone call or Internet connection may be balky or costly.
The NOLA Regional Library System in Ohio launched a real-time reference project in November, four hours a night, five days a week. Rather than using a typical library URL, the system chose the catchier AskUsQuestions.com. The 14 participating libraries have allocated $3500 a year for the year-long trial, paying library staff as independent contractors at $20/hr. to work from home at night.
After two months, reported Technology Coordinator Brad Stephens, the service gets 25-30 questions a week, with patrons waiting an average of 30-45 seconds. NOLA plans to add up to 25 more libraries this month and extend hours to daylight in the future.
NOLA adapted e-share software in-house; while the system offers the capacity to let an operator work with up to six patrons at a time, a more realistic capacity is two or three. Multiple patrons, especially students doing statewide school projects, can be handled by pushing canned presentations on popular topics. Each librarian also has a small ready-reference print collection.
Because the state of Ohio licenses a large number of proprietary databases for all its libraries, librarians have access to much material, but NOLA still must negotiate to resolve access to databases bought by specific libraries. Patrons with localized questions like genealogy are referred to their local library--or the question is automatically sent to library reference departments, which have agreed on a one-day turnaround.
"We're finding users want information now," Stephens added. "I think people will use online services, whether from a library or not."
If people are migrating to the web, change is necessary. "I'm concerned that if we wait too long, we're abdicating," said LC's Kresh. "This is a different world."
Still, libraries could do much more to make reference easy and accessible. For example, as University of Washington's Janes reported, a recent survey of existing public library reference sites showed that nearly half required users to click twice to get to the service, and names for the service were hardly standardized among libraries.
If more and more libraries add e-reference service, it might make sense-as Multnomah's Sass suggested--to add local library links to wide-ranging sites like AskJeeves or the IPL.
Crucial to all this is funding and publicity. Said Anne Lipow, a member of the CDRS governing board, "I think the moment we are a visible choice, people will choose the library over About.com or any dot-com, because I do think the library has a reputation for being a trusted resource."
1. Who are you doing this for? If it's just local patrons, institute a reference e-mail address and publicize it locally (bookmarks, posters, radio spots). But if you go "out there" on the net, be prepared for visitors from anywhere, and if you can't/won't serve them, give them advice on where else to go.
2. How does it fit in to your work? Even if your gate counts aren't dropping and your staff keep busy, maybe you should reexamine your workflow to make time. Electronic reference helps you both hang on to patrons drifting to dot-coms and, as word of mouth spreads, attract new ones. If you serve either college students and/or a business community, e-reference is nearly a must.
3. What's your policy? Use your existing reference policy--time spent, geography of service, amount and format of material provided--though be prepared for minor amendments. Review the licenses for your electronic products so you know what can be used for off-site service--a sticky situation for libraries in consortia serving nonlocal patrons.
4. Which staffers will do it? Choose the enthusiastic. At MCL, we began with librarians answering questions in their subject areas so they could get comfortable. Start-up volume is always underwhelming so you have time to add staff.
5. How do you train staffers? Peer coaching is wonderful. Technowhizzes who can find anything in cyberspace should consult with the senior thoughtfuls who've mastered the nuances of patron queries. The cybrarian who types like greased lightning may need the linguist or subject bibliographer to verify source material. The entire cybersquad should be able to review each other's Q&As occasionally. R. David Lankes and Abby S. Kasowitz's AskA Starter Kit is a guide, available via the Publications link at the useful Virtual Reference Desk site. Four years of Morris County Library's Q&As are online.
6. Do you archive Q&As for the public? If so, the same privacy concerns that apply to all other library transactions apply here. E-mail addresses are no less sacrosanct than library cardholder records, so strip identifying information.
7. How are replies signed? At MCL, each librarian signs his/her replies, above the departmental address block. The questioner wants to feel he or she is dealing with another person.
8. What's your turnaround time? For MCL, it s a half-hour for roughly 60 percent of questions, under two hours for 90 percent. The departmental standard for all reference is 24-hour turnaround, with review of all pending questions by each shift on desk (i.e., two to three times a day).
9. Will you use autoresponders to acknowledge receipt of a question? These are rarely successful, but if your volume requires this, look to Chicago PL's example for a courteous tone.
10. Will you go outside your own service, to other sources/experts online, to answer your patron's question or just direct him/her that way? At MCL, we rarely need to do this, and we always check to see if the patron is willing to wait.
11. Will you build an FAQ file/page? This becomes important mainly for high-volume or specialty operations. Joan Stahl of the National Museum of American Art had to develop an excellent guide to art appraisal rather than tell people repeatedly that she doesn't do estate valuations. At MCL we developed written web pages when repeat questions (e.g., New Jersey history, genealogy, and local childcare) showed a need.
12. Where do you learn more? Join the Dig_Ref electronic discussion list at Syracuse (or just search the archives), sign up for the e-group on Live Reference (a.k.a. "real-time"), and read the bibliography that Bernie Sloan put together. Stay flexible. There's no one "right" answer or approach. Just announce a limited trial and see what happens. At MCL, the six-month trial has become four years of service, and our patrons are thrilled.
38.221.132.32/asp/reference/ emailreference/emailrequest_l.html
Sara Weissman (weissman@apollo.gti.net) has spent 16 years in academic and public library reference, including four years of reference via web form submissions at the Morris County Library (MCL), Whippany, NJ. MCL received an Exemplary Service award from the Virtual Reference Desk in 1999, handles questions for the VRD AskAnExpert service, and was an initial member of the Library of Congress Collaborative Digital Reference Service (CDRS) pilots To begin e-mail electronic reference, you don't need a bureaucratic strategy, but you must make some basic, overriding decisions--often in consultation with staff. Among them:
Among dot-com expert sites, only one, Webhelp.com, offers rough competition to library real-time reference services, as a "web wizard" (a semi-trained web searcher, many working in India) chats with the user and then sends relevant web sites to the user's browser. I tested Webhelp as an anonymous patron, while I tested two real-time library reference projects as I interviewed their managers. That's hardly scientific, but my experience could offer some lessons for libraries.
The bad news for libraries is that-at least for my one query--the web sites recommended by Webhelp were comparable to the information I got from librarians doing real-time reference. The good news is that Webhelp took a while to access and bombarded me with advertising. That suggests that libraries have a niche in providing web guidance fast and free of commercial taint, not to mention more substantive articles from proprietary databases.
At Webhelp, the initial screen with my questions and name also listed five promotions and a check box to request future promotions. I was first told to wait 18 minutes. The projected wait time changed to 21 minutes, 14 minutes, and six minutes and ultimately settled at three minutes--for nearly ten minutes! My total wait time was about 15 minutes. Like me, most users will probably open another browser and search on their own.
When web wizard Brady got my question--travel information on Rio de Janeiro,-he "pushed" me two comprehensive web sites about Rio. The sites were encased in frames with flashing ads, while another frame allowed space for our chat. I asked Brady if he could send me the URL for one site; only then was I told I would be sent a post-session transcript. After I exited, I was invited to join Webhelp as an express member--for $9.99 a month or per ten searches, the member is moved to the front of the line (though immediate service isn't guaranteed).
At the NOLA Regional Library System's AskUsQuestions.com (which adapted customer service software from e-share) and the Bay Area Libraries Project (BALP, which uses LSSI's adaptation of E-Gain), both sites omitted the distracting ads, opting for a simple chat frame.
BALP provides waiting patrons with an initial screen with the Librarians' Index to the Internet (
The librarians at these sites conducted more of a reference interview with me, which suggests that a more complex query would garner better service. Since I wasn't a regular patron, I couldn't gauge the wait time. Still, if libraries can maintain prompt service, they can certainly provide a superior experience.