Thursday, December 31, 2015

A quick review of Moto 360 v1.0


Devices and workflow - A mini review of Moto 360

In the early years of my blog, I used to post about my use of my new devices like iPhone (2010), iPad (2011) and web services that I use.

I've now switched over to the android world, current setup is Android Note 4 + Nexus 7 (2013).

A few months back in Oct I got a Moto 360 v1 at a fairly cheap price to try out the Android wear smartwatch.



I did my due diligence, being an older model I was aware the processor was a bit slow, and the battery life wasn't the best. It would still last me 20+ hours with ambient mode off.

I was okay with charging every night, and even the speed, but in the end I found the smartwatch pretty much useless to me except as a time piece (I usually don't wear watches).

The key thing to realise about android wear watches currently is that, it has only very limited functionality and it's main purpose is to display notifications on your watch, so you can see them without looking at your phone.

Any android app that has no particular android wear support will basically just show notifications on your watch.



If you swipe it, you will just get an option to open it in your phone.



Even apps with official android wear support and sit in your watch but managed via the android wear app sitting on your phone, often isn't very useful. The main issue is that the watch is too small for a keyboard (there are some apps that include a keyboard like a browser android wear app but it's unusable mostly), so if you get say and email or a text via Gmail or Hangouts, there is limited functionality.





Typically you can either choose a canned reply or use voice input.




So if you a big user of Google Now, and of giving commands by voice, the android wear smartphones are made for you. \

If on the other hand you are like me and find it's odd to give commands via voice (of if you find your voice tends to throw off the voice to text recognition software), you will find Google android wear watches lose much of its point.

To be fair, there are some nice things about having a smart watch.

If you are a exercise fan, android wear would be useful with Google Fit, but with Moto it's confusing because you get the various Moto apps.

I've been using Wear Mini Launcher to make the watchface somewhat Apple watch like, a swipe in of the clockface from the right and I see my favourite apps.



As you can see I do Foursquare check-ins with it


This can be useful if you want to check-in quickly before returning to a conversation with a friend. A drawback of doing it this way compared to using your phone is that often the choices listed to check-in do not include where you are. If that happens you have no choice but to use your phone.

Useful is also the ability to quickly check Google Keep or your Calender without opening your phone.



It is also no surprise to realise that the more you are in Google's ecosystem the more you benefit from using android wear watches. So if you are like me and use Google reminders, Google Keep, Google calender etc (especially now that google reminders from keep, inbox, google now etc are all unified and displayed in Google calender) , Google now notifications can be amazing.

Other useful features are like using your watch as a torchlight and calling for rides or using maps.

When I first got my smart watch as per my normal fashion I download and played with many geeky and gimmicky features (e.g controlling camera shots using the moto360, playing bubble shooter on the watch) but in the end they were just gimmicks.

The funny thing is, the best thing I like about the Moto360 is the most mundane thing ever, that is the watch face!

I knew I wanted a round smartwatch and while Moto 360 gets complaints about the ugly "flat tire" at the bottom of the screen (see below), I barely notice it.


In exchange the moto360 gets a light ambient sensor so it's brightness varies based on amount of light. I've found it more than adequate even outdoors in sunlight.

My main complaint about moto360 watch face is that to save power, it will turn itself off after a few seconds. There's a ambient mode, but in v1 not only is it power hungry , it doesn't keep the watch face "always on". You typically in both modes will have to flick your wrist for the screen to turn on, and there's a slight delay that can be irritating if all you want is to look at the time.

New generation of watches like LG Urban I think solve this issue and the watchface can generally be turned on all the time, with reasonable battery life (recharge once a night).

When I first got the watch, I found vibrations were strong and obvious, these days I barely notice them. It's unclear if this is a software or hardware issue but it seems common.

I really have no other complaints about the physical quality of the moto 360 , I have zero experience with watches but to my eyes it looks pretty elegent and the best thing is if you are bored with the clockface, you can switch it easily via the watch or via an app on your phone.


There's a growing community around hobbyist producing and sharing free watch faces, so you will never be bored with the same old clockface! Some can be classic watchfaces others can be dynamic. I personally favour classic ones.

Overall though, if you want to get into android smartwatches it pays to temper your expectations.

While some of the flaws of the moto 360 are down to inferior hardware that the new generation of watches like Moto 360 v2 , Huawei watch or LG Urbane solve, currently android wear OS itself is limited in functionality. For example currently even if your smart watch has a speaker it cannot be used but this is changing.

If you are getting one, do not expect a replacement for your phone, or for the phone to make a major change to your difestyle and you will be fine.

In the long term, I expect smart watches will start to catch on perhaps in 2016 or 2017, but somehow I can't shake the feeling even if it does, it will be just a temporary stage between more generic "wear" software embedded in clothing etc.


Conclusion

This has been a year of change for me, as I moved to a new institution in late Feb 2015 and I spent most of the year trying to learn and adapt to the new environment.

This probably deserves a post of its own (maybe in Feb 2016 when I complete a year of service), but the experience has been very interesting and not without its challenges as it has been a strange blend of "Seen it, done it" and the opposite "this is almost a 360 degree mirror image of what I am used to" feelings.

I always had a bit of a impostor syndrome and starting anew at a new institution obviously worsened it. But with time this has lessened as I start to get a grip on the situation.

I am focusing now on library analytics, a relatively new unexplored area and I am looking at early explorers like Libwebrarian with great interest and trying to sort out my thinking in this area.

As a result my blogging output as suffered somewhat though I still try to maintain one post a month , while maintaining quality. I anticipate the blogging rate should remain the same or even rise in 2016.

In this day and age, interest in blogs has waned and not many librarian blogs are still operating. As such for those of you who still subscribe to my blog whether via email or RSS, thank you for following me on my journey in librarianship.

Have a happy new year and I will see you in 2016!





Monday, December 7, 2015

Measuring the value of contributed metadata in web scale discovery services

One of the more interesting issues around the rise of web scale discovery service systems like Summon, Primo, Ebsco Discovery Service and Worldcat Local is the place of abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases like Scopus, Web of Science or more disciplinary specific databases like Psycinfo.

While Publishers of full text like Sage, Springer, IEEE eventually realized it was to their benefit to contribute metadata to the index of web scale discovery services because it increased the find-ability of their full text to users on discovery services (IEEE going so far as to study obstacles to getting their content indexed in discovery services) and hence increased demand for their content, it was less clear why Abstract and indexing (A&I) databases should contribute their metadata to the discovery index.

 So for example let's say a user searches in a discovery service like Primo and finds the following record.



As you can see above this record is contributed by the A&I database Web of Science.

The user then clicks on View Online to see where to get the full text.



As seen above, the user can click on either targets/destinations of Proquest or DOAJ to get access to the full text via either two full text sources on those sites. (The links are generated using an Openurl resolver)

A&I services are left out in the cold


Let's recap the transaction.

The user is happy because he gets access to items he would have otherwise missed. Similarly the discovery service (Primo's Exlibris soon to be under Proquest) gains from making more items discoverable.

The actual content provider of the item (in the above case Proquest or DOAJ) is happy too, his content gets discovered and usage of his content will go up and be recorded.

The only one left out from this happy transaction is the A&I database vendor - Web of Science. As the user never actually goes into the A&I database, he may not even realize he just benefited from the library's subscription of the A&I database.

Usage of the A&I may in fact fall, as some libraries have reported, particularly if they are aware or dimly grasp that the same records in A&I database can be found in the discovery service.

This is an issue that is well recognized by NISO's  Open Discovery Initiative (ODI). Of course, most A&I databases require that the library be a mutual subscriber of most the A&I database and the discovery service before you can benefit from the metadata, so if the library values the metadata provided by the A&I, A&I databases will continue to be subscribed.

But here lies the rub, how do you know the metadata from the A&I database is making the difference in helping discovery? Particularly since many full-text providers are also giving away the metadata. Sure the A&I may have more or better metadata but how do you know it is making the difference?

Measuring the value of metadata/records contributed 


Up to recently, I wasn't aware of anyway to measure the value of the metadata contributed by a source (A&I, Publisher, Aggregator etc). However while playing around with Exlibris' Alma and Primo analytics, and lurking on the mailing list I noticed a interesting email by a UNSW librarian regarding the "Link resolver usage subject area" in Alma analytics.

Here's part of the message

"If the source has a colon in it, a user either was a staff member  testing the link within Alma, or got access to an article from within a database by being referred back to the uresolver to see if you have a subscription that covers it."

The first part is fairly straight forward so you will see sources listed such as

EBSCO:Business Source Complete  - 220 requests

ProQ:ABI/INFORM Global - 110 requests

info:sid/www.isinet.com:WoK:WOS - 55 requests

Elsevier:Scopus - 20 requests


Here we are talking about link resolver requests (typically branded Findit@xlibrary) from these databases. In the above example, we have link resolver requests from Business Source Complete, Proquest ABI/Inform Global , Web of Science on Web of Knowledge Platform and Scopus.



So the above shows users searching in Scopus and when they click on Find it @ SMU Library, the clicks will be recorded as source Elsevier:Scopus


This is pretty much standard affair if you are familiar with link resolvers.

The part that left me quite excited was this

"If the source has an underscore or is just some letters eg “wj” (Wiley journals) then the user got access to the article from a PCI record in Primo". Note : PCI = Primo Central Index, the name of the discovery service index.

If I read this correctly it means not only can we see link resolver requests from databases and the discovery service, we can actually see which source contributed the record that appeared in the Primo discovery service! 



So in the above statistics we can see that there were 4,666 clicks on records in the discovery service Primo with metadata from Scopus (scopus).  Similarly we can see 9,362 clicks on records in Primo with metadata from Wiley (wj) and from Web of Science (wos) 11,268.




So going back to the above example, when a user clicks on a record that originated in Web of Science but found in Primo, the click will be recorded as from the source "wos".


So it seems at least with Primo, we can now measure the value of the metadata provided by different sources!

In fact, in my preliminary tests for my institution, when counting clicks on records in the Primo discovery service, Web of Science as a source of records/metadata came in 3th compared to other sources. So it's pretty important.

Dealing with multiple versions of the same article/item


Discovery services of course often get more than one version of the same item from various sources. For any article, they may get metadata from Aggregators, Full text providers, A&I or other sources or on the same article.

How Primo handles it is that it will attempt to match and group records it "thinks" is the same article and display only one in the search results initially (Anyone know if this can be adjusted? or is covered in The Primo Technical Manuals?).  In the example below, the record from JSTOR is the main record showing.




I haven't tested this, but I assume if you click on "view online" without clicking on "view all versions", only one source (the record that is displayed that comes from that source in the above case JSTOR) will be credited.


Of course, you can click on "View all versions" to see other versions. This is very similar to how Google Scholar works.



Of course each of these records while they are very similar, do differ in small ways as they are from different sources. In my example, the records from MEDLINE/PubMed have slightly better subject headings and if I try to search with these subject headings, it is that record from MEDLINE/PubMED that appears as the main record in the search result as it no longer matches the record from JSTOR.

So far this makes a lot of sense, though there might be some squabbling over which source to "credit" discovery to if the search query matches more than one possible record.

Eg. If I do a search for a title combined with a subject search and records from two possible sources are matched should I credit discovery to both equally?

Grouping multiple records vs Single super record approach



The problem is that some discovery systems like Proquest's Summon practices a "Super record" approach.

"The index includes very rich metadata brought together from multiple sources using an innovative match-and-merge function. Match-and-merge allows Summon to take the best data from these sources and bring it together to complete a rich “super record.” - source

While this sounds like what Primo is doing it's actually quite different. In Primo while the system groups different versions of the same article, each version record is still retained seperately as you can see from clicking on "view all versions".

In Summon what happens is that if multiple versions of the same article is available from multiple sources, a "Match-and-merge" function will try to build a single merged/deduped "super record".

The super-record might include

a) Title/author/author supplied keywords from the publisher A and aggregator B
b) Subject headings from multiple A&I databases eg. Scopus and Pubmed
c) Table of contents from aggregator C

and so on.

I can see the attraction of such an approach, and from a user point of view it's probably cleaner as the user doesn't care which source contributes to the item getting discovered, so all he wants to see is one "super-record" with all the combined available data on it.

See for example the same article record in Summon below



Above you can see just a single record and the sources used to create the "super record" are listed. Under subjects you can see the combined entries drawn from various sources.

Because it's a single super record, you also increase chances of discovery. So for example if the person happens to be searching for the following three together in a advanced search

a) Title
b) Subject from Source A
c) eISSN from Source B

It will match Summon's super record but not any of Primo's individual records because no single record has all 3 items.

But a combined super record presumably means that it's going to be harder to do the same as what Primo did. Since it's all one record, when an article is found in Summon, how do you know which source contributed to the discovery?

Of course it's not impossible that Summon could still retain individual source records similar to Primo and use that to give credit to sources for aiding discovery.....


Conclusion

I'll end here with a statement from a ODI paper.

"A&I services have a complex set of issues relative to the ecosystem of index-based discovery. The producers of these services naturally have an interest in preserving their value, especially in being assured that libraries will continue to maintain their subscriptions should they contribute to discovery services.

Decisions regarding whether to participate in discovery services are not straightforward. Discovery
services not tuned to make use of the specialized vocabularies, abstracts, and other mechanisms inherent in the native A&I product may underexpose the resource. Aggregators that license A&I content and fulltext resources from other providers may not have the rights to further distribute that content. 

Discovery services must limit access to proprietary content, such as abstracts and specialized vocabularies to authenticated users affiliated with mutually subscribing institutions. Given these factors, among many others, A&I resources must be treated with special consideration within the body of content providers that potentially contribute to discovery services."

The ability to credit discovery to particular sources as found in Alma analytics goes some way in helping encourage more A&I services to contribute content to discovery services as their value can now be tracked.

Still this development does not completely solve all the concerns of A&I services.

For example, there is concern that relevancy algorithms in some discovery services may systematically under-privilege content contributed by A&Is (for example by weighting full text more than subject headings), leading to a devaluing of their content. See for example the exchange of letters between EBSCO, Ex Libris and Orbis Cascade Alliance.

In fact, the ability to track contributions to discovery from sources could backfire and lead libraries to undervalue A&I sources , now that they can finally see the impact of metadata contributed by them.

This is a hard nut to track. While one could come up with metrics that measure % of top X results that contain A&I sources (e.g the latest Primo Analytics provide something along that lines for results from Primo/Primo Central/Ebsco API) , it's still not possible to agree on what % should be reasonable as there is no gold standard for relevancy algothrims to compare against.














Share this!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...