Tom Cotton’s 8109

Through EDITH, your candidate educational website will be in the company of a lot of others: currently EDITH is generating over 250 website candidates a day!

With so many websites, which ones should Information Officers add to the collection?

In last week’s POC meeting we realised that the existing EDITH selection path for candidate website would not best reflect the edna collection policy.

Yes it would filter out the rude sites and non-english based resources - however it ignores other collection policy criteria such as focusing on Australian based materials.

We will seek to rank candidate website based on the collection criteria: for example:

• domain: .edu.au and .gov.au provides copyright license information for Australian educators
• extensions: different media and document types can be promoted/demoted

Applications:

• given when a candidate website achieves a specific ranking, an IO can be alerted
• candidate websites are ordered based on collection policy & are most likely to be catalogued

Extensions:

• given a theoretical ’second tier collection’ of non-quality assured resources, users might review & rank resources which would boost their ranking, providing a path to be promoted into the principle edna quality assured collection.

In other thoughts:

• principle issue of the ‘metadata game’ is creating a game play that’s interesting. Facebook could provided a forum to host this.
• We need to prep the Show and Tell 2