Comments
chili_cheese_dogg t1_iug6xmh wrote
Screw the Queens Chronicle and their Republican advertising.
sysyphusishappy t1_iuh6lrg wrote
So, a Wikipedia entry?
Colonel-Cathcart t1_iuhdawl wrote
Not everything needs to be about partidan politics every single time
elizabeth-cooper t1_iuhqkfl wrote
>I could go on and on, I routinely use the online portal for four different libraries, and Queens is by far the worst of them.
Totally agreed. This is one reason why I frequently say that the Queens Library is in their own little world. So many other systems use Bibliocommons while they use this abomination? Who's getting kickbacks for it?
What's your fourth system?
k1lk1 t1_iuhr253 wrote
It's the King County system in the Seattle area (long story). It is the best online system IMO.
elizabeth-cooper t1_iuhsiuk wrote
What makes it better than BPL and NYPL?
k1lk1 t1_iuhtgqu wrote
Better information density and more relevant search. Less fancy UI gadgets. Same kind of stuff as old reddit vs. new reddit. I would say it's only slightly better than BPL, but I do find it better.
But I wouldn't hold it up as a great example of a web portal either. I haven't found a library site I'd call good. I don't know why libraries in particular try to be so fancy.
elizabeth-cooper t1_iuhtx8q wrote
> I don't know why libraries in particular try to be so fancy.
Me either. NYPL used to have a telnet and I liked it.
k1lk1 t1_iuhu333 wrote
Sounds like a dream.
The_Question757 t1_iui6kee wrote
I guarantee the archive on Tadeusz Kosciuszko is just trying to pronounce his name lol
oreoresti t1_iuifukk wrote
This is a bit aggressive, take it easy. You know the city has been cutting the budget every year for years now. The fucking children’s librarians get like less than 200$ a year to spend on stuff.
It cost a lot of money to upgrade those things. They probably paid a lot of money for the upgrade that moved their systems off of fucking MS DOS, and no shit it is far from perfect.
If you know how to program websites, I’d suggest volunteering to help make it better. Support libraries, support people and politicians who support libraries.
k1lk1 t1_iuig65f wrote
I guarantee you all that fancy shit cost them MORE money than if they just defined something simple in the contract.
They were trying to be relevant, and it looks like trash, and actively impedes people looking for information.
Yes, I am a software engineer. They don't just let randos work on their web design. If they did, I would be more than willing to cull all of the junk.
oreoresti t1_iuigggl wrote
I agree, decisions were made by people who maybe were not aware of all the best practices for web design. It probably cost a lot of money. The point is, to fix it is not so simple. I don’t understand the aggression
k1lk1 t1_iuigql3 wrote
It's bluntness. Not aggression. This is NYC, surely you understand the difference.
BaldSportsFan t1_iujb6rw wrote
The Queens Library seems to be behind in many departments, their website included.
k1lk1 t1_iufzwmm wrote
Great, now tell them to fix their website.
wasted whitespace and trendy UI gadgets lead to low information density, the last thing you want in a library search page
autocorrect in search bar is terrible, routinely fails to identify valid Authors names and even uncommon English words. "Kissinger" -> "did you mean 'kissing'". Even when their auto suggest considers it valid, they've still left on the red spellcheck squiggles in the browser itself, which flag less usual words and names.
searching by media type usually returns irrelevant results including other media kinds, e.g. searching for an ebook and also getting audio books
search is bloody awful in general. E.g. one of the results for searching "ink black heart" (Rowling's new book) is a CD recording of Les Miserables. Or if you mistype a word in search (e.g. "3 body problem" instead of "three body problem") you get totally irrelevant results.
I could go on and on, I routinely use the online portal for four different libraries, and Queens is by far the worst of them.