2010 survey comments: Lens

1. I recognize that the Lens search catalog is very advanced and handles database information in amazing ways, I look forward to its continued development. As it is now, I seldom find the data cloud useful, though very interesting.

2. But in general whereas I find the online efforts of the library to be truly applaudable and exceptional (Lens Search is a dream),

3. I want to reiterate the fact that lens is the best thing happening at any university library in the country, and really demonstrates the Library's commitment to sensible modernization and what you might call a user-friendly philosophy. With lens, you don't _need_ a librarian to work the catalog for you, and that's how it should be.

4. Still having some specific problems with lens, though I can see it is a better catalogue overall.

5. The library catalog only gives me what I want when I know a title or author I'm looking for. I'm a fan of Lens!

6. The library catalog is clunky. Lens is much better.

7. The library needs to commit to Lens fully -- the catalog is a librarian's tool that doesn't help researchers.

8. Lens, however, does seem to do a better job finding material from within the library's own collections.

9. Lens is an outstanding improvement.

10. Seems like the Lens and catalogue services could be better integrated.

11. The search functions for Lens and Catalog could be smarter.

12. Catalogs - Don't care for Lens, and the old catalog is truly awful. I know how to refine a search, I can findan item when I need it; but when I title-search "The Power Elite" and get "The Port of Shanghai", "The Raleigh Record" and a video of "The Road" instead, something is very wrong!

13. LensCat is fun as a secondary search but often not very useful on a first search as it pulls up very random items.

14. Still having some specific problems with lens, though I can see it is a better catalogue overall. It doesn't do very well at finding often-consulted journals with generic-sounding titles. The search 'art journal' in the title-field does a worse job of producing the often consulted CAA journal than the library catalogue does under the 'journal' search. Could this field perhaps be added to lens?

15. A Lens search for the same terms as a Library catalog search will often times NOT show a text that is part of the library's holdings, particularly when trying to search by authors contained in an edited volume.

16. After trying Lens I still prefer the old library catalog, which allows me to quickly find a book by author or title without a lot of extra (and often unhelpful) suggestions.

17. Make library catalog search tool more user friendly; difficult to use if you only have partial information

18. also, the catalogs for books are somewhat difficult to use

19. Lens is truly awful.

20. Lens is usually exceptionally unhelpful--you enter the actual title and the book you're interested in shows up fifth on the list--or worst, twenty third. If you know the author and a word in the title, it's even worse. Yesterday, for some reason the catalog was not working and lens did not help at all.

21. Still not sure I appreciate how Lens is different from the regular library catalog or why there needs to be a distinction made. Like most U of C websites, it would probably be easier if things could be consolidated and streamlined. Searching for things here tends to require visiting numerous different sites that offer overlapping coverage.

22. Lens often returns useless results; if you have a pretty good idea of what the title is, its better to use the catalog. Its just no clear to me what the advantage of lens is.

23. lens search from library home page often does not work on my home computer.

24. Lens search: It's often very slow.

25. Lens gives too much information :( so I avoid it. Checked out books should indicate when they were checked out.

26. I think Lens gives a bit too much information. It generates too many hits and not ones related to what I am actually looking for.

27. I don't know why anyone uses Lens; every time I have used it, it seems to return random/superfluous info.

28. Lens will sometimes not show a book that exists in library, that I can find in stacks, so now i use regular catalogue. Lens needs some refining to be dependable.

29. Searches could be more unified, easier to access, and could turn up results more easily.

30. Most of the time there is a problem with the lens search. For me, as a researcher Lens is quite important as it gives 'related' results some of which are most of the time quite interesting. But as I can't use lens due to techical problems I do not benefit from it anymore.

31. My experimentation with lens has not produced any useful results. Perhaps if the level at which I am working weren't so specialized it would be better.

32. Lens is a bit quirky - sometimes it hasnt picked up on items based on my keywords that I then found on the old catalogue.

33. Lens is fine, but somehow never as useful in actually finding books as I'm expecting it to be.

34. The regular catalog could be made less clumsy (why does it return so many unrelated results?) but its more accurate than Lens for my needs.

35. Also Lens seems to be better for more general searches whereas most of my research is more specific to a topic.

36. I don't use lens search because I think it pulls up too much random junk when I'm looking for specific articles that I found with google scholar, but once in a while it is useful. Probably quite useful for the undergrads also.

37. Would it be possible for Lens to display when an item is checked out or not?

38. Major catalog problems with citation management software. Lens does not support RefWorks at all; "fixing" a RefWorks direct export from Lens takes longer than if one were to manually type the data line by line. Many of the journal databases have direct export problems too, and this really needs to be fixed. APA style is now requiring DOI and ISSN, etc, but direct export regularly leaves this info out.

39. After doing a Lens search, you can't look at individual items in a tab, you have to abandon the main search list- this means you can easily lose an item you might need later.

40. Book topics need to be better tagged in lens. Try something like amazon's "customers who viewed this item also viewed..."

41. I find the library catalog kind of hard to use, and I get confused between the different ways to search it - Lens/catalog etc

42. I find the new catalog system (Lens) wildly dissatisfying because searching for the exact title of a book often fails to bring it up as the first hit or even on the first page, and it's clumsy to further narrow down by author.

43. Improve the electronic database and library search functions (lens etc) i often don't use them because they rarely give me what i'm looking for / irritate me.

44. Improve the search engine. Probably make it more accurate.

45. Improve the searching engine of lib catalog.

46. find new catalog search page very difficult to navigate. Also, links to electronic journals should be better designed.

47. Lens is difficult to use.

48. Lens is interesting, but annoying to use.

49. Lens is not as helpful for some kinds of searches such as searching by author when the author is listed several ways.

50. Lens search does not work from home and is also very slow and unpredictable at times when using on the campus computers.

51. Lens is not specific enough (f.e. does not distinguish between author and title in case the author's name appears in the title),

52. sometimes the LENS is difficult to navigate and one spends hours trying to locate something

53. Make it easier to save titles within Lens -- when logged into 'My Discoveries,' the link for saving an item disappears!

54. And get Lens to work with tabs.

55. Search function needs lot of improvement

56. Search function on Lens is awful.

57. Even though I'm a librarian's daughter, I find the various library catalogs confusing

58. The catalog search is hard to use (I guess that's something about the setting, sometimes if I don't use exactly matched word, the search gives me nothing useful).

59. Also, Lens doesn't work well at all for research in Chinese.

60. lens does not work well when I search books in East Asian languages

61. I cannot search lens with Chinese characters.

62. Lens Search rarely turns up anything of use, and seems to have no efficacy when typing in Chinese.

63. The Lens feature tries to consolodate databases, but doesn't do a comprehensive job in my experience with it.

64. The Lens search is not very accurate! Just searching for Oxford English Dictionary the entry comes up about 18th on the list.

65. Lens does not seem to return e-journal articles, for example, and I think those systems might be consolidated.

66. Unify the film studies and library's DVD catalogs. Make more music accessible via mp3. Make sure there are multiple copies of commonly used books in the library's collection. Make lens searches less glitch-y.

67. I'm happy to see workshops and support for Zotero, but I wish Lens worked with it.

68. Also, while Lens search is promoted through the library website, it is not easy enough to get back to the Library Catalog from sites deeper within the Library website.

69. Again, I think Lens is a really poor choice and linking the catalog to Google Scholar would be far more helpful.

70. The library catalog system was made worse in the most recent update. My current method for finding sources is to search on Google for something until I find one I want, and then to type the exact title and author into the library search, which means that for me the given Lens/Library Catalog system is essentially worthless.

71. In general I find Lens to be frustrating and not helpful in finding relevant sources. Google Scholar, a free resource available to anyone on the Internet, is in my experience far superior.

72. Lens searching is full of bugs and annoying to use but it offers visual and descriptive information not available on the regular catalog.

73. Fixing Lens journal back issue electronic access is crucial, also fixing RefWorks incomplete exports

74. it seems like the weird results increased with the new catalogue; the old one felt more intuitive to me.

75. I am pretty shocked by how bad Lens is. I'm not sure why you still cannot search by call number and why the Gay/Lesbian research guide always pops up in my searches rather than the search terms!

76. I wish that you could do call number search directly from Lens instead of having to go to the catalogue search

77. It looks like Lens is much better but then why doesn't it replace the library catalog search engine on all the library web pages and computers?

78. I have experienced in the past that the Lens search did not work from the homepage search bar.

79. The LENS catalog though, has failed to meet some of my expectations. It does not do as good a job of providing links to similar subjects (as you could click on the subject classifications in previous catalog and get a glorious list) and I often feel as though I must now search in two catalogs instead of one to get everything.

80. I also tried looking up information about the Regenstein library using Lens and only got search results from the library catalog. I don't understand how to refine my search when I just get a single search bar.

81. I somehow find the lens search confusing.

82. I'd like to use Lens exclusively but often get defaulted to the original site through the Find It button.

83. I wish that you could search by uniform title in Lens, and I find the basic search in HIP to be pretty unhelpful.

84. THe lens programs has not been a useful tool for me.

85. Online browsing of books by cover image like the iTunes store for purchasing a movie for downloading. Could be browsable by small call-number ranges.

86. The one thing I'd love to see would be more detail about any given book or journal that I pull up, whether it's being able to see a copy of the introduction or being able to read it electronically. I appreciate that that's impossible to do with the entire collection.

Return to Top Δ