The myth of the one stop shop

There is much talk of DIALOG and DataStar at the moment, and this set me thinking: firstly, why didn't Knight-Ridder seize the chance to set up subject-based information centres on the Web? And secondly, why aren't there more good subject-based information centres on the Web? I'm thinking here of Web sites which have 'The Lot': not just one database, a few Web links and a token discussion area -- or, as in the case of traditional hosts, a load of databases and nothing else.

The trouble with many of the subject-based sites springing up on the Internet is that they are devised by one single information provider. Let us call it InfoCon plc. InfoCon may be under the common delusion that its product provides a one stop shop for its target audience. Alternatively, it may just think that its target audience is stupid enough to believe InfoCon plc's publicity.

The 'one stop shop' is up there amongst my most-hated information cliches -- along with 'information at your fingertips'. I don't believe there is any information service that can supply all the information that one person (let alone one organisation) needs. Apart from anything else, there are all the surveys that show that most people's primary source of information is other people. Even an in-house know-how system might have difficulty being a true one stop shop. Still, a 'first stop shop' would be a start. What might my dream Internet information service offer?

— Key established databases with citations, abstracts, proper indexing and links to full text. They would be searchable together, or separately. Here I would have, for example, Library and Information Science Abstracts, with links to the relevant journals.

— Reference tools -- dictionaries, glossaries, directories (associations, databases, suppliers and so forth), as well as some general material: an information science encyclopedia, a Who's Who in the UK Information World and so on.

A specialist search engine, searching both the descriptions of rated information and library Web sites around the world, with the pages of those sites listed on the database.

An interactive events calendar.

Lots of current awareness and document supply options. If intelligent agents get a bit more intelligent they might be involved in selecting what is sent to me.

News (industry, jobs).

Teaching and learning material related to my areas of interest, in any medium.

Topic areas, where key resources on the same theme are linked together intelligently.

Dedicated conference and discussion areas

A flexible search engine for the whole site (allowing, for example, restriction by type of resource: articles, discussion lists and so on)

Options for customising the site: adding a link to my university's catalogue; choosing material from one or more of the parallel versions aimed at different countries.

Options for including delivery of print newsletters and journals as part of my subscription.

None of this is exactly radical in technical terms. I'm not even asking for sophisticated links to my other desktop software. But the site would thus become a combination of library, subscription agent and professional association.

What does it need to run a site like this? It needs someone willing and able to negotiate with many publishers. It needs respected and enthusiastic subject experts. It needs knowledge of the target population and a real willingness to seek its views. It needs a service approach and effective support. It needs staff with a range of different skills working together creatively, who are allowed to take a few risks. It also probably needs someone with deepish pockets to support it through its early stages.

So, to return to my first question: why didn't DIALOG and DataStar start up sites like this? You may be going back a step, and wondering why I ever thought they might. This was because they already have partnerships with a variety of information providers in many subject areas. If they'd wanted to set up 'Religion Web' or 'Information Science Web' they already had relationships with the core database providers.

However, the providers may not have wanted to cooperate. It has become obvious that Knight-Ridder was not committed to spinning other people's data. It would also seem that if anyone in KRI had a clue about the way to develop value-added Internet services they were not being allowed to do much about it.

A more interesting question is why there aren't more good subject-based sites generally. A major obstacle seems to be the copyright issue, and publishers' desire to go it alone or in limited combinations. Cost obviously comes into it as well, but whilst I can see that LIS might be an unremunerative niche, 'marketing', for example, also doesn't seem to have a site of this type. A site just offering IAC databases, or (heave out the garlic!) MCB journals is not a marketing one stop shop.

There are positive examples: MEDSCAPE (http://www.medscape.com/), in the biomedical field and Engineering Information (Ei) Village (http://www.ei.org/) are going in the right direction. MEDSCAPE, though, is US-focused and has restricted coverage -- unsurprisingly, considering it is free. Ei Village has developed impressively, but it doesn't have the rival and complementary database INSPEC.

So, is the dream an impossible one? I'd like to think not, and who knows, perhaps I'll find it at this year's Online Information Conference... But for anyone willing to take a bet, I would say 300-1 against was about right.

Sheila Webber is a Lecturer in the Department of Information Science at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. She can be reached at sheila@dis.strath.ac.uk.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!