Are any libraries making use of Goodreads API to integrate book reviews and ratings into OPACs?

Question

With over 10 million book reviews across 700,000 titles Goodreads has quickly become a massive collection of information about books, information that could potentially be a real boon for libraries. Goodreads also has a rather nice API that you can use to get all kinds of data, including book reviews and book cover images, for any given book based on their data.

I would be curious to know if any libraries have built off the Goodreads API, and if so what they have done.

If not, I would be curious to know what kinds of issues would be keeping libraries from thinking about leveraging this sort of data.

Answer 1

As dsalo says, most libraries don't have the resources (both technical competency and time) to do any sort of custom programming, however minor. Also, many libraries depend on city IT for their IT infrastructure and may not have adequate access to their servers. Hosted solutions are becoming more popular but even then, you may have to get the vendor to agree to the catalog enhancements.

Our library does not use the Goodreads API directly, but we do get a link to its reviews via our Novelist Select subscription. We also have LibraryThing reviews. You can see an example of our OPAC layout here*. Currently, in order to see the Goodreads reviews, you have to scroll down past the "Copy/Holding information" section. In the future, I would like to separate them from the Novelist "suggestions" and move them up to be next to the LibraryThing reviews. Last time I checked, Novelist didn't have an easy way for me to do this but that was a while ago.

I love working with LibraryThing. That being said, I do have a slight preference for Goodreads reviews just because there are so many them.

*For those that are curious, our "professional reviews" and book jacket covers are from Syndetics. Novelist provides the series information as well as the content underneath the copy/holding information. LibraryThing provides, reviews, the similar items in the left column, tags, shelf browse, other editions, and Lexile ratings (where available).

Answer 2

One reason not to choose Goodreads is LibraryThing For Libraries, which covers a lot of the same ground, but adds lagniappe:

• moderated reviews (so public libraries in more straitlaced communities don't have to deal with J. Random F-Bomb Dropper)
• a book-cover program, cheaper (though less comprehensive) than other for-pay ones
• tag clouds, if you're into that kind of thing
• straightforward OPAC integration, compared to custom programming against an API (which, realistically, most public libraries can't do)
• mobile-ization of the OPAC

Disclaimer: I have no connection with GoodReads, LTFL, or LT. I've just heard roughly a bazillion library-school students do practice job talks about LTFL. :)

Answer 3

(I realize I'm late to this discussion.)

Our library uses the API to display staff-authored reviews and lists from GoodReads. The reviews are in random rotation on our homepage (http://www.mcpl.us under "Staff Reviews") and some of the lists are here: http://www.mcpl.us/teenzone/reads. Admittedly, these are works in progress.

Also, our library system integrates GoodReads star-ratings in our OPAC (w/ links to the corresponding reviews page in GoodReads), but I don't know if this is API-based, a vendor-supplied integration, a GoodReads widget or what.

Answer 4

I've looked at the goodreads api in the past and a few issues that might affect you (that prevented me from persuing more) are in the terms:

1. Not use the API to harvest or index Goodreads data without our explicit written consent.
2. You may store information obtained from the Goodreads API for up to 24 hours. Goodreads needs the ability to modify, remove, and update the order of our data, which caching would prevent. An exception to this rule is if the data is from your own account or the OAuth-authenticated users account, in which case the data may be stored permanently.

Full terms: http://www.goodreads.com/api/terms

This would prevent you from indexing any of the reviews or metadata for search results. If you were hoping to search or boost by ratings then you would have more work to do versus if you could index it. The 24 hour limit would require you to build something to constantly refresh the cache of data, quite often.