Suharti Suharti, Husna Amalina Sholihah

Perbandingan Recall and Precision pada Sistem Temu Kembali Informasi Lama (Simpus) dan Baru (Simpustaka) di Perpustakaan Universitas Islam Indonesia

Introduction

Perbandingan recall and precision pada sistem temu kembali informasi lama (simpus) dan baru (simpustaka) di perpustakaan universitas islam indonesia. Perbandingan recall dan precision sistem temu kembali informasi Simpus (lama) dan Simpustaka (baru) di Perpustakaan UII. Keduanya efektif, namun Simpustaka butuh optimisasi.

Abstract

Libraries need to continually adapt to technological developments in order to remain relevant to their users. The presence of the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) is expected to facilitate access to library collections. In 1998, the Universitas Islam Indonesia Library launched an OPAC called Simpus. As user needs grew, the library migrated to SLiMS 9 Bullian in September 2024, with the new OPAC named Simpustaka. System evaluation is necessary to assess performance, which can be measured through recall and precision tests. This study aims to compare the recall and precision of the old OPAC (Simpus) and the new OPAC (Simpustaka). This study uses a descriptive method with a quantitative approach with samples selected from the most frequently searched subjects. Data was tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted to draw conclusions. The findings show that both OPACs demonstrate high effectiveness, with scores above 0.68. However, the new OPAC (Simpustaka) requires further optimization to maximize its usability for library users.

Review

This study addresses a highly relevant issue for modern academic libraries: the continuous adaptation to technological advancements, particularly in the realm of Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). The authors investigate the performance of two distinct OPAC systems at the Universitas Islam Indonesia Library: the legacy Simpus and the newly implemented Simpustaka, which migrated to SLiMS 9 Bullian. By employing standard information retrieval metrics—recall and precision—the paper offers a timely comparison of these systems, providing valuable insights into their effectiveness for users and the implications of system migration. Methodologically, the study adopts a descriptive quantitative approach, with samples selected from the most frequently searched subjects. The findings indicate that both OPAC systems demonstrate a commendable level of effectiveness, with reported scores exceeding 0.68, suggesting generally good performance in retrieving relevant information. A key insight, however, is that while effective, the newer Simpustaka system requires further optimization to fully enhance its usability for library patrons. The abstract could benefit from more specific details regarding the selection process for "frequently searched subjects" and how recall and precision were precisely measured and relevant documents judged for the quantitative analysis. Clarification on whether "scores above 0.68" refers to both recall and precision individually, or a combined metric, would also strengthen this section. The paper's strength lies in its practical relevance and its use of established metrics to evaluate critical library infrastructure. It effectively highlights the ongoing challenges libraries face in managing technological transitions while maintaining or improving user access. For the full paper, it would be beneficial to elaborate on the exact methodology for calculating recall and precision, including the test query formulation, the size of the document collection considered, and the process of relevance assessment. Further, detailing the *specific* areas identified for Simpustaka's optimization, perhaps linking them directly to aspects of its recall or precision performance, would provide more actionable recommendations. Overall, this study offers a solid initial assessment of OPAC performance, providing a foundation for ongoing system improvement and future research into user interaction and satisfaction.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.