Computer-Mediated
Communication Magazine /
Volume 2, Number 3 / March 1, 1995 / Page 40
Well-Constructed Gophers: Is Your
Gopher Golden?
by
J.
E. Kosokoff
(jekos@conncoll.edu)
Since its release into the public domain, the University of
Minnesota's Gopher1
software has grown into one of the de facto standards on the
Internet. The reasons
for this are many and perhaps ineffable, but clearly the
hierarchical interface
provided through the Gopher client/server is relatively easy to
use (cf.
Archie/FTP), and relatively easy to set up and administer. As
librarians and others begin
to include networked information resources in their collections,
many will strive to
select high-quality Gophers and create high-quality Gopher servers. This
article is successful if it can help
information professionals
in both the creation and selection of Gophers.
In the fall of 1993, several librarians
at Indiana University
created the
Indiana
University-Bloomington Library Gopher Server (IUBLGS) to serve
the needs of the
Indiana University community. The administrators of the IUBLGS
aimed to
simplify access to existing local electronic resources while
providing access to
newly-accessible Internet resources. Future development of the
IUBLGS will stress
its role as a reference collection for end users who are not in
the library building.
Through interviews with the creators of the IUBLGS, and informal
electronic
surveys with network users, I have developed a general
schema for the
appraisal of Gopher servers. The schema directs evaluators to
analyze Gophers on
anatomic grounds, and to consider contextual factors such as
selection and
accessibility. The utility of such a schema derives from its
simple application in
assessing and improving resources, as well as in the possible
stimulation of
discussion.
Over time, users of Gopher have become more diverse (i.e.,
in terms of their
experience, level of sophistication as Internet users, and their
information needs).
While some users of Gopher are relative neophytes, and therefore
demand much in
the way of guidance, more experienced users may need little in the
way of help from
the creators of individual Gopher servers. Of course, as a user's
experience with a
particular Gopher host grows, that user's need to be led by the
organizational
structure of a Gopher server will likely diminish.
Many casual users of Gopher rely on the hierarchical structure
imposed
on the information contained in the Internet by the individual
providers and
administrators of the various Gopher servers. At present, many
Gopher
administrators have put little effort into organizing their
Gopher. Just as much of the rest of the Internet, "Gopherspace" (all the
Gophers in the world, taken collectively) is still largely an
anarchy.2
Thus, it is imperative that librarians bring their experience and
skills in organizing
information to the Internet. At this early stage, some
libraries are bringing up
Gophers; hopefully, these Gophers will set an example for others
who are
attempting to organize Gopherspace and the Internet writ large.3
On a rather obvious and important level, if the
language used in the
Gopher directories is ambiguous, obscure, or misleading, users may
have great
difficulty identifying relevant resources. A fundamental
assumption of this article
is that critically-minded Internet users can analyze certain
aspects of
"Gopherspace" to identify characteristics that make certain
resources more
accessible, useful, helpful, or whatever users want to get out of
them. For the rest of
this article, I assume that open public access is
inherently good. Thus, in
attempting to explain and list the characteristics of a well-
constructed Gopher, I
take "well-constructed" to mean "easy to identify and use
by most users."
While some Gopher users rely on navigating through server menus, many users
avoid most of the hierarchy provided by individual
Gophers by relying
on Veronica 4
(for searching the
Internet as a
whole), Jughead (for searching single servers or sets of
servers), and using
bookmarks to create their own menus of useful and relevant
resources. These
"Veronica/bookmark" people probably rely much less on the
structure of any
particular Gopher server. Each method has inherent advantages
and
disadvantages, but there are some valuable clues to Gopher use in
both kinds of
behavior.
Some Gopher administrators want to keep their information somewhat
hidden
from the world-at-large. Others see their charge in terms of
providing access to all
who happen to find their host. For those in the Net community who
wish to
obscure the information and services that they provide, I
suggest that
they would be very effective in doing so if they contradict the
intent of the directives of
this article, and purposely create a "poorly-constructed Gopher."
Particularly, Gopher
administrators can easily name files and directories such that
users will be lucky to
find anything at all. For instance, obscure menu language
(e.g., using
numbers and peculiar words as menu choices or file names) will
prevent all but
accidental Veronica contact from occurring.
In the next two sections, I present factors involved in
the quality of a
Gopher server. Section II contains several "anatomic" or
"structural" factors, and
section III contains a set of more contextual concerns. Section
IV contains a short
explanation of how to apply the factors as a general schema for
Gopher server
evaluation. Section V is a short conclusion, which contains some
general
comments on the schema developed here, its usefulness for
evaluating Gopher
servers, and some suggestions for extending the kinds of concerns
expressed here
into the World Wide Web.
II. Anatomical/Structural Factors
I developed these factors through personal experience,
informal contact
with friends and colleagues, and ten responses to a posting on
various computer
conferences (LISTSERVs PACS-L, LIBREF-L, and GO-4-LIB; and the
Usenet group
comp.infosystems.gopher).
Individuals surveyed mentioned over forty different factors, which
I have
condensed into the eight anatomical factors listed below. While
the goals of the
administrators of individual Gopher servers can help determine the
relevance of
each factor, a truly public-minded Gopher owner will try to
address the concerns
implicit in each factor. The idea here is to stimulate thinking,
and have the
structure of a Gopher be the result of intentional actions.
- 1. Menu language
- The menu names should be clear and precise, strongly hinting
at what is to be
found by selecting the item. Too many Gophers have menu titles
that are totally
uninformative or misleading.
- 2. Classification
- Depending on the resource being organized, different
classification schemes are
appropriate. For information that is geographical in nature, a
geographical
organization can be extremely appropriate. However, most users
seem to prefer a
subject-based organization for most resource types. In the case
of access to different
types of resources (e.g., WAIS databases or FTP archives),
it may be
appropriate to organize resources of a particular type together
in one submenu. The
problems inherent in subject classification (e.g.,
"controlled" as opposed to "natural"
language) can be avoided by organizing by resource type, although
this requires
folks to do more manual searching.
- Another frustrating feature of many Gopher servers is the
division of similar
information into disparate parts of the hierarchy. Some Gopher
servers seem to be
more sensitive to local and/or administrative hierarchies than to
sorting by subject
or information type. While Gopher server administrators
may intend for their
resource to be used by a fairly narrow clientele, the actual user
base can be hard to
predict. As such, if the provider of the resource allows public
access, it makes sense
to organize in a way that both neophytes and experienced users
will find helpful.
- 3. Maintenance & monitoring
- Many users point to the necessity of diligent monitoring by
the Gopher owner.
One of the most frustrating things that all Gopher users face is
the menu selection
that points to nowhere. That is, either the address of a resource
has changed, or the
resource is no longer available. As addresses change, Gopher
owners must change
their addressing files to keep access current. As it is, users
have trouble
differentiating between a host that is too busy, and a connection
that is
simply no longer viable.
- It is also important that there be
constant monitoring of
off-site resources based on the quality of their information
and/or organization.
That is, if there is off-site "good stuff," it is imperative that
selection of these items
for inclusion on local menus be accompanied by continued
monitoring to check if
the resource is still a viable and valuable.5
- 4. Menu structure and heavily-used resources
- Users are often frustrated by having to dig around for the
most
commonly-used stuff. While bookmarks provide an obvious answer
for the
experienced user of a particular Gopher, some users complain that
they cannot find
some expected or obvious resource. For example, one user
mentioned that it is best
in an academic Gopher, especially an explicitly "library" Gopher,
to find access to
the institution's OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) at or near
the top menu level.
This gets at the general idea that it should be obvious, from the
root level, where the
user can find access to the most heavily used local resources.
- 5. Linear menu structure
- This may be the trickiest of the factors to state in any
general way. One major
complaint is that there are often too many selections at the root
level of many
Gophers. The advantageous thing about longer menus is that they
leave a
shallower structure beneath them. However, too much in one menu
can be
overwhelming. Two users suggest that a 5-deep structure should be
about the
maximum. Others suggest that the number of choices should be no
greater than
eighteen on any one menu.6 Eighteen is
roughly the number
displayed in a single
screen by some client software, especially non-window-based
clients.
- A few users suggest that blank lines be put to good use. That
is, perhaps the
Gopher administrator could use all eighteen lines, but only nine
would have any
text, the rest being empty ("dummies"), with no links to
anything. Another
suggestion is to use the first few items as dummies, putting
helpful information in
the place of selectable menu items. The first line of every menu
in the
KIDLINK Gopher (intended
for 10-15
year-olds) is left blank to help users avoid the common error of
accidentally
selecting the first item. In any event, depth and length should
be justifiable.
Today's users should not be forced to use a hierarchy that the
Gopher administrator
set up in an attempt to create a structure that is consistent with
extant or extinct
non-Gopher structure. It is also important to remember that
"Veronica/bookmark"
people do not rely on menu structure as heavily as other types of
users. When
Veronica or Jughead is the major access point to a particular
Gopher resource, the
administrator may not need to worry so much about this part of
the schema.
- 6. Location: Where in the Net is this?
- Good Gophers help the user know where in the ether they are.
Some Gophers
seem to obscure this information. This factor is important in
light of the fact that
some users are not aware of the "show attributes" functions that
are likely available
from their client software. In the long run, this is perhaps more
an issue for the
writers of the client software than anyone else. Perhaps future
releases of the
Gopher client software could always display the URL (Uniform
Resource Locator)
for the current menu or file across the top of the screen or
window. A related
concern is that informational resource files should contain some
indication of
their origin/authorship. Administrators should consider placing
such information
at the top of all informational files.
- 7. Text formatting
- Non-window-based Gopher clients limit the number of lines of
text displayed
on each screen. With this in mind, Gopher managers should try to
limit shorter
text files to about twenty lines. Creators of longer files should
also be aware that
small amounts of text sometimes run onto a brief or empty final
screen.
III. Local/Contextual Factors
These are factors that take into account the local context of the
Gopher server in
question. It is important for evaluators to consider the context
of use in
determining the quality of any resource. I created this
list of factors both
from personal experience and from informal contact with friends
and colleagues
who are frequent users of the Internet.
- 1. Audience & service
- Does the intended audience have access to the Gopher server
and knowledge
of it? Does the resource serve their needs? Does the Gopher help
the provider
serve the audience better? Since Gophers are such diffuse
resources, the issue can
arise as to who is getting the most out of your Gopher. Some
Gophers should fill
specific needs, are those needs/purposes being fulfilled? What do
the log files say
about where connections are coming from and which aspects of the
gopher are being
accessed frequently or infrequently?
- 2. Fit with existing resources
- While many locales have the resources to bring up a Gopher
server, the
question still remains as to whether the local commitment exists
to maintain
and/or improve the resource over a longer period. If the goal is
to provide a
resource that is to be transparent and heavily-used, the
institution must dedicate
itself to providing the resources to support the Gopher server.
If the goal is to
provide something ephemeral, then this factor may not apply.
What other
resources are available locally? How does this Gopher server
complement,
supplant, obscure, or complement existing resources? The idea
here is that Gopher
owners need to consider automation support and other contexts
surrounding their
Gopher server. If the Gopher server duplicates existing
resources, will it replace
them, fall into disuse, or something in between?
The schema outlined in the "factors" sections above is an attempt
to analyze the
characteristics of Gopher servers into related areas that
evaluators can consider
somewhat separately. Most readers will note that each factor
relates in both obvious
and subtle ways to the others. The intention of this article is
to provide a tool for
Gopher administrators and users that will enable them to identify
areas in which
their Gopher, or a Gopher they are considering linking to, either
excels or leaves
room for improvement. While it will be nearly impossible for a
remote user to
obtain the necessary information to enable a fair evaluation on
local/contextual
factors, evaluators can still apply these factors, to some extent,
as remote users. For
example, if a Gopher administrator is considering the provision of
a link to a
remote Gopher server, it is important to consider how that link
will complement
existing links and local resources.
Gopher is not going to go away. Right now, newer tools such as
HTML clients like
Mosaic, EINET's browsers, and Netscape are certainly growing in
popularity.
However, Gopher will likely remain the basis of network access in
many locations,
especially at sites that lack the bandwidth to support a full-fledged
graphics-based
interface. Gopher is a powerful tool that is well-suited to many
networking
environments and the delivery of certain networked information
resources. The
Gopher Development Team will likely remedy many of the drawbacks
of the
interface as the Gopher software matures. Further, the
interoperability of Gophers
with the World Wide Web also opens the possibility that different
resource
discovery tools will co-exist.
Too many of the characteristics of many Gopher and Web servers are
accidental.
By paying attention to the minutiae of their resources, Internet
resource
administrators can improve their product, and thereby improve its
usefulness to
many users. While the list of factors I offer is
not complete, it is a
good start on coming to terms with the characteristics that
evaluators should
consider in the construction and evaluation of Gophers and Web
pages. Creators of
World Wide Web pages should pay special attention to the length
of their pages,
and try consider the utility of adding or subtracting a few lines
to get better fit for
non-windows-based clients like Lynx. Web providers also need to
consider the
utility of providing graphically-oriented pages when many users
have neither the
bandwidth access, nor the local computing power to use them
effectively, if at all.
I hope that schemes such as this will become
standard reading for
network administrators who are bringing up Gophers or other
networked
information resources.7 As with more
traditional information
resources, librarians
can, and should lead the way in organizing the Internet. Let our
Gophers be an
example of all we have to offer.
¤
1. For a brief informational
discussion of
Gopher, written by the Gopher Development Team, see Gopher
Development Team (1992), "The Internet Gopher: An information sheet,"
Electronic Networking, 2(1): 69-71. For
more recent Gopher information from the team, the
"Gopher FAQ"
is available via Gopher from the developers (URL:
gopher://mudhoney.micro.umn.edu/00/Gopher.FAQ). For more of an
"outsider's"
view, see Notess, G. (1993), "Using Gophers to burrow through the
Internet,"
Online, 17(3): 100-102; or, Wiggins,
R. (1993), "The
University of Minnesota's Internet Gopher system: A tool for
accessing network-based electronic information," Public Access
Computer Systems Review,
4(2): 4-60 (available by e-mail, send "get
wiggins1 prv4n2
f=mail" and "get wiggins2 prv4n2 f=mail" to
"listserv@uhupvm1.uh.edu".
2. For an concise and helpful
discussion of
the anarchy of Gopherspace, see Snyder, J. (1994), "Diving into
the Internet: The
trouble with Gopher," Internet World,
5(2): 30-34.
Snyder's article also contains some insightful cautionary
guidelines.
3. The benefits of this can be
two-fold. First,
a Gopher is a reasonable way to provide a gateway to a large
variety of networked information resources. Second, integrating the
Internet into reference can apparently
improve relations with the campus computing department. See
Still, J. & J.
Alexander (1993), "Integrating Internet into reference: Policy
issues," College
& Research Libraries News, 54(3): 139-140.
For a further
discussion of the general issues to be considered by libraries in
offering Internet
access, see Radcliff, C., Du Mont, M., & J. Gatten (1993),
"Internet and reference
services: Implications for academic libraries," Library
Review,42(1): 15-19.
4. Veronica is a Gopherspace
application that allows users to search various aspects of Gophers
worldwide. For a general discussion
of Veronica, see Machovec, G. (1993), "Veronica: A Gopher
navigational tool on the
Internet," Information Intelligence: Online Libraries and
Microcomputers, 11(10): 1-4.
5. The identification and
monitoring of
resources by librarians is discussed, along with training issues,
in Kalin, S. W. & R.
Tennant (1991), "Beyond OPACs... The wealth of information
resources on
the Internet," Database, 14(4): 28-
33. See also Lynch,
C. A. & C. M. Preston (1990), "Internet access to information
resources,"
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
25: 263-312.
6. Gopher administrators can take stock
in the fact that a "full" Gopher server (18 choices on every menu with a
five-deep structure) would have 1,889,568 menu choices at the deepest
level, and a total of 2,000,718 menu choices throughout. Of course, this
assumes that no links above the deepest level lead off-site. I am
unaware of any Gopher that provides access to anything close to 2 million
items.
7. For example, there is an
excellent set of
files called "Gopher
Tips," (URL: ftp://ftp.einet.net/pub/GOPHERJEWELS-TIPS/)
available from
the EInet ftp site, and maintained as part of the
Gopher Jewels Project
(URL: gopher://cwis.usc.edu:70/11/Other_Gopher_and_Information_Resources/Gophers_by_Subject/Gopher_Jewels).
Jeff Kosokoff is an administrator of
the web server for the
School of Library and
Information Science at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
Copyright © 1995 by J. E. Kosokoff. All Rights Reserved.
This Issue /
Index /
CMC Studies Center /
Contact Us