Seeing Double:

Two Goal-oriented Models for Visual Searches

Amy Frazier, Jaki King, and Amber Strangstalien

Emporia State University

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 1

With just over 100 years of cinematic history behind us, modern life has become utterly

saturated with motion pictures. They have become not only a universal feature of our culture, but

as film and video making technologies have entered the hands of everyday people, they have

become a way in which we record and communicate the realities of our lives. We use motion

pictures to talk about events ranging from the deeply personal to the global; we tell stories, we

explore, we imagine, we argue, we express our thoughts and feelings. They contain everything

that we are and everything we have been for more than a hundred years. They are immediate and

visceral recordings of culture, of history, and of our individual lives.

It seems natural, therefore, that researchers of all kinds might turn to the vast body of

work that these motion pictures represent. Those studying everything from the history of global

wars to their personal genealogies might find much of interest in the cinematic record, if they’re

willing to undertake the search. But beyond the most public aspects of the media -- popular

feature films and recent television, most notably -- many seekers may discover that they don’t

know how to approach the problem of seeking film and video materials, and may be intimidated

by the search itself.

Motion pictures are fragile artifacts. Old celluloid is subject to dissolution and

combustion, and even more modern film stocks are prone to decay. Video tape becomes brittle

and degrades over time. Even digital files require regular maintenance to keep them viewable as

file formats change and newer technologies arise. Preservation thus is a primary concern in any

film archive. The great majority of the motion pictures that have been made are not easily or

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 2

widely accessible; few copies, or in many cases only a single copy, may be known to exist. And

while the number of these items that have been made available digitally is growing rapidly, the

job remains daunting in its magnitude, and most items will be available only in their original

form for the foreseeable future. Conservation, preservation, curation, archiving, and librarianship

are absolutely critical to keeping these materials as accessible as possible to those who wish to

make use of the information and knowledge they contain. Knowing how information seekers

approach the challenge of a motion picture search can help us to better do that work.

While a useful amount of literature on visual librarianship in general exists, the body of

work pertaining to film and video materials specifically proved to be very limited. It was

decided, therefore, to undertake some primary research in order to get more area-specific

information and data. This research took the form of two professional interviews -- one with Liz

Coffey, Film Conservator at the Harvard Film Archive, Weissman Preservation Center in

Cambridge, Massachusetts; and one with Mark Quigley, Manager of the Archive Research and

Study Center at the UCLA Film and Television Archive in Los Angeles, California -- as well as

an informal survey of Internet users.

What quickly became apparent during this research is that a wide gulf exists between the

way that many seekers approach a film or video search and the way that such a search might

optimally be done. There were two predominant patterns of search behavior: a more formal

process that was lengthy, mediation-intensive, and involved multiple layers of research, and

another more casual process which tended to be brief, and to involve only one or two sources and

no direct intervention by any professional authority. Given that the latter model appeared to be

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 3

by far the most common in spite of its rudimentary nature, two separate models were devised to

account for each pattern individually.

There are a number of features of motion picture librarianship that influence both models.

Film and video collections tend to be isolated from the larger network of libraries. Catalogs are

often unavailable outside the institution, and materials are not readily transportable to other

locations. Furthermore, film and video archives and libraries do not share a consistent cataloging

system, and catalogs are often incomplete, both in the way in which items are cataloged and also

how completely the collection as a whole is cataloged. Gaps in individual item records and in the

collection catalog are relatively common.

This means that a researcher can be quite dependent upon mediation by a librarian to

effectively search a motion picture collection. The librarian’s or archivist’s personal knowledge

of the collection is as key a resource as the catalog itself, since the librarian may be able to point

the searcher to relevant items that would not have been found during an independent review of

the catalog. The existing catalog is a useful tool, but is at its most effective in combination with

the guidance of the librarian. Mediation also becomes necessary once a searcher has located a

specific item they wish to view, as access often requires intervention by the librarian. In a typical

interaction in a film archive, for example, an archivist might have to go through a number of

steps to fulfill a searcher’s request, including locating an item, checking it for existing or

potential damage, determining whether it can physically withstand projection, preparing it for

projection, and finally screening the item for the searcher.

This rigorous series of events leading up to the viewing of a single item, along with the

time-based nature of the item itself, means that browsing and serendipitous discovery are

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 4

typically not feasible search strategies in these kinds of collections. An efficient search strategy

doesn’t allow for “flipping through” a large number of items; a patron needs to come to the

collection with a clear idea of their objectives. Ideally, a search process involving film or video

begins long before the searcher first engages a specific archive.

We created two models for film and video searches depending on the complexity of the

search and the seeker’s needs. The first and less research-based model is designed for the casual

user and is primarily shaped by responses gathered from our brief online survey of Internet

searching. The 10 questions were devised to learn how often the Internet is used for researching

visual materials, what avenues are being followed to pursue that research and what results (if

any) complete a search.

For example, imagine that one of the almost 40% of our respondents who use the

Internet very often for video research needs to stop their toilet from running. Instead of paying a

plumber’s exorbitant fees, the person decides to find a video online showing ways to

troubleshoot and offering solutions. This information need comprises the first stage of our casual

model.

The next stage involves one of two practices, or perhaps both. Using a keyword

search like “fixing running toilet” or simply browsing possibilities under household maintenance,

the user is likely to find suitable material. Unlike the archived collection, where materials need

to be specifically sought out and browsing is typically not feasible, it is possible to browse and

serendipitously discover videos within the more casual model. In fact, browsing is built into the

system and several suggestions are provided to the user based on the content of their search.

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 5

Choosing a knowledge system is the third and final stage of the casual video

search. According to our survey, Google and YouTube are the online sources turned to first, with

streaming sites and torrent tracker sites not far behind. At this point, the user is satisfied or

satisficed with the results. Satisfice is a clever blending of the words satisfy and suffice and

means settling for information that is easiest to come by rather than continuing a search to find

the best solution (Case, 2007). This tendency to give up after only a few tries is summed up well

by a few respondents to our survey that claim, “if it’s not on Google it doesn’t really

exist” (anonymous, personal communication, October 31, 2011) or “if it’s not on Google and I

don’t care that much about it, I’ll probably quit.” This respondent appears more willing to delve

deeper by going on to say, “otherwise a torrent site or some archival site” is used (anonymous,

personal communication, October 31, 2011). To the casual searcher, this is the extent of the

search. It ends after only one or two attempts to find material that is often merely “good

enough”.

Our professional interviews with the film conservator Liz Coffey and the archivist Mark

Quigley helped form the second model for film and video retrieval. The research-based model is

a more formal and lengthy process with high levels of mediation and multiple layers, sometimes

taking a circular path instead of a linear one. This is the less common approach but is more suited

to the user with more time and specific needs.

It too starts with an information need. Imagine a fashion designer embarking on a

new line of clothing based on the creations of the famous film costume designer of the 40’s and

50’s, Edith Head, who worked for Paramount and Universal Studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Edith_Head). The designer would be in the first stage of our research model and perform the

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 6

background research necessary to know what to look for. For example, what are some films that

featured her costume designs? Who were the actors and actresses she regularly worked with?

Did she ever make any special appearances? Are there any documentaries about her work? Is

there any award footage that is relevant? Having answered these five questions can help guide a

search in an archived collection and is a highly recommended first step required for successful

results.

After some preliminary research, a clear goal can be established which will help

guide the remainder of the search. For example, the fashion designer now knows the exact film

titles and the particular film stars to search for. They know what years her designs appeared on

the red carpet and some documentation to reference. That seems like an overwhelming amount

of information that is too broad to draw upon and so the researcher enters the next stage of our

model involving refinement and focus. The fashion designer decides to narrow the scope to

Edith Head’s costumes for Grace Kelly and other leading ladies in the films of Alfred Hitchcock.

The next stage of our model, collection location, can be a difficult one since film and

archive catalogs are often self-contained and geography can be a physical barrier. This stage

might involve making phone calls to different institutions and inquiring about collection

materials and access to them. It could involve scheduling appointments and/or consultations

with film librarians or archivists.

The final stage of the research model occurs after the searcher has located a collection

and then physically visits that collection in order to view materials. Given the nature of film and

video libraries as fragile and limited, extensive mediation with a librarian is necessary. The staff

person first needs to find the material and then make a judgment call about its condition. Is it

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 7

damaged? Is it in risk of suffering damage? Depending on the format available, the librarian is

most likely needed to technologically assist. They can load film reels or laser discs. They might

need to operate a steenbeck machine or a movie projector.

At this stage, our model can take a circular route depending on the results after system

mediation. The searcher can go back to any or all of the three previous steps to do additional

background research, form a new focus, or locate a different collection. In the case of the

fashion designer, imagine that a large amount of material was discovered to be degraded.

According to the model, the designer goes back and does more research on Edith Head’s career

and re-focuses the search to Audrey Hepburn’s costume design in the film Roman Holiday. This

illustrates the interchangeable nature of the research model and allows a new search to begin.

The purpose of our two models were to paint an accurate picture of the complexities

involved in searching for film and video.

Two models were discussed, each a unique branch stemming from a goal of acquiring a

visual medium to satisfy ones needs. Based on the immediacy of the need and the importance of

the material, two models take shape. The first, a Casual Internet Search involves a straight-

forward immediate goal that the user can either quickly accomplish through one or two

navigation's or they give up the search or are simply ‘satisficed’ by a result that mildly fits their

parameters.

Our other model, the Intensive Research Model - while also simply structured - is a tool

to show that while the steps may be clear the user will have a hard time actually finding and then

viewing what they are looking for. In this model importance is key, unlike the Casual Internet

Search model where efficiency and immediacy are needed, the user in an Intensive Research film

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 8

and video search must be prepared for long hours, problematic settings, forced to travel long

distances, and the very real possibility that you may never find what you seek.

These models tell us very precise things about how databases and libraries should be (or

at least be setting goals for) improving the convenience and usability of not only the online video

search experience, but the physical search at an actual film and video archive. Marcia Bates

(1989), emphasized our point by stating that, “As the sizes and variety of databases grow and the

power of search interfaces increases, users will more and more expect to be able to search

automated information stores in ways that are comfortable and familiar to them” (p. 419). From

our survey results it is clear that a user will seek out a search engine that is both familiar and

comfortable to them. If what they seek is not easily found within those precious few databases

they will abandon their search. The same can be said of film and video archives which are not

shrinking in size or becoming more manageable. Archives are overwhelmed with outdated films

and lack both the time and the money to digitize even a small percentage of the multitude of film

and videos at their disposal. This is sad and dismaying considering the cultural and historical

significance that we place now in visual mediums. From episodes of the Jersey Shore to the

inauguration speech of the United States first African-American president, these videos become a

primary resource when attempting to understand the social environment in which they were

filmed.

Because of their social importance, film and video should not only be preserved, but

catalogued in a way that would allow the public access. This of course is glossing over any

copyright issues which Timothy Peters (2011) sums up nicely with, “How does a streaming video

differ from a DVD when it comes to copyright? The rise of digital information has brought with

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 9

it it’s own set of copyright concerns (p. 592).” The Library, however, is already dealing with

issues on how to lend digital books to patrons, perhaps one day we will be able to do the same

with Hawaiian Punch commercials from the 1960’s or home videos taken at Disneyland. Imagine

going into your local library and being able to take home with you for a few days a copy of, not

just a book about baroque chair design, but also twenty digital images of said chairs, and be able

to have a three week access to a video about baroque chair structure streaming to your computer

at home. Sounds perfect, right?

While the Casual Internet Search Model and the Intensive Research Models give

off a dismal sense of inevitable failure or a satisficed ending, they are merely illustrating the

system we are currently operating under. The searches are filled with satisficing events, but we

see a time when film and video searches can be comfortable, efficient, and provide the same

avenues and searches that are afforded books and articles.

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 10

References

Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface.

Online Review, 13(5), 407-424. Retrieved 15 November, 2011 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/

faculty/bates/berrypicking.html .

Case, D.O. (2007) Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and

Behavior. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Macke, S., & Sewell, B. (2011). Open stacks for library videos: A case study. Reference & User

Services Quarterly, 51(1), 36-42.

Peters, T. (2011). Copyright to the university: Tips on informing, educating, and enabling.

C&RL News, 72(10), 592-594.

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 11

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 12

Running head: SEEING DOUBLE 13