Your library catalog search is bad. You know it’s bad. Your patrons know it’s bad. They Google the title, find it on Amazon, then ask you if the library has it. That’s how bad your search is.

Let’s talk about why. (And if you’re wondering why your ILS is held together with hope, that doesn’t help either.)

What Good Search Looks Like

Good search does three things:

  1. Understands what you mean, not just what you typed
  2. Returns relevant results in a useful order
  3. Helps you refine when results are wrong

Google does this. Amazon does this. Your ILS does none of this.

Why Library Catalog Search Fails

Problem 1: Exact Match Syndrome

Most library catalogs use exact match searching. Type “color” and you won’t find books about “colour” because someone decided British spelling doesn’t count.

Type “dogs” and miss books about “dog” because plurals are different words apparently.

Type a title slightly wrong and get zero results instead of “did you mean this?”

This is solvable. Stemming algorithms exist. Fuzzy matching exists. Google figured this out in 1998. Libraries in 2025 still haven’t caught up.

Problem 2: Boolean Operators Nobody Taught You

Want to search for “cats AND dogs”? Better know that your ILS treats “and” as a search term unless you capitalize it. Or maybe it doesn’t. Depends on the vendor.

Want to exclude results? Use NOT. Or maybe it’s AND NOT. Or maybe it’s a minus sign. Or maybe it doesn’t work at all.

Meanwhile, Google just understands what you want. You don’t need a manual to search Google. You need a manual to search your library catalog. That’s the problem.

Problem 3: Relevance Ranking Is Broken

Search for “python” and your catalog returns:

  1. Monty Python DVD (because it’s newer)
  2. A book about snakes (because “python” is in the title)
  3. Programming books about Python (what you actually wanted)

The ranking algorithm has no idea what you’re looking for. It sorts by acquisition date or title alphabetically and calls it a day. That’s not relevance. That’s alphabetization with extra steps.

Problem 4: Facets That Don’t Help

Your catalog has facets. You can filter by format, location, publication date, etc. Great.

Except the facets are useless because:

  • Format options are too granular (Audiobook CD, Audiobook Cassette, Audiobook MP3, Audiobook Playaway… just say Audiobook)
  • Location names are internal codes (JUV-FIC-SCI means what exactly?)
  • Date ranges are bizarre (1900-1950, 1951-2000, 2001-present… why)

Facets should help narrow results. Yours create confusion.

Problem 5: The Mobile Experience Is Punishment

Your catalog technically works on mobile. Technically.

The text is microscopic. The search box requires three taps to activate. Filters are hidden behind a dropdown you can’t find. Results don’t wrap properly.

Meanwhile, 60% of your searches come from phones. You’re telling most of your users to suffer or give up.

Whose Fault Is This?

The easy answer is “the vendor.” And yeah, vendors deserve blame. But it’s not just them.

Vendor Responsibility

Vendors build search systems with 20-year-old technology because upgrading is expensive and libraries keep buying the old version anyway. They optimize for librarian workflows, not patron experience.

They also don’t test with real users. They test with catalogers who know MARC and Boolean operators and expect everyone else to learn.

Library Responsibility

Libraries keep buying bad search systems because procurement focuses on features, not usability.

RFPs ask “does it support Z39.50” instead of “can a 12-year-old find books about dogs without training?”

We accept terrible search because we’re used to it. We route around it by helping patrons in person instead of demanding better software.

Cataloger Responsibility

Some of this is cataloging decisions. When you catalog a book about Python programming but don’t add subject headings that differentiate it from Monty Python, search results suffer.

When you use internal location codes instead of patron-friendly labels, discoverability dies.

Cataloging is hard. But it’s also the foundation of search. If the metadata is bad, search will be bad.

What Actually Fixes This

Fix 1: Demand Better from Vendors

Stop accepting “industry standard” search. Industry standard is terrible.

RFPs should require:

  • Fuzzy matching and stemming
  • Relevance ranking based on user behavior
  • Mobile-first design
  • Accessibility compliance
  • Spell check and “did you mean” suggestions

If vendors can’t deliver this, don’t buy their system. Enough libraries walking away will force change.

Fix 2: Use Discovery Layers That Don’t Suck

Your ILS search is bad. Fine. Don’t use it as your public interface.

Use a discovery layer (Primo, Summon, EBSCO Discovery, whatever) that actually handles modern search expectations. Yes, it costs money. Yes, it’s worth it.

Or use open source options like VuFind or Blacklight. They’re not perfect but they’re better than exposing your raw ILS to the public.

Fix 3: Test With Real Users

Sit a teenager down in front of your catalog. Ask them to find a book about a topic they care about. Watch them fail.

Then fix the things that made them fail.

User testing is free. You have patrons. Ask them what’s confusing. Then fix it.

Fix 4: Clean Up Your Metadata

Bad metadata creates bad search. Fix it.

  • Add subject headings that match how people actually search
  • Use consistent location labels that make sense to humans
  • Add summaries and tables of contents for better full-text search
  • Fix typos in titles and authors

Cleaning metadata is boring. It’s also essential.

Fix 5: Set Up Google Analytics or Similar

You can’t fix what you don’t measure. Track:

  • What searches return zero results
  • What searches get abandoned without clicks
  • What devices people use
  • How long they spend searching before giving up

This data tells you what’s broken. Then you can fix it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is my library catalog search so bad?

Library catalog search is bad because it uses exact match algorithms instead of fuzzy matching, doesn’t understand search intent, ranks results by acquisition date instead of relevance, and wasn’t designed for mobile devices. Most library catalogs use 20-year-old search technology while patrons expect Google-level search.

How can I improve library catalog search?

Implement a discovery layer (Primo, Summon, EBSCO, VuFind, or Blacklight) instead of exposing your ILS directly. Demand fuzzy matching, stemming, relevance ranking, and spell-check from vendors. Clean up metadata by adding subject headings, fixing typos, and using patron-friendly location labels. Test with real users and fix what breaks.

What is a discovery layer for libraries?

A discovery layer sits on top of your ILS and provides modern search features like fuzzy matching, relevance ranking, faceted search, and mobile-responsive design. Popular options include Ex Libris Primo, ProQuest Summon, EBSCO Discovery, and open-source options like VuFind or Blacklight.

Should library catalog search work on mobile?

Yes. 60% of library catalog searches come from mobile devices. If your catalog search is difficult to use on phones (tiny text, hidden filters, non-responsive design), you’re telling most users to give up or use Google instead. Mobile-first design should be non-negotiable.

How do I fix zero-result searches in my library catalog?

Track searches that return zero results using analytics. Common causes: typos (add spell-check), plurals (enable stemming), British vs. American spelling (use synonym lists), and Boolean operator confusion (make search intuitive). Fix cataloging errors and add subject headings that match how patrons actually search.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Your catalog search sucks because libraries have accepted bad search for decades. Vendors build bad search because we keep buying it. Patrons use Google instead of your catalog because Google works and your catalog doesn’t.

This is fixable. We just have to decide it’s worth fixing.

Stop accepting “good enough for libraries.” Start demanding “good enough for humans.”

And for the love of everything, make sure your search works on phones. It’s 2025. If your catalog requires a desktop to be usable, you’ve already lost.

Go test your catalog on a phone. Right now. Then fix what’s broken.

Authenticity note: With the exception of images, this post was not created with the aid of any LLM product for prose or description. It is original writing by a human librarian with opinions.