WEB ONLY FEATURE
Online Before the Internet, Part 3:
Early Pioneers Tell Their Stories: Carlos Cuadra
by Susanne Bjørner • Bjørner & Associates
& Stephanie C. Ardito • Ardito Information & Research,
“Online Before the Internet” continues a series of interviews
with selected industry pioneers who were responsible for the first online
wave. This segment features Dr. Carlos A. Cuadra, originator and champion
of ORBIT Search Service (1972-1978), and currently principal of Cuadra
Associates, Inc. Los Angeles, California [http://www.cuadra.com]. Dr. Cuadra
at his offices in April 2000. Later in the conversation, Judith Wanger,
a colleague at SDC Search Service and Executive Vice President at Cuadra
joined the group.
Who’s Who: Key People
Berger, Mary C. — 1983-2003: Engineering Information Inc. (now
known as Elsevier Engineering Information). Past president, ASIS.
Bourne, Charles P. — 1957-1966: Senior research engineer, Stanford
Research Institute. 1971-1977: Director, Institute of Library Research,
University of California, Berkeley. 1977-1992:Vice president, General
Information Division, Dialog Information Services.
Brownson, Helen L. — Originally a secretary to Vannevar Bush at
MIT and later the Director, National Science Foundation, Office of Scientific
Information. Instrumental in funding information science projects, including
the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.
Elias, Arthur W. — 1962-1968: Vice president, Operations, Institute
for Scientific Information (ISI). 1962-1976: Editor, Journal of the American
Society for Information Science.
Fairthorne, Robert A. — For 30 years, worked on the scientific
staff of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). Became involved in information
retrieval in 1950, publishing his book Toward Information Retrieval in
1961. In the mid-1960s, under contract with the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR), carried on various projects with fundamental contributions
to information science. Died in 2000.
Gaffner, Haines B. — 1961-1969: Vice president, Business International.
1969-1971: Vice president, Quantum Science Corporation. 1971-1976: President
and co-founder, FIND/SVP. 1976: President and founder, LINK Resources.
Hyams, Montague (Monty) — 1951: Founded Derwent Information, a
patent documentation publishing company. Derwent World Patents Index
database was introduced in 1974, and in 1976, the Index became one of
the first databases on the SDC ORBIT service. In the early 1980s, Derwent
was added to Dialog and Questel.
Kent, Allen — 1955-1963: Professor, Library Science, Western Reserve
University. 1963-1991: Professor, University of Pittsburgh School of
Library and Information Science. 1968 to date: Executive editor, Encyclopedia
of Library and Information Science; 1972-2002: Executive editor, Encyclopedia
of Computer Science and Technology; 1984-2001: Executive editor, Encyclopedia
of Microcomputers; 1988-2001: Executive editor, Encyclopedia of Telecommunications.
Porter, Elias H. — Psychologist. Held teaching posts at the University
of Chicago, University of Oregon, University of California at San Diego,
and University of California at Los Angeles. Corporate positions included
Assistant Director of Human Factors Directorate, SDC; and Senior System
Scientist, Technomics, Inc. Died in 1987.
Williams, Martha E. — 1957-1972: IIT Research Institute (established
fee-based, batch computer search services in 1968). 1972-1999: Director,
Information Retrieval Research Lab, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
1974-date: Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1976-1989: Editor-in-chief,
Computer-Readable Databases Directory and Data Sourcebook. 1976-2001:
Editor, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 1980-2001:
Program chairman, National Online Meeting (now called InfoToday), sponsored
by Information Today, Inc. and held in New York City each spring.
Ardito: We’re asking everyone we talk with
about the formative experiences of their very early life.
Cuadra: I was born in San Francisco and went to Lowell High School, which
was a kind of prep school for the Bay area. I left high school after 3 years
and went into the Navy. I took Armed Forces Institute courses and got my diploma
while I was still in the Navy. In 1946, I enrolled in the University of California,
at Berkeley. That was the University of California at the time.
Bjørner: You went into the Navy in 1944, during WW II?
Cuadra: Yes. I served overseas. I was a radioman second class, copying Morse
code: listening all day and typing code. I went to the Pacific, to Manus Island,
part of the Admiralty Islands, off New Guinea. There was an officer there who
created an off-duty educational program that came to be called the College
of the Admiralties. The officer directed it, but I was put in charge, living
in the building, arranging courses, and finding volunteers to teach English,
photography, bookkeeping, etc. There wasn’t much to do on that island,
so people were perfectly willing to teach classes. We awarded diplomas and
helped many move along in their education.
Education and Entrepreneurship
Cuadra: After I was discharged, I studied general psychology at Berkeley.
For some reason, I took Psych 1A and 1B at the same time. Apparently, I took
good notes; people would sit next to me or borrow my notes before class.
I discovered there was something called Fybate Notes. It was a business where
good note-takers would audit classes and provide their notes, to be printed
and sold to students who took poor notes or didn’t go to class. I bought
a mimeograph machine, printed my notes for Psych 1B, and sold them for pennies
to other students. The professor got wind of this and offered me a job as a
teaching assistant. He wanted to keep me from selling notes, so he gave me
a job. My entrepreneurial business stopped dead, but I worked for that professor
for several years.
Ardito: Were you on the GI Bill at Berkeley?
Cuadra: Yes. I think I did my undergraduate work in 3 or 3-1/2 years. Then
I decided to work toward a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. Ph.D.s were not associated
tightly with any specific area then — a Ph.D. was a Ph.D. But there were
several possible specialties, and the one I chose was clinical psychology.
My interests were always broad. The clinicians thought I was an experimental
psychologist, and the experimental psychologists thought I was a shrink, because
I wasn’t purely one or the other. I took experimental psychology, animal
psychology, statistics, and subjects that aren’t clinical, as well as
the clinical areas. I got my doctorate in 1953.
The last 3 years included internships. I spent some time at the University
of California, Berkeley, Mental Hygiene Clinic; then at the Oakland general
medical hospital; and finally, the Palo Alto Veterans Administration psychiatric
hospital. They sent us to different places to get exposed to different kinds
of patients. After finishing, I wanted to get a job in California but couldn’t — at
the University anyway — because the policy was to go someplace else,
get cross-fertilized, and then come back. I took a job in Downey, Illinois,
at the VA Hospital. I was in the clinical psychology department there — doing
therapy, testing, and training new trainees — for about 3 years.
Ardito: Is that the first time you were outside of California?
Cuadra: Yes, except for the service. I didn’t love it. I really wanted
to be in California.
The RAND Years
Cuadra: In 1956, RAND Corporation was recruiting widely, and a recruiter came
to Illinois. RAND had invented a training concept that involved cutting off
live communications to radar sites and substituting computer-generated inputs.
That way, site personnel who never saw many airplane blips could practice dealing
with massive attacks by hostile aircraft.
Bjørner: Those were early simulations!
Cuadra: Exactly. For two hours, with live radar cut off, fake inputs would
come in. People on the phone would pretend to be at the airfield where the
fighter warplanes were stationed. They would say, “Scramble two fighters,” simulating
sending them off. This was a very well-done simulation. At the end of 2 hours,
there would be debriefing and feedback. That was the invention, and the Air
Force contracted with RAND to install the simulation program in every radar
site in the country. RAND had to hire people to train the Air Force. I was
one of the people RAND hired. It was a secret program. The person who recruited
me, Dr. Elias H. Porter, was very persuasive. He said, “I can’t
tell you what you’ll do, but you’ll really like it.” The
combination of his personality and the fact that it was in California was enough
to let me walk away from clinical psychology forever.
Ardito: Did they send you to different training sites?
Cuadra: No, I worked for a while doing the training. I went on only one of
the 6-week trips. Then I was promoted to be one of the recruiters and trainers,
so I hired other people and sent them out. The program started with the manual
air defense system. Then the Air Force automated the radar system, calling
it SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment). RAND needed people to train the
operators of SAGE as well, so the program I was in grew to prepare people to
go on site and train the Air Force in the use of this computer-based air defense
Early Computer Experience
Bjørner: That was your first experience with computers, then?
Cuadra: That’s right. I’d never seen a computer before. The first
one I saw was the SAGE installation in Santa Monica at System Development Corporation,
in a big building with no windows. It was an IBM computer called AN/FSQ-7,
and it took up about 10 times the size of a 15 x 20 foot conference room. You
had to walk between the components of the computer. There was a memory unit
the width of my outstretched arms and about 5 feet tall. Another unit was drums — there
were no disks in those days. The CPU was still another unit. The system took
up the whole room, and there were two! — it was duplexed for reliability.
This was a firstgeneration computer: vacuum tubes, drums, no disks. The memory
was only 64,000 bytes (64 K). It was interactive, supporting more than a hundred
consoles, so each activity had to be completed on a scheduled basis. There
wasn’t enough memory to do everything at once and support all these consoles,
so they just shuffled through processes, with the most important jobs — such
as identifying aircraft — done most frequently. Many of the people I
hired were Ph.D. psychologists who became team leaders when they went out to
sites. There were four SDC people to a site. They all had to learn about computers,
so we had computer, air defense, training, and how-to-do-your-job classes,
all of which I was in charge of arranging.
Ardito: Was SDC one of the sites that you were working on for RAND?
Cuadra: No, RAND invented the program, and the Air Force decided to implement
it. The Air Force hired RAND, but RAND didn’t want to run the program,
because its mission in life was to give advice to the Air Force. RAND had never
sold services other than providing advice. A division within RAND, called System
Development Division, was set up to run this program. Later, RAND spun the
Division off, setting it adrift, totally disconnected from RAND, with its own
contracts with the Air Force. In 1957, when it was split off from RAND, I was
moved to System Development Corporation.
Bjørner: How did you get trained on using the computer?
Cuadra: There were training programs, but our trainers were not expected to
do anything with the real operational computer. Our team would hand the Air
Force a tape; the tape would be loaded into the computer; and this would do
what the old program did — cut off all external inputs and substitute
inputs that were computer-generated. The machinery to make these inputs was
very complicated; when an airplane passed out of one sector, it had to disappear
from that radar screen and appear on the screen of the next site. All these
inputs had to occur as though they were really happening at more than one site.
Our people didn’t learn how to be air defense experts; they simply learned
how to conduct the exercise. They didn’t even do the debriefing; they
just helped the Air Force officers and staff debrief. We told the Air Force
how to run the program.
Ardito: So you weren’t doing any programming yourself?
Cuadra: No. Never did. I’m not a programmer — couldn’t write
a program to save my life. This project went on for 2 or 3 years. Then I had
a sequence of jobs, and, at some point, I wound up running the library and
documentation systems department. This department did research for various
government agencies, primarily the Air Force.
Information Science and Technology
Ardito: Did SDC develop the ORBIT software for the Air Force?
Cuadra: Yes — the original version — but I was not involved in
the early stages of that development. There was a lot of information-related
research going on. Government contractors got a certain amount of money for
independent research, and SDC staff were doing all kinds of things — document
association, computer database retrieval — many projects. Other people
were developing retrieval programs long before I was associated with them.
Ardito: How did you get involved in the information science side?
Cuadra: I don’t remember what unit I was in, but in 1962, I wrote a
paper entitled, “Who is Fred Dutton?” A silly name, but its point
was that SDC needed a way to tell what prospects SDC was marketing to. There
were some embarrassing situations, where people from one office of SDC were
trying to sell something to an Air Force unit, not knowing that another group
was also trying to sell to the same people. My memo said that there ought to
be a contact file, and I described the kind of information that should be in
the file. I don’t know if anything was said about computers. This is
the earliest event I recall that shows my interest in information processing.
In 1963, I went to a meeting of the American Documentation Institute (ADI).
I have no idea how I heard about these meetings. I probably thought that ADI
was a place where people who were interested in information and documents hung
out and maybe I would learn something. The meeting was very mysterious to me;
people spoke a language that I wasn’t familiar with. I got interested
in the meeting itself and did a survey — an evaluation — of the
1963 meeting. I sent out questionnaires and reported on the results. There’s
a part of me that always tries to figure out what I’ve just done and
how it can be done better. I was trying to get a grasp of what was happening
at the meeting, without being an expert in the language and the issues.
Bjørner: This was a national meeting?
Cuadra: Yes, and what I wrote was a technical report, published by SDC, because
they paid for my attendance.
Then I started wondering what I should read to learn about this field. I wrote
to at least 50 persons — I don’t know how I got the names — and
said, “I’m trying to imagine what someone from Mars would find
useful if they want to learn what the documentation field is about. I would
appreciate your telling me what you consider to be your most significant published
contributions, and why, so we can identify starting places for this Martian.” Many
of the leading lights — Allen Kent, Robert Fairthorne, Charlie Bourne — wrote
back with very thoughtful replies. In 1964, I published the responses in a
document called, “Identifying Key Contributions to Information Science.” By
reading the various publications and reports, I began to learn about the field.
What’s What: Names, Acronyms,
ADI — American Documentation Institute, predecessor to ASIS.
ASIS — American Society for Information Science. Founded in
1937 as the American Documentation Institute (ADI). Name changed to
ASIS in 1968 and to the American Society for Information Science and
Technology (ASIST) in 2000.
IBM AN/FSQ7 — Computer developed by IBM and MIT to run the SAGE
centers for the U.S. Air Force. The final model was the largest computer
ever built, weighing 250 tons, taking up 20,000 square feet, and consuming
more than a million watts of power.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) — Begun
in 1966, with Carlos Cuadra as ARIST’s first editor. Dr. Cuadra
continued as editor through volume 10. Martha Williams became editor
with volumes 11 though 35. Blaise Cronin assumed the editorship with
volume 36 (2002). ARIST is published by Information Today, Inc. for
the American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIST).
Baseline — Entertainment database founded in 1983 by James Monaco.
BRS — Bibliographic Retrieval Services, begun as a commercial
outgrowth of the SUNY Biomedical Communication Network in 1976. In
1994, BRS was purchased by Ovid Technologies. In 1998, Wolters Kluwer
CA SEARCH: Chemical Abstracts — Chemical database, variously
known as CA Condensates and Chem Abs; produced by American Chemical
CD-ROM — Compact Disk, Read-Only Memory, a durable medium of
digital content popularized in the mid-1980s as a controlled price
subscription alternative to online transactions.
Derwent World Patents Index — Database produced by Derwent Information,
U.K.; now a part of Thomson Derwent.
Directory of Online Databases — First published in 1979, listing
400 online databases offered through 59 online services. In 1991, the
Directory was sold to the Gale Group. At that time, the number of publicly
accessible online databases had grown from 400 to over 5,000. Current
title: Gale Directory of Databases, which combines the Directory of
Online Databases and Directory of Portable Databases.
Directory of Portable Databases — First published in 1985, to
reflect the emergence of CD-ROM and other “portable” media
(diskette, magnetic tape, and hand-held products). The Gale Group acquired
the Directory in 1991. Current title: Gale Directory of Databases,
which combines the Directory of Online Databases and Directory of Portable
MEDLINE — Medical Literature, Analysis, and Retrieval System
Online (originally known as MEDLARS and operated as a system by NLM,
the U.S. National Library of Medicine). Records are indexed by the
medical taxonomy MeSH (Medical Subject Headings).
NLM — National Library of Medicine. Publisher of Index Medicus,
comprising the content of MEDLINE and PubMed; also produces the MeSH
RAND Corporation — Founded in 1948, when Project RAND separated
from the Douglas Aircraft Company. RAND introduced computing to the
U.S. Air Force, developing one of the earliest online interactive computer
systems. Today, RAND is an independent, nonprofit research institution,
known as a think tank on social and policy issues.
SAGE — Semi-Automatic Ground Environment. Deployed in 1963,
SAGE was one of the first large computer networks, connecting more
than 100 radar defense sites around the country by long-distance telephone
lines. SDC was created to develop the software.
SDC — System Development Corporation. Evolved out of the Systems
Development Division of the RAND Corporation. The division was spun
off in 1957, becoming the nonprofit company System Development Corporation.
In 1968, SDC became a for-profit operation, acquired by Burroughs Corporation
STAR — Multi-user, multi-purpose, software package used to manage
information collections. Development began in 1978, with the first
version released in 1982 by Cuadra Associates, Inc.
Timesharing — An operating system feature allowing several users
to run tasks concurrently on one processor, or in parallel on many
processors; each user has an individual terminal for input and output.
The Annual Review
Cuadra: I started mentioning to anyone I talked to that there ought to be
an annual review in the field — to distill the information, to present
what is most important, and to show progress. I was familiar with annual reviews
from the field of psychology and found them very helpful; they exist in many
other fields. I said this for 2 3 years or so, and finally a colleague at SDC
remarked that the only way it would ever start is if I were to do it. I said, “I
don’t think I’m the one to do this — I’m not a professional
in the documentation field.” I’d seen enough to know that I wasn’t!
About this time, Helen Brownson, at the National Science Foundation (NSF),
and I had some correspondence. I think she had heard my message, and she expressed
interest in my undertaking an annual review. I wrote to Helen, saying, “I
still think I’m not the right person for this, but my company said they
would contribute my time to get it off the ground.” So NSF provided the
funding. Helen insisted that I be the editor. The ADI wasn’t very hot
for that idea — I wasn’t one of their leading lights.
Bjørner: Were you a member of the American Documentation Institute
at this point?
Cuadra: Yes, I probably had joined. But there already was a person whose position
was editor; that was Art Elias. He didn’t like this idea of a new editor
position at all and fought fiercely against it. I think several people fought
against the name I wanted to give the new publication, which was The Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology. They didn’t like the “Information
Science,” and they didn’t like the “and Technology.” But
Helen said, in effect, “You either accept Carlos as the editor or there’s
no money.” So they held their noses and said, “OK.” The first
volume was published in 1966, by ADI. There was enough money for two volumes.
Ardito: Did Art Elias ever talk to you again?
Cuadra: Oh, yes. Art put a wonderful curse on me at a meeting. He said, “May
the hairs on your head turn inward, seize upon the follicles of your brain,
and erase your memory.”
Ardito: What a curse! The title of your Annual Review seems to have influenced
the changes made to the name of the organization. The American Documentation
Institute subsequently changed its name to the American Society for Information
Science, and now (years later) it has added “and Technology” to
Cuadra: Yes. I came to the field kind of sideways, not from within. The word “documentation” didn’t
mean anything profound to me, but it had been the name of the Society for so
long that no one wanted to change it. In Chapter One of the first Annual Review,
there’s a discussion of the nomenclature.
Bjørner: It does sound as though you were likely responsible for
the name change of ASIS, because of the title you put on the Annual Review.
Cuadra: Yes, I could lay claim to that. Anyway, I was learning so much, and
there is no faster, better way to learn anything than by editing. I did what
any editor does. I tried to make sure that what was said was in English and
that it was clear. I would pick at words and contradictions between something
said on page one and something said on page 17; then I would send back detailed
letters to the authors with an apology, saying, “You get to decide what
to pay attention to, but here are the problems I see.” The manuscript
would be marked up with notes and corrections. Everyone, I thought, took it
well — at least they ended up making better chapters. I told them, “I
want to make sure you say what you mean and mean what you say, so I’ve
tried to make this better, but it’s your chapter; you decide.” The
authors generally accepted that.
That’s how I learned. I didn’t remember everything I read, but
I learned something from everyone. The author of one chapter didn’t deliver;
it was a chapter on computers, in Volume 1. I assembled my staff at SDC, talked
to anyone else I could find, and we wrote the chapter. This is the only chapter
that was not associated with individual names. I put it together but said it
was by “Annual Review Staff,” because I got all the input from
other people. I didn’t know that much about computers at the time. We
needed that chapter because it had been promised in the outline and we didn’t
want to disgrace ourselves. So, in effect, by editing material, I learned about
things that I didn’t do as part of my daily job.
I documented the Annual Review procedures. I built a how-to-do-it manual that
could tell Martha Williams, the next editor, everything I knew about the process
to make it easier. I tend to be a systematizer, because I always do enough
things wrong that I want to figure out what can be done better the next time
What I eventually realized was that I had been interested in words for a long
time, starting with my first work in psychology, where I cared about the accuracy
of communication. To the extent that I’ve helped drive the online business,
it’s really as a communicator, not as a programmer, nor as a technician.
It kind of all fits together when I look back 30 years or so.
SDC and ORBIT
Bjørner: Tell us about the environment at SDC, how this was different
from what Roger Summit had at Dialog, and why you left SDC.
Cuadra: SDC was a great experience and it was wonderful to be involved in
the invention of online. I was the chief agitator for it, but I had a lot of
help in creating SDC Search Service, most particularly from Judy Wanger, with
whom I worked for 10 years at SDC and nearly 25 years now at Cuadra Associates.
Two programmers who wrote ORBIT work for me now, Don Blankenship and Bob Burket.
The programmer who wrote the accounting program was my son Neil, who also was
the one that saved us by writing the first data conversion program — for
the CHEMCON database.
There are two reasons why I left SDC. The fact was that the cost structure
at SDC was very different from that at Dialog. We had a computer center that
sold its time to the government, practically 100 percent to the Air Force.
There were established rates for computer time. When we started the business,
the computer center decided that we had to pay the same rate as everyone else.
The fact that this was a company-funded product and effort, that we were trying
to invent something and start a new business, seemed to be irrelevant to the
person who ran the computer center. Maybe there was a policy level above him
that affirmed that practice.
The computer center bought the latest equipment and software, because the
Air Force was supporting it, needed it, and could afford it. They bought high-powered
computers as soon as they came out; they bought the fastest, newest IBM disk
drives. All this was expensive.
In contrast, what was happening at Dialog is that Roger Summit, clever person
that he is, went out and bought used IBM data cells, which were very slow,
very unreliable, and dirt cheap. He bought up every one he could find. So while
I was paying high-end retail at SDC, he was getting almost free disk storage.
Not only that, the Dialog response time was so slow that, with the connect
hour charge, Roger was making two or three times as much money as we were,
because our system was stunningly fast.
I saw this once, when I was demonstrating in Mexico. I watched someone searching
Dialog, and it took forever; the person didn’t move, didn’t blink.
My stomach was churning, because it was so slow. I didn’t say anything
but I thought to myself, “This is horrible, why isn’t she screaming?” But
users just accepted it; that was the way it was. So, Dialog made a ton of money
with this slow, cheap stuff, and the decks were stacked from the beginning.
Connect Hour Pricing
Ardito: But in the literature of the history of online and biographies of
key people, nearly all the articles mention that you and Roger Summit got together
to come up with connect-time pricing.
Cuadra: Yes. That was the only way to make it intelligible to our target audience
of librarians and information people. You couldn’t talk computer cycles;
users didn’t know what a cycle was. I didn’t know what a cycle
was or how much it cost. Users didn’t know how big the database was,
so we couldn’t charge for disk storage. There had to be some metric that
was understandable. Time was one of those. If you dawdle and spend time there
and search a thousand things and take 2 hours, you pay more than if you zip
in and zip out.
Ardito: But was the pricing decided separately? Did you come up with it, and
Roger came up with it, but separately?
Cuadra: Yes, there was never any discussion. It may be like the airlines,
where someone raises his price and everyone else says, “Oh, let’s
do that, too.” I don’t know who did what. I never considered any
Ardito: When did you realize that ORBIT was so much faster than Dialog,
and also that it seemed as though the users were not aware of that? Or didn’t
Cuadra: Right from the beginning. Users just accepted it. Unless they had
access to both systems, they wouldn’t know the difference. They would
look at the two price sheets, and the prices were more or less the same. You
wouldn’t know there was a difference unless you actually did the same
search on both systems and compared them. Some people did.
Bjørner: That was one of the differences between SDC and Dialog,
then. You were paying retail prices and you were also paying for state-of-the-art
Computer Center Trials and Tribulations
Cuadra: I complained constantly, and my relationship with the guy that ran
the computer center was very bad. He didn’t like our use of the computer,
because it was different from the other uses; he really didn’t like me;
he didn’t like what we were doing. Whenever we had to reload something,
we had to prove that he had made a mistake. Sometimes the operators would mount
tape three before tape two, and screw up the database so something had to be
done. I had to prove him wrong to his face in order to make the change. The
climate was terrible, and the fault was above us both; someone higher up should
have said, “Here are the rules; here’s how we’re going to
At one point, SDC took my programmers — who understood data, what a
field was, and what an index was — and assigned them to the computer
center to work under the professional computer people. The professional computer
people would say that a given operation — to create a data conversion
program, for example — would take 7 or 8 weeks. I knew it needn’t
take that long, because the same programmers, while they worked for me, could
often do it in 1 week. But the computer center would make us wait 6 more weeks
before delivering the program. That was the kind of activity that was tolerated
by our management.
I kept trying to work around it. I finally got the programmers back working
for me again. I have to tell a funny story about Bob Burket and Don Blankenship.
We were working on the Derwent World Patent Index database, which required
us to insert space for equivalents linking the original patent to each country’s
number. It was a very large database, and we discovered that when the database
got to a certain size, ORBIT could not get over to the next set of disks; ORBIT
simply could not expand. There we were in the middle of loading the new database,
with Monty Hyams sending nasty letters to me every week, and we discover that
we’ve hit this brick wall! There were probably 15 people in the computer
center who assembled in a conference room and solemnly told me they had analyzed
the problem, and there were two possibilities: one was to re-program to definitely
solve the problem, which would take 6 months; the alternative would take 3
months, but it might not work. What did I want to do? I thought that 6 months
was not an option; we’d be dead. Three months was not really an option
either, but it was the better of the two. So I accepted their 3-months proposal.
I walked out of that meeting and ran into Don and Bob. They saw my face and
asked, “What’s the matter?” I explained, and they said, “That’s
a one-card change. That’s one line of code.” They explained that
all that was necessary was to change one instruction on one punched card. That
would fix it. So I called a meeting with the computing center, and Don and
Bob explained how to fix this. And the computer center staff said, “We’re
going to have to consider this.” They had to consider whether they would
accept it! They ended up agreeing that they would let Don or Bob fix it, but
it would take a whole day because they needed to test it and make sure it was
right. I learned then the difference between a programmer who knows the code
and programmers who don’t. I also saw further the malevolence in our
computer department. They could have talked to Don or Bob themselves before
concluding that the job would take 6 months.
The computer center never adjusted to what our business was. They were supposed
to turn ORBIT on at midnight; ideally they should have turned it on at a quarter
to midnight. Sometimes they would forget. So I got in the habit of staying
up till midnight, telephoning to check whether they had turned ORBIT on. I
remember one night when I called in — well, I won’t tell you what
he said, but I’ll translate it to “Oh, hell.” It happened
regularly. I have a younger son who is a night owl. After awhile, I commissioned
him to be the one to check every night to see if the computer center had turned
Bjørner: It’s really obvious now why you built STAR — so
you could be free of programmers.
Cuadra: That’s right. Exactly. Having to beg people to do things is
something I wouldn’t wish on anybody.
After several years, I got tired and I got bored. Getting the next database,
loading the next database, getting the description out — all of that
is like turning a crank, very repetitive. The pain of dealing with the computer
center and not making enough money to please the company just got to be too
much. I don’t think we needed to make a lot of money, but management
did not want ORBIT to be a drain.
Bjørner: Were you losing money or was it cost recovery?
Cuadra: I can’t remember. We were probably not bringing in as much as
we spent, but it depends on how you do the bookkeeping. The big number was
computer resources. SDC was used to contracts for $30 to 40 million with the
Air Force; they would bill $100,000 a month. I was billing one organization
$27.42 a month, and another organization $200.10. There were thousands of these.
We did our own billing, because SDC was not geared to deal with large numbers
of customers and small amounts of money. My son Neil built a billing program
so we could produce a report from the computer, automatically generate our
own invoices, send them out, collect the money, and hand the payments to the
Leaving SDC and ORBIT
Cuadra: The crowning blow came when SDC sent an accountant to meet with me
to learn the details of running Search Service. I think they had planned to
eliminate me and needed to figure out how to run the business. He met with
me for 4 hours a day to find out everything — how you pick the databases,
how you load them, how you get the agreement, how you sell. I explained that
you go to conferences with a telephone and modem and you dial into the computer
to demonstrate the service. I talked with him, explaining everything, for 2
months. Then one day, he came down with a bill for telephone service and asked, “What’s
this telephone bill for?” We had rented a phone line for one of our regular
exhibits. After 2 months, he still did not understand that the purpose of the
telephone is to contact the computer in California. I decided that this was
the end. I felt like I was dealing with idiots.
About this time, SDC management decided that I needed an assistant department
manager and they identified a person that I considered something of a lightweight.
Since this new position would have put him over Judy Wanger, I decided, “The
hell with you.” (I didn’t say it, of course.) I met with the vice
president of SDC shortly thereafter and said, “This is non-negotiable;
I’m going to leave the company. I don’t want to discuss it, I don’t
want to explain why. I’m just going to do it. I will stay as long as
you like to hand it over.”
I stayed about 2 months. It was just too much¾too unrewarding to continue.
Ardito: You also said the work got boring, on top of this frustration.
We know that Roger Summit was fascinated when adding features to the software...features
such as the select and super-select commands, remove duplicates, and DIALINDEX,
in which users could scan several databases to see where the information was.
It wasn’t just loading databases.
Cuadra: Yes, there was continued development at SDC as well. For example,
we added left-hand truncation, a document-ordering system, proximity searching,
etc. I think we didn’t do proximity initially because we came out of
the structured database context — NLM and MeSH — where searching
free text wasn’t popular. The features that SDC introduced were a function
of the context from which we came. We constantly added features. We would rudely
proclaim new Dialog features, saying “another Dialog second.”
But the management situation engendered too much pain. There was no way to
win. I had asked to hire outside computer services, but management wouldn’t
let me. I wasn’t really serious — I just wanted some leverage,
because there was no way to make money by taking in each other’s wash.
The only way we could make money was by providing database access and attracting
traffic. While the computer center could make money off of us, the company
wasn’t making any money that way. It was handing it from one pocket to
The Next Phase: Cuadra Associates
Bjørner: You didn’t give yourself much time to establish
a consulting business when you left SDC.
Bjørner: Did you make the decision to leave on your own and then
later invite Judy Wanger?
Cuadra: I don’t think I told her in advance. I didn’t make the
decision by myself; I made it with my family. I remember sitting at the dinner
table and telling my wife Gloria and my two sons, who were 24 and 21, respectively.
I said, “I’m thinking of leaving SDC; I don’t know what I’m
going to do next. I’m sure I can get a job, but I don’t know what
it is right now. Does that worry you?” They said “No,” and
that’s all I needed. After I made the decision, I told Judy. I don’t
know when Judy decided that she wasn’t going to work for the successor
that was coming in. I think she left SDC the same day I did. I rented an office
for Cuadra Associates and painted it the weekend after I left. Judy took a
week off and came in the following week.
Bjørner: Did you have any clients before you left?
Cuadra: Not that I recall. We got one very shortly after, though — Haines
Gaffner, of Link Resources — an entrepreneur if I ever saw one. He had
sold the idea of a multiclient study on the online database industry, but he
had no staff member who had any experience in this work. Somehow he found us
and asked if we would help. At the time, we were the only people who had ever
run an online service who were loose. We did much of the research and wrote
the report, but Haines knew a lot that we didn’t know in other areas,
so it was a gang effort. As part of the delivery, we gave a number of briefings,
in New York and London, and there may have been others, but those are the two
Ardito: This was not a proprietary study?
Cuadra: Oh, yes, it was proprietary; the briefings were to the people who
had paid Link. Haines and the other team members presented, so Judy and I were
pretty visible. We had both been visible in SDC Search Service, so they knew
that we knew something about online databases. During the first two or 3 years
after we left SDC, we worked for probably 50 different organizations that needed
some kind of consulting services. Some were database producers that wanted
to start an online service; some were online services that wanted to be improved.
We did some work for the European Economic Community, helping them identify
ways to make them more competitive with their U.S. counterparts.
When we decided to build our product, STAR, and make it available to the market,
we terminated our consulting business on the basis that we can’t be consultants
if we’re selling a product. It would be conflict of interest, or the
appearance of conflict.
Ardito: Did the Link Resources study lead to the Cuadra Directory of Online
Cuadra: Yes. We learned of services that we had not known about before — nonbibliographic
database services, such as GE Timesharing. We didn’t do any systematic
analysis of those at the time, but we thought there were a lot and there was
no easy way to find out what they were. So we decided to identify them systematically,
and in order to make money, we gave seminars on nonbibliographic databases.
Judy and another person, Ruth Landau, now Ruth Cuadra (she married my son Neil),
traipsed around the U.S., Canada, and Europe, giving a seminar, with demos,
called “Introduction to Nonbibliographic Database Services,” primarily
to librarians. We invented the nomenclature. I remember Judy and I, and probably
Ruth, fussing over the terminology and arguing….
Ardito: This has been a really useful classification that has stood the test
Cuadra: The introduction of CD-ROM made us revise our terminology. After we
had been publishing the Directory of Online Databases for awhile, the growth
of CD-ROM and other portable media required that we develop another directory,
the Directory of Portable Databases.
Bjørner: The terminology you chose to describe those is significant,
because there are such different formats.
Cuadra: That’s right. At the time, there were various listings of CD-ROMs,
of diskettes, of tapes, and of other media. We chose to take it up one level.
Ardito: So the term “portable,” in relation to databases,
came from you.
Cuadra: Yes. The first portable databases Directory came out in 1990. I have
it on my shelf. I also have a copy of the first Directory of Online Databases.
It’s very skinny, with large type and wide margins. I still have the
last one we produced, which has very small type and very small gutters.
Ardito: Can you tell us about the Elsevier relationship? Wasn’t
there a Cuadra/Elsevier...?
Cuadra: We first started the Directory on our own; then we sold a half-interest
to Elsevier. We published it jointly for a number of years, and then Elsevier
decided it didn’t want to be selling to the library market.... It wasn’t
paying off. [Laughter.]
The first issue of the Directory was done in hot type. We had no idea that
we had a tiger by the tail until it was time for the upgrade — there
were so many new online services, databases, and relationships. It was clear
that we could never stay in business unless we could automate the process.
We were building STAR for the library market, and we thought, “These
are bibliographic records; we can use our own product to get a handle on this.” STAR
became the machinery for putting the Directories out. The process got very,
very efficient after awhile, and this got STAR into the publishing world. Without
knowing it, we were building something that publishers needed to maintain their
databases and spew them out electronically or in print, or later on CD-ROM.
When Jim Monaco started Baseline in 1983, he ordered a copy of STAR; he was
one of the very first users.
Ardito: Is your reaction to BRS during the early years as strong as Roger
Cuadra: I think I took less umbrage at things in general than Roger did. I
just viewed BRS as a competitor. I believe they implied that they cared about
their users more than others did. They had a committee or panel, but we also
had regular users meetings; but we didn’t turn that into a marketing
gimmick and imply that we cared more than others. BRS was just another competitor.
Bjørner: You didn’t have to deal with BRS for very long,
actually. They came in toward the end of your tenure. And CD-ROM databases
were not a
threat to ORBIT while you were there. Do you have thoughts about CD-ROM as
Cuadra: I think of CD-ROM as kind of an electronic throwback to the time when
one subscribed to journals. You had a certain budget and you subscribed to
23 journals. Then Roger and I and the others came along and found a way to
find information in 10,000 journals without having to subscribe. The concept
of CD-ROM is the same as a journal. You buy Psych Abstracts on CD-ROM, you
buy MEDLINE on CD-ROM, you buy something else on CD-ROM. They have different
formats; they have different names and fields. It doesn’t sound like
a colossal event.
For organizations that use a single important database such as MEDLINE, using
CD-ROM, which doesn’t require good telecommunications and expensive connect
time, is useful. On the other hand, organizations that need access to 20, 30,
50, 100 different databases, can’t afford all of those CD-ROMs. Online
access lets them get what they need, when they need it, and without a subscription;
it’s a plus. Logically, CD-ROM is like subscribing to a serial. If all
you need is that serial or two or three others, or if you’re overseas
and have lousy telecommunications, CD-ROM is a great idea.
[At this point, longtime Cuadra associate Judith Wanger joined the conversation.]
Bjørner: Judy, we’ve been talking about when you left SDC
and joined Carlos in Cuadra Associates.
Wanger: I think in yesterday’s world, we all thought we were part of
a team that was going to go on forever. It wasn’t understood or appreciated
that we were part of the future. ORBIT was an entrepreneurial enterprise within
a government contracts-oriented company; the entrepreneurial factions were
an anomaly. The business literature at the time was saying you’ve got
to take these big companies and create little enclaves of entrepreneurs in
order to keep your companies alive and well, but that was all theoretical.
Now the companies actually do it. We were just too strange for SDC.
Ardito: Do you two regret leaving the online part of the industry?
Cuadra: No, I totally left the online service. My head stayed in it for awhile
because of our directory publications — we were looking at it as if from
2,000 miles up. But we gave that up because it’s very hard to be a publisher
of one title. The marketing staff it takes to sell one thing is the same staff
it would take to sell 20 things.
Bjørner: You didn’t start any other publications? You didn’t
want to be publishers?
Wanger: We did have a decision point with CD-ROM possibilities, the original
optical technology. One of the options was to take the company in that direction.
We assessed the opportunity and said, “This really isn’t what we
primarily want to do.” We were creating STAR, and that posed a conflict.
We shared some goals and some objectives, but publishing and software development
were two different animals.
On to the Web
Wanger: The other opportunity we saw was that some of our customers looked
at STAR when we first introduced the Web interface and said STAR could be a
solution for making their collections available through the Web. Specifically,
publishers and special libraries do that. So that was another possible avenue,
because if you develop software for that, it is its own kind of software. You’re
really going to focus on Web-based search engines. That would have taken us
down a similar path as at SDC, and we didn’t want to go after that market.
Cuadra: Not a priority.
Wanger: Here’s something that is kind of illustrative of things that
are happening with the Web today. One of our leading users early on was Mary
Berger. She had a vice president who would come down to her — this was
in a corporate library setting — and in corporate special libraries,
there was already an orientation towards service. The librarians were experts
in the field of their organization. They were marvels at finding things, but
online became another tool in their arsenal. So this vice president asked a
question. And had he not been there personally, as Mary likes to tell the story,
she would have walked over to the shelf, pulled out a book, gotten an answer,
and called him back. She would never have gone to the terminal and dialed in.
But when he came, she would use online.
Ardito: The two of you have been philosophically in sync for such a long
time. It’s quite extraordinary, considering all the things that this company
could do, that you are in such agreement. What’s going to happen over
the next 5 years? Could the Internet or its related technology change the direction
of Cuadra Associates?
Cuadra: It’s intranets we think about now, as Judy indicates — the
back room, the organization itself — not the hunt for data out there
in the wide world.
You just reminded me of a story that I wanted to mention. Before there was
communications security — in the olden days — SDC used to run some
private files for individual customers that wanted good retrieval, but didn’t
have a suitable program or a staff to build one. So did Dialog and so did BRS — private
files, externally funded. Customers would contract with SDC; we would load
their data and call this a private file. Only two people would know the password:
the owner of the data and me (and maybe the programmer). We thought that was
I was in London in 1976 or 1977 at the home of Nancy Vaupel, who used to work
for SDC Search Service. At that time, we could dial into our computer and get
messages. So, I dialed into our computer to get my messages, and out came some
strange stuff. It was a report of the traffic for the past month on the New
York Times Information Bank. At first I didn’t know what I was looking
at. It just came out on my Texas Instruments 720 terminal¾click, click,
click. “Why are they telling me this stuff?” I wondered, “I
just want my mail.” I read it, of course, even though a gentleman doesn’t
read another gentleman’s mail. I read it because I didn’t know
at first what it was, and then I realized somehow I had gotten into the New
York Times system. I didn’t have a password, I had no idea how to search
it, I knew nothing about it, but it gave me all their most private stuff.
I realized that day that this is a very dangerous and insecure business, and
that’s the way I feel about the Internet today. I don’t put a credit
card on it. I’ve signed up for a lot of things, filling in blanks, and
the format is so primitive. I’ve run into a dozen interactions that are
Bjørner: Do you think that traditional online is passé in the
Internet environment? Do you think people are losing interest, that they won’t
pay for the knowledge, the search?
Cuadra: I think about what I’ve seen with one of our customers. First
they had five libraries; then they were down to one library, then no library.
The departure of the personnel meant the departure of the skilled searchers.
I don’t know why it happened — it may be that management thinks
all the information they need is now free, and it will cost less if the end
users themselves do all the searching — which is a dumb idea. With Chemical
Abstracts, for example, there’s just no way anyone’s going to take
on the job of identifying and naming all the chemical structures and do all
that for free. The use of skilled searchers will decline to the extent that
comparable data are available free, and it will decline to the extent that
the people who know how to search are fired, and the libraries are closed.
When I first started teaching online searching classes at UCLA, I used something
like 40 hours per student of connect time for the course. Up until then, the
average had been only 3 hours. [Laughter.]
I’m going to tell you one more thing, which I learned from Judy. She
gave a talk in England to pharmaceutical folks, then went to France, and ended
up in Italy. To her shock and amazement, she discovered that one of the online
services was looking at the searches of their users. At SDC, we had many customers
who cared about patents and the priority of discoveries, and the idea that
anyone would look at even their subject terms was just anathema. Judy saw that
staff member of this online service were sitting at the console looking at
what their customers were doing, and we realized that the capability was built
into the software. I don’t know if the capabilities were ever used for
purposes other than to see how the resources were being used, but this was
a major ethical issue to us. I even remember when I learned about this, saying
at some professional meeting, without attributing it, “We do not spy
on our users. We have no software, and we will never build any that watches
what any users type or what they’re searching for.” It was a major
philosophical difference between us and others.
Wanger: You realize nothing’s new under the sun. Here we are addressing
this issue of privacy, and it’s a hot one on the Internet today.
Cuadra: There’s something happening in the Internet world that I do
think is important. It’s moving away from just finding information to
integrating the content with some kind of analysis and tools. The pioneers
for this were folks like Business International Corporation, which supported
econometric modeling. You find a time series, but you perform analysis on it
and compare it to some other time series and actually get results. The things
they are building at Chemical Abstracts Service now involve the same concept,
where you start with a reference and link to a full-text document. If you say “I
want to find out more about the compound mentioned here,” it points you
to the registry number that you can use to find more information and do various
kinds of counting, sorting, and slicing. It’s no longer just, “Here’s
the information; here’s an abstract.” There is a tool to help you
do your work. I don’t expect the people who build the Yahoo!s and crawlers
to understand how to do that, because to do that you have to understand the
target audience and what they need to do and what their jobs are. So it’s
very different from just finding cheap content and helping yourself.
Ardito: To conclude our interview, have you decided what you are going to
do with your papers?
Cuadra: I have hardly any papers or artifacts from SDC. Essentially, I left
I have just a few miscellaneous things. I’ve been looking through them
and found a few items that pertain to our discussion.
In 1956, I wrote a paper I’m very proud of: “Sources of Ambiguity
in Psychological Reports.” This was when I was a psychologist at the
Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Downey, Illinois. The psychologists
there would prepare diagnostic, test, and other reports. I was curious as to
whether our messages were getting through, so I designed an experiment. I took
existing reports — for example, a report might say, “This person’s
dangerous.” Then I would make up multiple-choice questions asking whether
the report said that, a) this person ought to be president, b) this person
is a danger to others, or c) this person is dangerous only to himself. I gave
the test and the report to psychiatrists, student nurses, and psychologists
with the directions, “Read the report and check off what it actually
said.” I had the person who wrote the report do the same thing, so I
had a criterion of what the writer was trying to say. The responses showed
that only about half of the messages were getting through to the psychiatrists,
social workers, nurses, and psychologists for whom the reports were intended.
The reason I’m particularly proud of that paper is because my experiment
addressed a major problem and was the first time that psychological reports
were reviewed systematically. The funny thing is, my paper was accepted for
presentation at the American Psychological Association (APA), but then APA
changed its mind and “unaccepted” it because it would be too damaging
to the profession. They didn’t want it on the program. But APA couldn’t
control the printed publication, and the paper was published in the Journal
of Clinical Psychology.
While I was still at SDC, we did a study of the impact of online services.
This was part of our promotion efforts in 1974-75. We were trying to find out
what good online access was doing. We got 10 organizations who either gave
us their customer list or mailed surveys to their customers for us. It was
the first time that anyone did empirical research on the impact of using online
services. In addition to SDC and Lockheed, there was AEC, Battelle, the DDC,
ESA, the National Science Library of Canada, NLM, NASA, and SUNY (it must have
been before BRS). One of the things the study showed was that 25 percent of
the libraries were offering online to provide reference service that they had
never done o before. They would actually search for information they didn’t
have in the library. That was one of the real surprises: They were able to
provide a type of service that had never been done before.
Judy Wanger did the largest part of this research; her name is first on the
study. There was a chapter on expectations versus real gains — with a
chart on the number of end users being served — and it shows the number
increasing. There was a warning that anyone deciding to start online service
should be prepared for the possibility that the demand would go up. This was
widely quoted in the library world. There are at least two reviews of it, one
in Library Quarterly, and there was one in Japanese.
Challenging Early Perceptions
I’ve discovered that I was rather pugnacious about online. I talked
regularly on the growth of online databases and, initially, on online access.
I found one paper that I gave in 1977, at a Pittsburgh conference, where Allen
Kent referred to online in terms of a “bandwagon.” As I looked
through my paper, I realized that I really took him apart on this and said,
in effect, that to use online is a decision being made by intelligent librarians
who realize that it will improve services to their patrons. I was surprised
at the language I used in responding to comments by a venerable figure.
Our study found that the introduction of online service increased the prestige
and respect given to library professionals. I used that result to comment on
Allen’s paper: “I feel a need to comment on the idea in Allen’s
paper that buying and selling information service constitutes prostitution.
I find both the concept and the language in the way it’s expressed (by
others, not Allen) as uninformed, confused and unprofessional — I’m
afraid that a simplistic and rigid approach to the idea of equal access can
do a disservice to the library profession. As for libraries that curtail the
introduction of sophisticated new services or tools until their budgets are
large enough to offer them free to everyone, I foresee a continued erosion
of the library’s position in the total information environment in the
So I was quite pugnacious¾I was much braver then.
“About James Monaco,” http://www.readfilm.com/Monaco.htm.
“ARIST (Annual Review of Information Science and Technology),
Statement of Purpose,”
Cuadra, Carlos A. “The Annual Review of Information Science and Technology:
Its Aims and Impact,” Drexel Library Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, January
1972, pp. 17-28.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “Commentary on ‘The Potential of On-line
Information Systems,’” Talk delivered at 1977 Pittsburgh
Conference on “The On-line Revolution in Libraries.”
Cuadra, Carlos A. “History Offers Clues to the Future: User Control
Returns,” ONLINE, v. 11, January 1987, pp. 46-48.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “Identifying Key Contributions to Information
Science,” American Documentation, vol. 15, no. 4, 1964, pp. 289-295.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “On-line Systems: Promise and Pitfalls,” Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 22, no. 2, March-April
1971, pp. 107-114.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “Preface” and “Introduction,” Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 1, 1966, pp. vii-viii,
Cuadra, Carlos A. “Role of the Private Sector in the Development
and Improvement of Library and Information Services, Library Quarterly,
vol. 50, no. 1, 1980, pp. 94-111.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “SDC Experiences with Large Data Bases,” Journal
of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, February
1975, pp. 48-51.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “A Study of Relevance Judgments” (final
draft of talk for 1968 Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association,
San Francisco), 1968, 12 pp. Available from ERIC.
Cuadra, Carlos A. “Survey of Academic Library Consortia in the
U.S.,” College & Research Libraries, vol. 33, no. 4, July 1972,
Cuadra, Carlos A. “Surviving the Eighties: New Roles for Publishers,
Information Service Organizations, and Users,” in Abstracting and
Indexing Services in Perspective: Miles Conrad Memorial Lectures, 1969-1983.
Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, 1983, p. 231.
Cuadra, Carlos A.; Katter, Robert V. “Opening the Black Box of ‘Relevance,’” Journal
of Documentation, vol. 23, no. 4, December 1967, pp. 291-303.
Henderson, Madeline M. “In Appreciation” (Robert Arthur
Fairthorne tribute), Bulletin of the American Society for Information
Science, vol. 27, no.1, October/November 2000
Landau, Ruth N.; Wanger, Judith. “Nonbibliographic On-line Data
Base Services,” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, vol. 31, no. 3, May 1980, pp. 171-80.
Marquis Who’s Who (Dialog File 234): Bourne, Charles P.; Elias,
Arthur W.; Gaffner, Haines B.; Kent, Allen.
Ojala, Marydee. “STARring Carlos Cuadra,” Information Today,
vol. 9, no. 3, March 1992, p. 15.
“RAND’s History,” http://www.rand.org/history/#origins.
“ Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE),” http://www.mitre.org/about/sage.htmland http://livinginternet.com/?i/ii_sage.htm.
“ STAR,” http://www.cuadra.com/products/star.html.
“Ten Information Scientists as Human Beings,” Wilson Library
Bulletin, vol. 47, no. 9, May 1973, pp. 753-762.
Wanger, Judith. “Evaluation of the Online Search Process,” paper
presented at the National Online Information Meeting, New York, NY, March
25-27, 1980. 10 pp. Available from ERIC.
Wanger, Judith; Cuadra, Carlos A.; Fishburn, Mary. Impact of On-line
Retrieval Services: A Survey of Users, 1974-75. Santa Monica, California:
System Development Corporation, 1976. 292 pp.
In the next segment, we continue this series with an in-depth interview
with Roger Summit of Dialog. The authors would appreciate hearing readers’ experiences
of their early days with online searching and their views of the development
of the industry. Please send e-mail to the authors directly (see below) or
to Barbara Quint at Searcher magazine [email@example.com].
Susanne Bjørner is an independent consultant
to publishers and authors and writes about the information professions
and industry. Contact her at Bjorner@earthlink.net.
Stephanie C. Ardito is the principal of Ardito Information & Research,
Inc., a full-service information firm based in Wilmington, Delaware. Her e-mail
address is firstname.lastname@example.org.