CONTENTdm allowed you to have custom metadata for individual collections based on Dublin Core while maintaining the ability to search across all collections using Dublin Core as well. CONTENTdm allowed you to index certain metadata fields and make them browsable, however, with the addition of the browsable facet-style feature, this functionality was lost. CONTENTdm allowed you set up splash pages for each digital collection if necessary. Integration with Acrobat PDF was excellent, including indexing and integration of Adobe Acrobat search highlighting. Originally, metadata was harvested by WorldCat which was then harvested by Google but this has since changed. Collections must now be promoted manually. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

During the import and conversion, an additional copy was written to another location. This feature was intended to aid in the processing workflow but added the headache of having another local copy. As clearly stated by CONTENTdm, this product was intended for access and display and no promises were made regarding security and integrity of collections. For example, if the collections were lost because of data issues, you were expected to maintain your own copy and you might have to restore it in the worst case. Customers should be aware that this is not a digital asset management system and must develop strategies for protecting their digital archival collections. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

(Note: This product was used for a pilot study for a digitization project.)

It uses Dublin Core metadata, not some proprietary schema.

It allows RSS, so your users can "subscribe" to your digital library and see new items as they are added.

It's a product used by a large portion of the digilib community, so it's worth learning. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The cost is pretty substantial for a small-scale repository, so it may simply be better to go with another option unless you are "piggy-backing" off of another institution's setup.

When we used it, we had little control over features and formatting of the collection website, which was immensely frustrating.

We also found it difficult to "group" items by collections which felt antithetical to the traditional archival model: I missed my box/folder/item levels of organization. (Plus, it makes things difficult to browse.)

I also found that the search feature could be improved upon by adding the option to refine the results from a query. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I used CONTENTdm while I was a student in Library School for a Digital Library class. I really enjoy how the digital collection management software was user friendly and allowed for easy searching. Overall it is a great finding aid. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Finding and creating tags for CONTENTdm that are relevant to your topic in order to make the most out of the software can be challenging just like with any collection management software, you have to have a basic understanding of tags and users needs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I love how simple it is to begin working with ContentDM. I have minimal experience with content management software and dealing with digital collections, and the interface is extremely user-friendly and easy to learn. Additionally, their support team is incredibly responsive. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I'm not sure I dislike anything at the moment. I'm dealing with a very small collection on ContentDM, but from what I've seen with other collections of theirs, it's scalable and supports uploading metadata templates instead of filling out fields individually, for example. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I was simply wowed by the power of the management software. Volunteers from our university would scan historical photos and media. I was the front-end developer and found it very easy to customize. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really didn't have any dislikes. I would only make sure it is future proof as the latest html5 and css3 techniques come around. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I think ContentDM is fairly straightforward; it gets the job done. It's no-frills, which is nice. There are 3 tabs, Server, Collections, and Items. I am an admin on my account, but only have access to Collections and Items, so I can only speak to those two. Mostly, I use the Items tab, which is where the work of uploading images to a collection is done. From a librarian's point of view, I think the range of fields is good (e.g., Copyright, Format, Digital Processing Notes, etc.). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

This is regarding Add Item. If you enter information in a field incorrectly, and click on Add, you will not be able to add the item, and rather than being able to go back and fix the one incorrect entry, you must enter all information in all fields again. So you must be diligent about your entries' correctness. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I enjoyed the ability to upload and describe digital objects with extensive and multifaceted metadata--it seemed like there were infinite options for many types of material, but CONTENTdm offered a streamlined, effective display for our needs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Not every command, function, option, etc. was intuitive; there seemed to be more training necessary with CONTENTdm than with other digital asset management systems I've used (Archivists' Toolkit, Re:Discovery Proficio). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

CONTENTdm works very well for digital collections that fit within clear and consistent boundaries, especially image-based collections, and do not need a lot of specialization of the interface. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

CONTENTdm has historically had difficulty with large scale collections. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

User Functionality. Very easy to work with- add photos and add relevant metadata. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Some advanced functionality would often go unused in the more vast projects, because such acute level of detail was not needed. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

CONTENTdm was an easy system to implement and was used to catalog thousands of georeferenced images and their metadata. Importing the imagery and metadata was relatively seamless. It was able to handle this particular collection of data along with other collections. The ability to hyperlink some of the metadata was helpful. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Formatting the data to be processed by CONTENTdm has to be perfect, otherwise the data will not import properly. This sometime resulted in multiple import attempts until these issues were worked out. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.