Facebook users have already started moving to fight back.

By the way, if you have not already figured it out, this is Facebook’s modus operandi.  In the still of the night, they swoop in and make broad changes, removing privacy and laying claims to your rights and contnet.  Then Facebook users rise up in an organized manner.  Then what happens?  Facebook makes some concessions to roll back a few of the changes.  A few people leave Facebook.  A ton more people sign up to replace them the next day.

You know what they don’t do?  They don’t go back to the “previous” state of Facebook.

This is the perfect power-grabbing scheme–lay claim to a bunch of your user’s rights/content/privacy/soul, and then when they complain, “give” some of it back.  But not all of it.  You’ll see this same method of power-grabbing in politics, business, religion, education, and anywhere else there are more than two people gathered.

For more on this, just watch the blogosphere in general–this story will be everywhere for the next few weeks.  Also, read Dr. Amanda French’s analysis of Facebook’s TOS in comparison to other social software sites.

Although I won’t turn around and delete my account tomorrow, I will continue to be careful in what I upload to various websites.  I suggest you do the same.

Pessimistically yours,

Cliff

Get ‘em while they’re hot, people!  The Desk and Beyond: Next Generation Services by editors Sarah Steiner and Leslie Madden!  I wrote Chapter 7, Friending our Users: Social Networking and Reference Services. You’ll also see the cutting-edge work of well known Reference Librarians from all over–it’s a title not to be missed!!!

And a big “thankyou” to Leslie & Sarah for all their hard work!

This is from a Facebook App called Puzzlebee.  You can share your photos with friends as puzzles.  You can also tag puzzles, but first you have to pass a tagging test.

Bad tag!  Bad tag!  No no no!

I mean, come on.  Isn’t that the point of tagging? That I can tag something as “Fred” if I want my friend Fred to view it?  Or that I can create my own shorthand (TBR = to be read)?  I do this with tagging, and I don’t consider myself misleading other people, because those tags are created for searching purposes, not browsing purposes.

I could see librarians leaping on this idea of creating tagging tests before users could contribute tags to a catalog.  However, rather than improving the user experience, it’ll be one more hoop that we would be creating for users to jump through.  Just say NO!

• Find out what your users want. Before anything else, ask your users what they want. Will adding profiles/comments/customized lists help them, or just be an annoying distraction? Does it actually serve a pragmatic purpose, or is it just a neat, pretty toy dreamed up by coders for the coolness factor? Don’t get me wrong, I <3 neat, pretty tech toys as much as the next geeky librarian, but I don’t want to subject my users to them unless they ask for ‘em.
• Find out what your users need. Every reference librarian can tell you that just because a user can articulate what they want (“Where are your art books?”), that it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s what they need (A biography of Picasso that includes pictures, criticism, and an extensive bibliography of sources). Figure out the best resource for their needs, and then get them to it in the least number of clicks possible. This is why a Google search is awesome–it corrects my spelling, gives me scholarly and consumer information in one view, and provides additional information (addresses, phone numbers, news stories) on a contextual basis. Can your tool do that?
• Steal your users’ ideas. Just like every place of business, I find myself in ad-hoc brainstorming sessions all the time during regular meetings. A new technology or tool comes up, and we find ourselves asking if we want to do that or something similar. And yet, my gut reaction is, “Why don’t we have a student here to tell us if they’d actually use this?” Better than a bunch of librarians/vendors/coders coming up with ideas would be users coming up with them.
• Find out who your users are. Remember that no matter who the target audience is, you always have a diverse user population. Librarians are your users. Students are your users. Faculty & staff are your users. Members of the public are your users. People of many ages, skill levels, degree of ability and background are all your users. Each one searches differently. How does your tool cater to their needs?
• Let your users generate & change content. The larger your tool, the more you need this. Your organization’s workers won’t look at every remote record, but your users will. That’s the power of the long tail- -put your users to work, by having them correct and enhance records. A “report this page” link should be on every page of your site. Are you worried about vandalism and authority? Just make it a mediated process, and the technicians who normally would be tasked with fixing records will now approve user-changed/enhanced content. Unpaid volunteer workers–what administrator wouldn’t want that?
• Fix it yesterday. Have we become an impatient society? Yes. And yet, users are willing to wait for ILL and other in-person services, but they want web-based tools to work instantaneously. After all, they can get it instantaneously elsewhere. There are always ways to improve turnaround time, and your competitors are already using them. All it takes is one negative experience to lose a user forever (just ask Friendster).
• But you didn’t tell me to include profiles, wikis, or any other 2.0 tools?!? You’re right! Because the Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 concepts aren’t about tools–they’re about users, and making the user experience easier and richer. Just like the Internet Bust of the ’90s, many of the tools you see today will disappear or be merged with time. What you should be doing is asking your users what they want, because they will be be the ones to come up with the next “big idea” for your business, based around what they want and need. And it is in making those ideas a reality that will give your business the edge.
• Oh yeah, and ask your users. Yup, I’m saying it again. Are you redesigning your interface? Ask the users. Want to introduce a natural language search? Ask your users. Thinking of adding tags? Ask your users. Want to go out for Italian at lunch? Ask your users. The users are your audience–they are who you are writing/building/creating/coding/designing for. To create anything without their input is a waste of time and energy.

1. more social network infrastructure,
2. enhancements to the review system,
3. RSS feeds for lists, and
4. tagging of lists.

Long term goals include user-generated content. And that’s where things get interesting.

< rant>

For users to add content to WC.org will take a big shift for OCLC, who have always seemed to me to set up barriers to end-users making any sort of comment on WorldCat (there’s no “report this record” button anywhere, and my attempts as a reference librarian to report bad records have seen no response in the past).

I mentioned to Laura that a lot of the things that they’re trying to do, LibraryThing is already doing–successfully. Many LibraryThing users are librarians, and there’s nothing an altruistic librarian loves more than enhancing a record for the future benefit of others. The great thing about LibraryThing is that you can talk to other users and find out what it is that they want. LibraryThing’s blog also enhances that transparency by responding quickly to the needs/wants of users (unheard of from most traditional library vendors). If I want to email for help, I’ve got six names and addresses a single click from the homepage. It makes LibraryThing seem like they…well…care. That creates a community of users who care.

I’ve found plenty of errors in WorldCat–and that’s easy enough to do with differing interpretations of all the rules and standards that we library-folk have (and no, I’m not taking part in the RDA debate here).

I believe that if WorldCat.org:

1. facilitated community in its end users,
2. opened up records to those users to edit (even on a “with review” basis),
3. responded quickly (or at all!) to the needs of its end users (which includes librarians),
4. was transparent it what it is doing,

that we would see a quickly improved WorldCat. The days of the gatekeepers are over. Let go of the keys.

I understand that large organizations with as wide a reach as OCLC are slow to change (I work in a university for goddess’ sake!). I also understand that with that many employees, that it’s normal (although not right) for the right hand to not know what the left hand is doing. Again. University. Yet when the little guys are outrunning you and are doing so for a $25 unlimited lifetime membership, it’s a bit of a wake-up call. LibraryThing. Zotero. CiteULike. Connotea. All of these tools are in direct competition with what WorldCat.org is trying to set up. Is it hopeless? No.

</ rant>

WorldCat is poised in a way that no one else is to offer the greatest research tool of all time. The WorldCat database (even with its bad bib. records) is still the biggest (the last time I looked), and unlike other tools I’ve seen, it deals with the multitude of media that libraries have (from 8-tracks to archival finding aids). The lists are a great start, but imagine collaborative working spaces for different communities (an idea they’re talking about, according to Laura), such as groups or wikis. The opportunities and intellectual property concerns are mind-boggling.

So yes, I eagerly await more changes from WorldCat.org. I look forward to being able to Friend other librarians and to comment on their profiles. I look forward to adding photos to my profile and creating bib. records. I look forward to sharing my ideas with other like-minded folks. And that’s what I told Laura–more than anything else, you should be listening to your users.

So what do you think? Comment here or email* Laura at:

*Laura’s name and email are given with permission.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As we talk more about Web4, Library 3.o, and our future, we’ll have to realize that users are willing to give up privacy in order to gain better connections to each other and richer media (“TOS? Of course I didn’t read it! I just wanted to create a place to share my pictuers!”). What this will mean for libraries and the general population of the future has yet to be seen. We will likely see much more targeted advertising as our online habits are recorded and the data harvested for marketing companies.

Will libraries be the last bastions of privacy? Or will we allow users to choose their own levels of privacy, and therefore allow them to have the benefits and drawbacks that come with such a choice?