CommonCraft: Social Media in Plain English
Cliff May 30th, 2008
The folks over at CommonCraft have done it again! Check out Social Media in Plain English; what a great way to explain it!
Social Media in Plain English from leelefever on Vimeo.
Archive for the 'technology' Category
Audio toys
Cliff April 30th, 2008
- Pandora - Create and refine your own radio stations. Excellent for discovering new music.
- Midomi - Search by humming or singing into your microphone.
- Musicovery - Choose music based on time period, genre and mood.
- MuxTape - Create mp3 mixtapes.
- Project Playlist - Search for individual mp3s and create your own playlist.
- Mixwit - More mixtapes.
- MySong - Sing in a melody and get instant accompaniment.
Music worth trying, but NSFW:
- The Upper Crust - Fop Rock’s leading men.
- Nerdcore - Hardcore music for hardcore nerds.
- Asylum Street Spankers - Great music and a rockin’ live show! Try “Beer” and “My Baby in the CIA”.
- Tom Lehrer - Classic. I’m always surprised at how few folks know about him.
Library Instruction: Quantitative Assessment Pre- and Post-Test
Cliff April 23rd, 2008
Getting actual quantitative assessment of library instruction is something that most librarians hate to do–it often eats up our too-precious time with the students. And yet, I find myself dissatisfied with the “how’d I do?” opinion polls that we’ve used in the past.
So as part of our annual goals here at MPOW, we’ve created an online form for students to fill out as a pre- and post-test. The results write to a tab-delimited text file using ProcessForm 3.0.
By including a hidden date and timestamp, we’re able to separate classes as they are added to the text file, and then import them into a spreadsheet for analysis. Couple this with the students’ institutional ID number, and we can compare pre- and post-test scores while keeping the students’ anonymity intact.
With a little help (read: enforcement) from friendly professors, this test could be self-administered before and after the library instruction session to prevent eating into precious library instruction time. Additionally, the test could be performed pre- and post-library instruction, and then again at the end of the semester. Let’s see how much they really retain!
I welcome comments, criticism and suggestions! A big “thank you” to Andy and Sherrida for making this happen, and feel free to steal the code from the assessment form.
Can you teach tagging?
Cliff January 29th, 2008
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!
My 2.0 Advice to Vendors
Cliff January 7th, 2008
A nice email from Michael got me started into thinking about what advice I’d give the large library vendors when they start trying to “2.0″-ize their tools (websites, databases, etc.). Please feel free to add your own pointers.
- 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.
Pew looks at Privacy
Cliff December 17th, 2007
Yesterday the Pew Internet & American Life Project published Digital Footprints: Online identity management and search in the age of transparency. Although the initial numbers are fascinating (43% of online adults “neither worry about their personal information nor take steps to limit the amount of information that can be found out about them online), it is the narratives that pique my interest. Individual stories tell of how our activities online are recorded, aggregated, mined and used (and in many cases, with our consent and blessing). All of this transparency is adding more value to the information out there on the Web. As the report says, “People are not just findable, they are knowable.”
Those of us who are already active in Web 2.0 know about how changes to profiles, blogs & photostreams are recorded for all eternity (unless you take serious effort to remove it from the public record). The concept of privacy is giving way to the concept of online identity management; it’s not about whether there’s information about you online, it’s about who controls that information. Your address, phone number, and employer are all likely available on the open Web, but you have the ability to control whether your profile is visible to non-Friends.
So where does this lead libraries? Will we offer our users the ability to control their own information, or will we continue to destroy all records in the name of privacy? If users are willing to share what they read on other websites, should we allow them to do so via our catalogs?
A social conversation with WorldCat.org
Cliff December 13th, 2007
Yesterday I had a quite interesting conversation with Laura Endress of OCLC about their efforts to enhance WorldCat.org with social tools. As it is right now, they allow the creation of lists & profiles. They’re hoping to roll out other social enhancements in the near future, including:
- more social network infrastructure,
- enhancements to the review system,
- RSS feeds for lists, and
- 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:
- facilitated community in its end users,
- opened up records to those users to edit (even on a “with review” basis),
- responded quickly (or at all!) to the needs of its end users (which includes librarians),
- 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.
Did you know?
Cliff December 12th, 2007
I don’t normally re-post stuff that I’ve discovered on other lib-blogs, just to keep from increasing the information clutter out there, but I saw this via TameTheWeb, and everyone should watch it. Thanks Michael!
Review: LTR — Next-Generation Library Catalogs
Cliff October 8th, 2007
The July/August issue of Library Technology Reports gives a comprehensive overview of Next-Generation Library Catalogs courtesy of Marshall Breeding. Breeding is one of the leading experts in the field of library automation, and it shows in the expansive knowledge he relates in this issue of LTR.
The introduction to this report is alone worth the cost. The author succeeds in explaining the benefits and drawbacks of legacy catalogs, the emerging options that users are coming to expect, and how each of these “next-generation” options provide both benefits and challenges. Many of the complex issues that are raised by next generation features (such as relevancy ranking in federated searches) are explained at length, giving the reader a clear picture of the present challenges.
Breeding goes on to highlight various tools for next-generation catalogs, including AquaBrowser, Endeca, Encore, Primo, and WorldCat Local. He covers each of these in enough detail to answer the technical questions that spring to mind, and yet he succeeds in doing so in an accessible way. Also lightly covered are next-generation ILSes Polaris, our local hero Evergreen, Koha, and LibraryThing for Libraries. Although I was hoping that he would review VuFind, he notes on on his blog that it was not available at press time.
This is an excellent overview of the the options that are available, should your library be shopping around for a new ILS or looking at expanding your current catalog.
For those looking for a shorter introduction to the topic, I recommend Breeding’s The Birth of a New Generation of Library Interfaces in the October 2007 issue of Computers in Libraries, p. 34.
Giving users their privacy rights back.
Cliff August 14th, 2007
As librarians, we have taken our users’ privacy rights away. As part of our code of ethics,
III. We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.
In many cases, we are protecting the user’s right to privacy whether they like it or not. By shredding/deleting/anonymizing user information without the user’s consent, we are taking that right away. If a library user is unable to exercise their right to privacy themselves, do they have that right at all?
At the GGAUG Conference, several librarians expressed concern that the Web is evolving to slowly chip away at privacy, and that “Big Brother” is collecting information on us all. In response, I asked how many people in the room had Amazon.com accounts. Of about 100 people, only two did not have accounts. As a matter of perspective, I pointed out how Amazon.com has my current and former addresses and phone numbers, credit card information, and how it knows what books I read, CDs I listen to, woodworking tools I wish I could afford, and how I’m related to various friends and family members with similar wishlists. How did this corporate monolith gain all this information about me? I gave it away for the convenience of one-stop-shopping online. Many of our patrons are also willing to sacrifice a little privacy for the sake of convenience.
Booklovers are constantly discovering LibraryThing, and are sharing their reading lists with each other. WorldCat.org is developing social networking so that users can create lists of books and articles to share with friends. We are struggling to hold onto privacy that some of our users are actively trying to give away. So why not give the users their privacy rights back, and let them decide for themselves what to do with their information?
My recommendation to librarians as a whole is to give users privacy options–let them choose what information we keep or destroy. Let them pick who they will share their information with. In the post-USA PATRIOT Act world, we have become so scared as to destroy our patrons’ records “for their own good.” Wow. That sounds surprisingly familiar, no?
As a student, I would have loved to have gone into the library’s catalog to write reviews and share booklists with fellow group members from class. In my family, I would love to share booklists with my family’s book club. As a teacher, I would love to share what I’ve checked out of the library with my colleagues. But I don’t have the option to do that. I can’t choose. And therefore I don’t have the right.