Monica's blog

Doug Johnson, the Director of Media and Technology in the Mankato Schools, offers an interesting reflection about the Internet’s existence in our world in his post “13 Point Checklist,” within the blog, The Blue Skunk Blog.  He says, “If one dog year is equal to four human years, then one Internet year is equal to at least ten human years.  Let’s face it – information simply ages more rapidly online” (Johnson).  Johnson has a valid point.  Since our introduction to the Internet, our society has collectively become captivated by the opportunities that the Internet can provide.  Due to the fact that the Internet is accessible to the general public, anyone can contribute to its advancements. As a result, the developments to the Internet are rapid and constant.

Libraries have exceptionally embraced the Internet and its advancements over the years.  As a result, libraries have made the significant step of offering their services through various social software or web2.0 devices.  The fact that several libraries have implemented social software is wonderful.  Web2.0 devices offer a platform for easy interaction between librarians and library users.  They are excellent for the promotion of library services or events in the library and community.  Lastly, social software has transformed the library into a familiar, comfortable, and vibrant space.

However, when taking Johnson’s statement into account, web2.0 is developing at a rapid pace.  Due to the newness of web2.0 and its increasing developments, I believe that very few librarians have had the opportunity to consider the future of web2.0 services.  They are primarily focusing on juggling the duty of staying connected to a broader range of users while managing their conventional library responsibilities.

Unfortunately, this constant development in web2.0 may lead to challenges for librarians in the near future.  There is a high possibility that the popularity of some web2.0 devices will drastically plummet forcing these systems to come to a close.  Therefore, I believe that librarians require guidelines to assist them in determining when it is time to close a web2.0 account and open a new service through alternative social software.

For the remainder of this assignment, I will outline various techniques for librarians to use in order to identify when a web2.0 technology is getting old and unpopular and offer suggestions to librarians on how they can prepare to move forward.

When a Web2.0 Device is Dying:

It is excellent that libraries have provided services to their users through web2.0 formats.  Although many web2.0 devices are thriving, there is a subdued reality that a time will come when various social software services will become unpopular, lose subscribers, and inevitably disappear from the online world.  This circumstance has recently affected the once booming social networking tool: MySpace. The news of MySpace’s decline is prevalent in several articles such as the PC World, February 2010 article, “After Numerous Shake-Ups, is MySpace Dying?” by Brennon Slattery.  Slattery indicates MySpace’s downfall in saying, “MySpace, [. . .] has fallen 55 percent to a market share of only 30 percent – about half of Facebook” (Slattery).  By taking the faltering success of MySpace into account, I believe that librarians should have an understanding of the signs of a dying web2.0 device early in order to prepare themselves and their users for the possible termination of their particular service. In order for librarians to determine the future of their web2.0 library service, I chose to establish some basic guidelines by analyzing the various issues with MySpace.

1) Know your Competitors

While using one web2.0 device, librarians should be aware of any other similar web2.0 devices that are in existence.  By staying up to date with the success rates of various web2.0 competitors, librarians may have the information needed to determine the future of their web2.0 library service.  Slattery’s quotation earlier, identifying the fallen popularity of MySpace versus Facebook, is a perfect example.  It indicates the direction that both web2.0 services are heading. To remain highly informed about social media will greatly assist librarians for their future with web2.0 services.

2) You Noticed A New Feature: Has Anyone Else?

Another indication that a web2.0 device is on its way out is if it offers new services and continues to lose popularity.  This also occurred to MySpace, which is again discussed in “After Numerous Shake-Ups, is MySpace Dying?”  Slattery states, “MySpace Music provided a fresh gush of oxygen and established itself as a lucrative spot for indie bands to broadcast their tunes and get discovered. [. . .] yet MySpace somehow experienced a decline in viewers” (Slattery).  The fact that MySpace is promoting new features and still losing user numbers is a sheer indication that this web2.0 device is getting old.  If librarians notice new features in their web2.0 device, they should monitor the device’s popularity in the next couple of months to determine if their service needs to move to a new social service.  Additionally, Slattery also suggests, “Unless MySpace can successfully step away from social networking and bloom as a different entity, it will likely be crushed by its competition” (Slattery).  At a librarian perspective, this is an interesting point. If the developers of a library’s web2.0 device follow Slattery’s advice and increase user applications by revamping the whole purpose of their software, the library’s service may no longer function through that site.  Consequently, it is better for a library to move their service to a more popular web2.0 device than to wait for change.

3) Check Behind the Scenes

A useful tactic for librarians to determine the popularity of their web2.0 device is to research the work situation of its developers.  For example, the February 2010 article, “ MySpace CEO Quits, Ship Sinks Deeper” by Jared Newman greatly alludes to the fact that there are major issues occurring behind the production of MySpace. Newman says, “It’ll be hard for News Corp. to put a positive spin on the departure of MySpace Chief Executive Owen Van Natta, who’s quitting after less than ten months on the job” (Newman). In addition to the severity of a CEO quitting, the brevity of the CEO’s stay with the company is another indication that MySpace is not a secure Web site.  If librarians notice a pattern of declining employment within the company of their social software, it might be time to switch software.

4) Communicate With Your Users

It is also extremely useful for librarians to communicate with their users to determine if they will be unsubscribing in the near future.  To find this information, the library can post an online survey to their Web site, send questionnaires via email, display surveys in a noticeable area of the physical library, or possibly talk to users within the online social service itself.   This final idea is suggested by Kasia Grabowska in her article, “Social Media Best Practices for Libraries.” She says, “You’re already engaging in conversations, why not ask people for some feedback?” (Grabowska).  Through survey, questionnaires, or conversations, librarians may discover that their social software is disorganized, age specific, a waste of time, or just boring.  An example of these opinions comes from the article, “Five Reasons Social Networking Doesn’t Work” by Molly Wood.  Wood’s first reason that social networking is failing is it is a stagnant operation.  She says, “Visiting most social networking sites is akin to getting invited to a party where all the cool kids are going, then showing up and finding out there’s no food, no drinks, no band, no games, no pool, nothing. Just a bunch of painful small talk and leering grins” (Wood).  If the feedback from these techniques is similar to Wood’s opinion, it is definitely time to switch web2.0 devices.

5) Your User Numbers Are Dropping

This is the simplest method to decide if a library needs to alter its social software.  If librarians notice their subscribers are dropping, they should survey library users to determine their latest popular social networking interests.

Informing Users About Account Closure and Tactics to Maintain User Numbers:

If a library reaches the unfortunate stage of closing an account, I believe the process to reach closure should be slow.  By moving slowly, library users have time to adjust to this new change.

One of the initial steps that librarians should take to close their account is to decide on a replacement web2.0 device.  I believe that libraries should never completely eliminate their online service.  Instead, the library should transfer their existing service to the latest, more popular web2.0 device.

Once the library has subscribed to a new web2.0 tool, both the old and the new services should together be accessible through links via the library Web site.  This will hopefully ease the transition.  Communication is necessary at this stage.  The library Web site should inform users immediately that they library will be switching social software in the near future.  The library should also indicate the exact date of closure for the old account.

To promote the new web2.0 service, the library Web site could offer instructional videos on the process of registering for a new account as well as advertising various features of the new device.  The library Web site could also promote the new device by displaying a “new user” tally.  A crowd frequently attracts an even larger crowd.

It is also important to include contact information to the library technical support system.  This information should be in close proximity to the link to the new service.  If anyone has an issue, a librarian is easily accessible.

Through all of these techniques, the library will hopefully undergo a much smoother transition and lose very few library users.

Assessment:

If a library decides to subscribe to new social software, there are a few details that they should focus on in addition to the criteria I have suggested above.

1) Librarians need to have a full awareness of user needs.  They should hand out surveys, conduct focus groups, or interview to establish the needs and wants of users with respect to social software.

2) Librarians must test the usability of the social software.  They need to decide if the social software functions properly.  Is the site self-explanatory?  Can users understand how to use this software after visiting the site once or twice?  If your library users have difficulty, they will grow frustrated and unsubscribe from the service.

3) Librarians must ensure that they are not putting their users at risk.  For example, the article “5 Reasons Why MySpace is Dying & Facebook is Growing” by Matt O’Hern, indicates that MySpace offers multiple spam traps.  He says, “MySpace mail inboxes are inundated with friend invites from spammers, including user pages directed toward adult-rated sites. The frequency and volume of messages from these illegitimate “friends” is a nuisance most users don’t want to deal with” (O’Hern).  If there are too many advertisements or spam threats, the library cannot subscribe to this social software.

In order to assess social software completely, I believe that librarians should create a prototype of the service and practice using the device for several weeks before offering it the public.  It is best to develop a social software service slowly.

Conclusion:

If librarians remain oblivious to the signs of their social software decline, their service will lose user numbers not because their service is defective, but because it is offered through unpopular social software.  If librarians do not act diligently, they may never regain their user numbers even if they eventually change their social software.  Librarians must be proactive in their change in order to sustain quality service and high user numbers.

Tags: guidelines, libraries, web2.0, web2.0_decline

You know, after spending the last thirteen weeks learning about social software tools and the positive impact they can have on a library, I forgot that there are library workers who have reservations about incorporating web2.0 into their work environment.

So, if I were the lucky individual who has to introduce a social software tool into my library, these are some of the steps I would take:

1) I would begin by studying my user community.  This service is primarily for my community, so it better offer a service that interests them or is of great need to them.

2) I would then take my ideas and study several other libraries with social software or talk to other librarians who are managing their library’s social software.  By studying these other libraries, I will hopefully establish the techniques that are successful and the techniques that might not be as successful.

3) Once I have some ideas of what my community needs/wants and the successful services that other libraries have offered, I would then take a look at my library’s mission statement and attempt to link my social software service and my users’ needs to this mission statement.  By proving that my social software service reinforces the library’s mission statement, I believe that there will be greater leverage for this service to be agreeable with the library board and my colleagues.

4) Now, let’s say that everything is running smoothly thus far, and the time has come to introduce my ideas to, well, everyone else at the library.  I believe that this is the most significant step seeing as some people may not express the same enthusiasm as myself. I’ve decided to break step four up into it’s own list of steps:

a) Let’s face it, people react negatively to newness all of the time.  Change is uncomfortable.  To bombard colleagues with a new service, and new technology, and possibly a new user group simultaneously is inevitably going to have negative results.  Therefore, I like Michael Casey and Michael Stephens’ ideas in “The Transparent Library: A Road Map to Transparency”.  Casey and Stephens explain that it is best to communicate your ideas early and frequently when establishing a new service. By informing colleagues early, they have time to process these new ideas before they are offered to the public.

b) It may also be useful to introduce these changes in baby steps.  For my service to work, I may create a prototype of the service first and ask all staff members to try it before launching the end product.  I can then receive feedback from my staff to determine what works for them and what needs adjustments.  Hopefully, due to their contributions, the staff that originally may have had reservations will see the usefulness of the service and approve of the project. Casey and Stephens indicate the positive effects of communicating with other staff members by saying, “An involved and aware staff, like an involved and aware public, is far more likely to support you in the long run” (Casey and Stephens).

c) Another aspect that may persuade staff members to see the value of the service is to show them examples of libraries that are successfully using social software.  Informing might change their opinion.

5) Now, if my new social software service is successfully launched, promoted, and gathers a solid group of library users, I then would probably take Kathy Sierra’s, author of “Death by Risk Aversion”, advice to be creative. She stresses, “So add one more skill to our career advice for young people: be willing to take risks! Perhaps more importantly, be willing to tolerate (and perhaps even encourage) risk-taking in those who are managed by you” (Sierra).  I really like Sierra’s advice on stepping outside of the box or to “push the boundaries” (Sierra).  However, I think that her strategies are best practiced at a later stage of the whole implementation process.  So, if my service is successful and easing its way into a routine, then I might add a new and innovative service to make it more exciting to its users.

I have to admit that my strategies sound so simple on paper and in the real working world there will be some, if not many, glitches to this plan.  However, I believe that I would attempt to follow some variation of the steps I have outlined here.

Tags: getting_started, libraries, web2.0

In one respect, I recognize the validity of a policy.  Policies offer protection for a company as well as guidelines and goals.  They are inevitably very helpful when properly designed.

However, after examining the readings and case studies this week, I identified numerous aspects that will make or break the effectiveness of a policy.

The sharing of ideas through social software is appealing because it is relaxed, spontaneous and enjoyable in nature.  Therefore, a policy regarding social software should be relaxed as well.

I would like to indicate some of the positive qualities I discovered in policies from our readings and case studies:

1) I was impressed with Jenny Levine’s tips on how to use Twitter in her blog post “One Approach to Org Twitter Accounts”.  Her thorough advice demonstrates that she is exceedingly familiar with Twitter.  I valued her suggestions due to her obvious knowledge on the subject. Policies that admit they are works in progress are admirable.  Similar to most technology, it takes a lot of time and practice to become familiar with social software.  Therefore, I believe that when first creating a social software policy for your staff and library users, it should be simple and adjustable.  It should include basic principles and indicate that it is subject to change as the technology becomes more familiar.  Some policies are best to be finalized at a later date when the users are as experienced as Levine.  There is no sense in providing a long and irrelevant list.  I believe that experience creates the most accurate guidelines.

2) Sharlyn Lauby indicates another great characteristic of policies in her blog post, “10 Must-Haves for Your Social Media Policy”.  Her first rule for developing a policy is to “Introduce the purpose of social media”.  She states, “the policy should focus on the things that employees can rather than what they can’t do. [. . .] that’s the spirit of social media – it’s all about leveraging the positive.  And that needs to be evident in the policy” (Lauby).  I completely agree with her statement.  I believe that by focusing on the positive, users feel more enthusiastic to contribute to the new social media.  The Multnomah County Library Policy exemplifies Lauby’s suggestion in the first paragraph: “Library social software tools provide a limited (or designated) public forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas, opinions and information about library related subjects and issues. Library social software is intended to create a welcoming and inviting online space […]” (Multnomah County Library).  Their message is positive while setting guidelines.  I thought Multnomah County Library was excellent at balancing their authority and their encouragement.

3) I also believe that policies are more effective when they are concise and written using recognizable terminology.   Policies that are lengthy are exhausting to read.   When too long, I believe that people typically quit reading.  I also believe that there is a greater risk of users disregarding the rules outlined in the policies due to frustration.

Some negative aspects of policies that I discovered in the readings and case studies include:

1) To continue from my previous point, some policies within the case study are much too long.  For example, the City of Seattle Blogging Policy was ridiculous.  In addition to its policy, it included links to four or five other lengthy City Policies.  This is a perfect example of a policy that will not be taken seriously.  I feel like they indicate every possible issue that may arise.  In a way, I wonder if lengthy policies, such as Seattle’s policy, are in fact creating more violations by listing every infringement to its users.  It’s the classic “DO NOT PUSH THE RED BUTTON” case.  Once the idea is in someone’s head, they might follow through.

2) The authoritative tone in policies is occasionally overdone.  To frighten the users of social software is the absolute worst idea.  How are users going to express their thoughts if they believe that they will get into trouble? Out of all of the policy characteristics, I believe that this fear is the most detrimental to the membership of our online library interactions.

3) Finally, policies should always aim to use familiar terms and titles.  For instance, the City of Seattle Blogging Policy states, “All City of Seattle blogs shall be [. . .] published using the approved City blogging platform and tools”(City of Seattle Blogging Policy).  What is the “City blogging platform”?  If I had to actually follow this policy, I would have to research further in order to comprehend.  I should not have to refer to additional resources to understand a policy.  These arbitrary terms are destined to cause problems.

4) A policy is inefficient if it provides several links to other policies to enforce their rules.  Leaving the middle of one policy to read another policy is disruptive.  I believe that the policy should be able to identify it’s values, guidelines, goals, and laws without the assistance of other policies.

All in all, I am okay with libraries having policies for social software.  However, I believe they should be positive, and encouraging.  These policies should be flexible, simple, and focus more on creating an active library community than to intimidate or frighten.

Tags: library, policy, web2.0

No doubt, Twitter can be an excellent and popular tool for Libraries.

-its tone is conversational, making it less intimidating

-it is present time.  Whatever is new and exciting NOW is the focus.

-because the messages have a restriction length of 140 characters, users get to the meat of things instantly.

-like several social media tools, a library’s twitter account can be used as a virtual bulletin board.

However, I am a little embarrassed to say this seeing as I believe that social software has great value in libraries, but I am actually torn about a particular characteristic of twittering libraries this week.  It occurred to me as I was reviewing the case studies to see some library twitter accounts in action.

My issue, one that I haven’t made my mind up about yet, is the conversational tone of some of the tweets.  For example, MyCityLibrary, the West Palm Beach Library Twitter account, has some excellent tweets, such as:

“Yoga and Argentine Tango both at 6pm tonight.  We’re a busy place on Thursdays!”

“Here’s what’s happening today at the library! . . . .”

These tweets are catchy, informative, and inclusive to all.

However, there are other tweets within this feed such as:

“@snackbpc It IS one of my favorites. The audiobook is amazing”

“@VirtualJenn Sounds great! I’ll have to send in my RSVP”

These tweets were rather distracting.  They were irrelevant to the library community as a whole. I was not interested in reading personal conversations, and I wondered if some library users felt somewhat excluded.

Although I had this reaction, I know that I am not a member of this library community making my opinion biased.  These personal conversations might not bother the followers of this twitter account.

However, I couldn’t help but have this debate in my head over whether or not conversational tweets are hindering a library’s twitter account.

On the one hand:

-twitter is a place for conversation to happen.  Additionally, it is for conversation that is informal.

-conversation between patrons and librarians, patrons and patrons, or librarians and librarians is actually happening and that’s a wonderful thing.  It is something that librarians strive for.  This twitter account has established a community atmosphere.

-to tell patrons that they should not interact within this twitter account is risky.  Libraries are labeled with that fictitious stereotype of being the “rule maker”.  By placing such a rule, the library is reinforcing the old stereotype and building a wall between librarians and their patrons once again.

On the other hand:

-are these tweets overwhelming to new twitter users?  Are they getting a sense of community or are they feeling left out of “the clique”?

-is there a danger in too many conversational tweets?  Are the valuable informational tweets lost in the cluster of conversation?  I mean, if my cell phone kept vibrating with messages such as: “See you 2nite?” I would probably stop following the account.  I hope that patrons can still see the overall purpose of this twitter account.

This is such a difficult issue; one that I do not have an answer to.  What do you think?

Tags: community, libraries, Twitter

It was 2007 when I joined Facebook.  I had to join.  All of my friends were on it and they couldn’t believe that I wasn’t.  It was the new medium to keep me in “the loop”.  Soon after, all of us finished our undergraduate degrees and moved away from each other making Facebook our #1 means to remain connected. As our lives grew busy, we still managed to keep in touch with sporadic wall posts, status updates, organizing occasional get-togethers in the “events” section, and by posting pictures.  With Facebook, staying connected couldn’t have been easier.

So why should a library create a Facebook account?  If it isn’t serving a clear purpose, I don’t think that librarians should be wasting their time.  Meredith Farkas’s expands this point in her blog post Libraries in Social Networking Software. She says, “I think there is a big difference between “being where our patrons are” and “being USEFUL to our patrons where they are”” (Farkas).  I agree with Farkas.  If a library does not have a direction on facebook, they will inevitably lose their initial users.

So, if a library does decide that they want to create a Facebook account, the first step they should take is to determine what information they will include on their Facebook page.  To do this, they should heavily focus on deciding who their user community is.  What are their needs?  What are their interests?  Every library community is different so librarians need to determine unique qualities they can include on their Facebook page in order to draw their community members in and keep them there.

After the librarians have determined the needs and interests of their community, it is time to decide what the overall purpose of their Facebook page will be.  Is it informative? Promotional? A means of communicating and building an online community between patrons and librarians?  For fun? Or perhaps a mixture of everything.  Whatever the library decides, knowing what the library Facebook’s purpose is is essential.

Once librarians have determined their account’s overall purpose and their Facebook account is up and running there are a few services that librarians can add.  The first is their profile information. Here, they can include their address, phone number, email, possibly their website, and any other information related to their library.  Photos of the library building, the library staff, and a map indicating their location may also give a feeling of familiarity and closeness to library users.  There were a couple other features on the Facebook page for Hennepin County Library that I thought were excellent: the “Find Books & More” as well as “Ask Us”.  The “Find Books & More” was a search engine for their library catalogue.  This feature is incredibly convenient because Facebook users can enter the library catalogue without having to visit the library website.  The “Ask Us” is very similar in convenience.  I think that this is excellent in that if library users have any queries about the topics provided on the library’s Facebook page, they do not have to delay their questions.

Finally, a library’s Facebook page needs to be monitored frequently.  I believe that one of the best methods for creating an online community between librarians and their users is for librarians to offer responses to comments and queries quickly.  The promptness in their replies should demonstrate to the users that they matter.  Additionally, if the response time is quick, there is a possibility that the library user may ask another question, creating a conversation online.  These interactions as well as the details I discussed above could result in an exceptionally dynamic Facebook page.

Tags: community, facebook, library

I believe that there are two types of searchers (and I’m pretty sure that we have all fallen into either category depending on our situation):

The first searcher is the one who requires reliable information FAST.  An example of a searcher in this category would be the frantic undergraduate student who has a twelve-page history paper due the next day and they will take any relevant resources.  Their search is not for amusement.  It is just to get to the end.  They hope the process is as quick and painless as possible.

The second searcher is the browser.  This type of searcher no only looks forward to the end result, but also enjoys the process of obtaining their results.

Although both of these searchers have existed before folksonomies were implemented, the act of tagging has truly enhanced the second searcher’s, a.k.a the browser, experience.

After going through our week’s readings, I did notice some valid concerns about this new wave of cataloguing.  One concern is that our grassroots method of subject classification is not specific enough.  Liz Lawley indicates this in her article Social Consequences of Social Tagging. She states,  “[…] I don’t share the optimism that so many of my colleagues in this field seem to have that the collective “wisdom of crowds” will always yield accurate and useful descriptors” (Lawley).  Carol Ou, author of White-Paperish Thing, also wonders if folksonomies hinder the precision of a user’s search results.  These fears have merit, especially for the individuals who love the classic library classification system.

However, folksonomies are in no way replacing the classic catalogue nor are they drastically altering it.  Instead, the classic catalogue has a partner: one to meet the needs of those who love the search.

There are several reasons why I think that we should include Folksonomies within our library catalogue. My top three are:

1. An expert tagger doesn’t exist.  Anyone can do it.  This encourages more users to contribute to the library system, creating a fresh community of taggers.

2. Because there isn’t an expert method of tagging, there also isn’t an expert method of searching.  This will hopefully be more encouraging for timid library users.  Individuals get to choose the methods that work for them instead of having to figure out the methodology behind a librarian’s search.

3. The path to discovery opens up.   A user’s initial subject entry could take them to a whole other realm of resources.  For example, I searched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows within the Oakville Public Library catalogue.  Within this novel’s information page, I received a tag cloud of the subject matter within Harry Potter.  The tag cloud offers the subject, “dark.”  I clicked on this tag and found the movie Changeling within the list of “dark” subjects.  If I were a member of the Oakville Public Library, I would not only borrow Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but also Changeling due to this search.

I believe that it is great for a library to include both types of cataloguing systems to fit the needs of the two types of searchers.

Overall, I found that Delicious was a great tool. With a Delicious account, I was more compelled to bookmark interesting sites than I ever have been with my computer.  My computer’s bookmarking feature is constrictive and I follow a rule to only bookmark the most necessary websites such as our course blog.  This rule is a result of how disorganized I am.  I cannot remember my reasoning behind certain bookmarks. They quickly add up and become a confusing mess.  However, the Delicious tag feature is excellent. I don’t hesitate to bookmark any interesting websites I find and they are labeled with terms that I understand.   Additionally, it’s fun searching for sites on my various interests through other user’s tags.  In the past, searching for valuable web sites has been time consuming for me.  However, by searching Delicious’ tags, I receive a selection of great resources in minimal time.  Someone else has done the work for me!

After completing this assignment, I do believe that crowdsourcing a specific topic using Delicious can be successful in a library.  Searching various subjects of interest is addictive. However, there are some risks.  Although tagging is highly effective and greatly assisted me, I believe that tagging may cause frustration for librarians. Delicious is an excellent tool to use for yourself.  However, when a librarian uses Delicious, the account cannot solely function to fit their preferences.  Therefore, the librarian is confronted with the challenge of determining the appropriate tags for each site.  I encountered this issue even when tagging my ten bookmarks for this assignment.  Besides the tag, “LIS9763”, I wanted to use the tag, “library.”  However, I started to wonder, should I change “library” to “libraries” or even to “librarians”?  Which term is most popular?  This creates a problem with the success of the results in a user’s search.  When a user searches among tagged items, there is a great possibility that relevant information is available under different tags than the ones they are entering within the search function.  Therefore, librarians have the complicated task of determining all of the relevant subjects of their bookmarked site to include them as tags.

Another issue that might deter users from reading excellent information is the number of times a site has been tagged.  If a user has a choice between a site with one hundred tags and a site with fifteen tags, they are likely to only read the more popular site.  While completing this assignment, I chose a blog post titled, “Humanizing your Facebook Pages” by David Lee King.  I discovered that this post only had ten tags which initially made me feel unsure of my choice.  However, when I reread the article I found it highly relevant to our course and offering unique information to librarians.  A site with fewer tags does not insinuate that it is useless.  If librarians are offering information in this format, I believe that they need to find a method to encourage users to view all sites of interest, no matter how large the tag number.

I’ll admit it, I had never heard of delicious until this week and when viewing several of our case study websites, I found it overwhelming even with the tags listed along the right column.  Buley Library Physics Subject Guide exemplifies this.  It offered a vast amount of information, however, there was too much going on within the main page.  Its list of bookmarks, persistent navigations, instructions, and even the colour scheme bothered me to the point that I had to leave.  I feel that the Buley Library Physics Subject Guide’s social bookmarking page, no matter how much great information is within, is reducing its user numbers due to its presentation.

I feel that library websites frequently have this “information overload” dilemma.  It’s true that library users should have access to all kinds of information, however, there is a danger in presenting everything at once.  Librarians have the difficult task of offering a lot of information in a simplistic manner that is aesthetically pleasing.

One solution that I discovered after viewing this week’s readings and case study websites, was the tag cloud.  I though they were great for library websites and I think they should be the focal point of library social bookmarking pages.   There are several reasons why I think tag clouds are beneficial for library websites:

1) They are self-explanatory.  Or, if someone would like clarification, they do not need to spend hours reading an instruction manual making this feature easy to pick up and return to in the future.

2) The presentation is simple.  A user can clearly see the information on the page and quickly organize it in their head to make sense.

3) Tag clouds offer a lot of information in few words.  Therefore, the users are not losing access to any information.  It is just presented in a format that users can get a handle on.  It is far less overwhelming.

4) They invite browsing.  When a user physically visits a library, they often enjoy browsing the displays and shelves.  Tag clouds encourage browsing in the virtual world.  It is exciting to discover the various links beyond different tags.

The University of Michigan created MTagger, which offers a great tag cloud.  I chose MTagger as my example because it also offers an a-z list of terms directly above the tag cloud.  I think this is great!  The a-z list is very organized and excellent for users who know exactly what they are looking for, and the tag cloud offers other users the opportunity to browse.  When using social bookmarking, I believe that library websites should follow a similar structure to MTagger.

A topic that appears frequently in my classes is the notion that a librarian is constantly trying to connect to their community. As a result, librarians administer surveys, focus groups, suggestion boxes, data analysis, and so forth to establish a sense of the user group they are serving.  Although these methods are valuable, I believe that the creation of a library wiki could be an excellent way of gathering similar information.  Wikis in libraries have the potential of establishing community interests, values, events, entertainment, etc.

I thought of some ideas for wikis that would connect librarians with the community.  These include:

-have librarians post information on upcoming library events and encourage library users to post upcoming community events in the same wiki.  It could become a virtual bulletin board.  Members could also return to event posts after the date has passed to express the event’s success.

-librarians could post new arrivals in books, movies, music, etc. and invite the library community to share their thoughts/recommendations on these resources.  This is a great method of promotion online.

-a wiki offering a Q&A  could be excellent.  Members of the community could ask questions ranging from “what is a great thriller novel?” to “Does anyone know a good recipe for homemade jam?”  The responses can be created by several different people offering a rich collection of information.

I really enjoyed Jill Walker’s article, “Weblogs: Learning in Public.”  Her enthusiasm about blogging is contagious!

As an inexperienced blogger, I had a pretty difficult time creating my previous posts.  I spent so much time analyzing and rewriting because I was so hung up on being disagreeable with someone else’s opinion.  However, the comments I have been receiving from my fellow classmates have been very encouraging (thanks guys!) and, similar to many of Walker’s students, it is becoming easier to post knowing that people are actually reading, and hopefully enjoying, my posts.

I mentioned earlier that my initial hesitancy to write was due to a great fear of being wrong in someone’s eyes.  However, Walker’s take on comments, whether in agreement or disagreement with her posts, is so positive.  I love that she emphasizes that criticisms are usually not a means to deplete one’s sense of wellbeing, but to expand their realm of thinking.  I think it’s healthy to have an awareness that other individuals think differently than myself.  It takes me out of my bubble.

However, I do believe that there is a difference between constructive criticism and just plain evil criticism.  There will always be some blogs out there that we absolutely disagree with.  The ones that have messages that stand completely against our own value systems.  So, how do we react to these?  Is it best to fight?  I mean, no one can really see who’s typing the words.  Should we really start a war in the digital world because no one can see you and, honestly, words can’t do too much harm right?  Or wrong?  Maybe we should just leave these blogs alone.  How much energy should we be wasting on blogs that we loathe anyways?

Walker states this in her conclusion by saying, “Network literacy means linking to what other people have written and inviting comments from others, it means understanding a kind of writing that is a social, collaborative process rather than an act of an individual in solitary. It means learning how to write with an awareness that anyone may read it: your mother, a future employer or the person whose work you’re writing about.  Yes, it’s difficult. The internet is not a game” (Walker 8-9).

There are definitely boundaries that we will have to establish for ourselves when contributing to other’s blogs as well as our own.  The issue is deciding how much is too much limitation.  We need boundaries without losing our self-expression and this might be a challenge because having a voice is what’s so fun about blogging.