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

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