LIS 9763 Blog

Has your view of social software changed since starting this course? If so, how?

Yes. I’ve always felt very strongly that some social software can have many benefits for library patrons when implemented appropriately. That hasn’t changed much except that now I recognize a wider range of social software that can be used well in libraries, and have loosened my definition of “implemented appropriately.” For example, I came into this class knowing that blogs and tagging can be good tools for libraries to implement, but after doing the course work I now see that library FaceBook pages and wikis can also have a positive impact on the patrons. I also had a strong sense that for these tools to provide meaningful outcomes, a lot of research should be done before hand to see what the patrons will respond too. Although there still needs to be some sort of information gathering, it can be more informal, and, considering the nature of social software, sometimes it may be best to jump right in to something and play around with it as you get patron feedback (as long as the initial time and money costs are minimal).

Of all the social tools we’ve reviewed this term, what are your “favourite” tools for libraries and why? What would you consider to be the low-hanging fruit, i.e. the tools that could be implemented easily and with the greatest impact?

This is actually one in the same for me. I love the idea of wiki book clubs run by the library. Whether in addition to or in place of a face to face book club, I think that the online presence makes it easier for busy (or shy, etc.) patrons who can’t easily get to a meeting, and allows them to work it into their schedule. This also allows librarians to get a better idea of what patrons like and they can use that when adding to the collection. Also, because most wiki sites can be created for free, and the users generate almost all of the content, I think this is a simple tool to implement, and if your patrons enjoy discussing their reads, it could have the greatest impact.

What social software tools (if any) do you consider to have the least potential for library service and why?

I think I have the most problems with mashups, they may be interesting, but I don’t see them providing any great benefits to our patrons’ lives in terms of library services.

Tell us about your personal experiences with the social software tools we’ve used & looked at this term. Which tools have worked for you, which haven’t?

I had never used Twitter before the group project and it was really easy to get into. I was familiar with everything else (except for Mashups) and have used them without any problems. Again, Mashups are something I’m not too into for libraries, so I didn’t spend that much time on creating them.

How has the distance ed. experience been for you?

Great! I’m pretty used to distance ed. and I am a creature of comfort so being able to do the lectures, readings, and course work from my couch made me happy, and as long as I stuck to the schedule I made myself (and I usually did…) I didn’t have any issues. Also, with everyone online so much it wasn’t a problem to get in touch with people either.

Do you have any suggestions for improving the learning experience of this course? (e.g. readings, weekly activities, assignments, etc.) (be honest, I can take it!)

Nope, I love the choice we’re given and the amount of flexibility with the projects and blog posts!

How would you sum up your experience over the past 13 weeks?

I know that I’m more traditional when it comes to technology and that to be a good librarian I have to work on opening my mind and embracing these tools. I think that this past term has been a really great place to start this process – I can see the benefits of many of these tools more easily (especially with the case studies) and if I am ever in a position to implement or  work on social media for my library, I’ll have a very good idea about where to begin.

I would think that writing policies about social media is a difficult thing to do. They seem to represent two opposing viewpoints – one is all about collaboration, creativity, experimentation, and the other is about control, is very structured and is imposed from the top down – one could even see it as stifling to creativity. But, it seems from the case studies that it is possible to meld them together. This is good… obviously… because policy is important in large institutions, especially those that serve the public to the degree that libraries do.

Although social media is fun to play with and can help the library connect better with some people, if you only have a vague idea of why you are doing it, you can easily digress and end up spending your time on something that doesn’t really help your patrons. Policy is a way to prevent this. If it is clearly laid out what you want to accomplish, and those goals are reflections of the library’s overall mandate, it is easier to stay on track. And of course, strong, measurable goals make the assessment process easier and more effective. The key is to balance these goals, with some flexibility in the policy that allows people to test out different projects. For example, a policy could list a number of goals and state that any social media tools that the library uses must work towards at least one of these goals. If one of those goals was to promote the collection to the community, that could encourage a number of approaches, like a blog for staff to review staff picks, a wiki page for a patron book club, or a twitter account to inform followers of recently added titles.

The other important side of policy is the fact that it can provide guidance with what to do about problems. It can ensure that everyone is treated the same way, and that you have a document backing up your decisions if they are challenged. I agree with Haskell, that the policy should mirror what you do/allow/prevent in the physical library building – if you don’t give out patrons’ private information to other people when you’re face to face, don’t allow it to happen online; if you don’t allow people to sell things in the library, don’t allow people to advertise in their comments… This brings me to King’s point about the third party advertisements. It really would bother me having those links associated with my library, but I do believe that most people are internet-savvy enough to not associate them with the library, or think of them as endorsed by the library. One may consider adding a disclaimer about those ads to the content on the social software.

I also liked Haskell’s idea of the all encompassing policy, not individual ones for different tools, I think the theory behind these applications are similar enough that they don’t warrant multiple policies – besides, it could get confusing and/or overwhelming. And I think it’s very important to make the policy available to the users right at the point of use, so they know what the library expects of them.

From the case studies, I liked the idea of having one policy for staff and one for users – the one for staff can focus more on the goals of the service and the general tone expected (transparency and respect were common among some of the case studies), and the user policy can be more explicit and say outright that a user comment will be deleted if they violate copyright, are off topic, are obscene, etc. Not that the staff policy can’t be as specific, I just think that their content would be guided by a more general expectation of professionalism.

I think RSS feeds and Mashups are really efficient ways to gather information, and I think that was very evident in the EDUCASE article. I like to browse myself, but there are really only a few sites that I go to for information; if I dealt with a lot of content each day, I think I’d opt for an RSS reader so I could access it all at once. And I think many other people are doing that. Libraries should provide an RSS feed button where ever possible (like news and events pages), because it just makes it easier for some people to view the content. And, as far as I know, many of the services we offer have a built in RSS option (like catalogues and research database platforms) so there is no need to code on our part. Although of course, as David Stuart indicated, being able to program makes it easier to enhance our users’ experiences when it comes to areas like this.

For academic libraries at least, I think this is where RSS can really be handy. For students and professors working on long term research, subscribing to an RSS feed that provides updates regarding the publication of new journal issues, new articles that cite a particular author, or new records that have been added to a database or catalogue that fit an effective search, can be invaluable. Both because it saves time and because it helps people do more thorough research. And libraries can help here by promoting these features and by providing instruction on how to use them. To this end, I thought the RSS feed sort of guide and directory on the Hennepin County Library website was a terrific idea.

What really struck me in terms of Mashups, is how visual they can be – combining maps and images with the plain text at the library’s website can provide a great experience for patrons. Many people are visual learners these things have more of a chance of catching someone’s eye. It really just makes the information more interesting and, like RSS feeds, it is something libraries should be looking at as a way to provide their information more effectively to patrons.

On the one hand I am a big fan of the mobile web, it’s just so darn convenient when you’re out and need directions, or about a thousand other things… but then I think of those people I see walking around who are just glued to their smart phones and can’t be away from the Internet for more than an hour, and there is just something wrong with that, and I don’t want to be a part of it. But these thoughts would probably be better served in a sociology class, so I’ll move on.

Since mobile devices are so pervasive, this is definitely an area libraries should be exploring if we want to meet our user needs effectively. The DCPL web app seemed to be received quite well which indicates we are on the right track here. I know the University of Waterloo Librarians have been discussing texting as another possible reference service point for our libraries because cell phone are so widely used on campus, which fits into what Steve Kolowich wrote about. I definitely see this as an excellent way for libraries to use this technology. I’m more partial to this than using QR codes to send call numbers to cell phones, using them to provide extra content for exhibits sure, but is it really faster to take a picture of a QR code and have your phone read it than just jotting down a few letters and numbers? Do we really need to be using technology for everything, every second? Really?

I did like the examples given in the Griggs, Bridges, and Rempel reading for content on mobile web sites to make things more convenient for the user. Hours, directions, OPAC search, library minute videos.

There is one thing that I think really needs to be considered here – the digital divide. Maybe this would not be so much of an issue in an academic library, but in a public library if many patrons have a low socioeconomic background, one could make the argument that mobile web applications wouldn’t be very useful. Smart phones and cell phone planes aren’t cheap. If your community has a mixed background, then you’d have to be careful of providing a great service for people who can afford these technologies and neglecting those who can’t. That’s not to say a library shouldn’t implement these services if not everyone has access to them, just that they really need to watch themselves, and be working on providing other effective services geared towards those who don’t have the same level of access.

I don’t have too much to say about social networks. I know there are examples of libraries using Facebook effectively but I still don’t feel really good about it, it’s just something in my gut. The Dublin Library videos are neat and the librarians that use personal profiles to connect with students – those seem to be working. But what about all those ads? Isn’t that annoying, and kind of corporate? And did anyone else find it funny that Ann Arbor is on MySpace? Maybe this isn’t true, but I’ve heard that MySpace is no longer ‘cool,’ that people are leaving it… how long until that happens with Facebook? (Okay, maybe never!)

But if a library decides to explore this social media tool, and I think that should be based on who the library’s community is, then it is important to consider what was brought up in the Farkas reading (and others). Be useful! And do it in a way that gets patrons to comment (and hopefully say nice/interesting/helpful things). So know your patrons and ask them questions. Make sure you focus on your services and offer reference help

And has anyone seen The Social Network? Facebook’s early days… not so cool.

“Folksonomies as an information retrieval tool that harnesses collective intelligence.” Throughout this week’s readings and case studies, there are good examples of this idea working, of many people creating tags that describe an item and its different aspects really well, and making it easier for others to find it. So the issue isn’t whether or not tagging can be effective. It can, but, to what degree? And how can we ensure that it works for our library patrons?

The Blais Catalog uses LibraryThing but people can’t add tags, so there’s no creation of content, no collective intelligence. The tags have been vetted by librarians, according to LibraryThing for Libraries, but so what? Patrons can’t use their own vocabulary, so it’s kind of like our backend cataloguing without the standards and hierarchy… I think if you’re going to use tagging, then USE it. And I didn’t see many reviews (the ones I did see were for English books), so maybe this social media is not being used to its potential here? Is folksonomy better suited for public libraries? I found a lot more reviews/ summaries and tagging in the Ann Arbour Catalogue. Why is this? This observation could just a fluke, but if not – why? Are people more likely to tag and review fiction than non-fiction? Do students and researchers not need these applications? Are they just so used to recording citations and noting summaries on their own that they don’t see the need to apply tags to find items again? Are they a bit lazy or selfish and don’t want to add to the collective intelligence? Is it just going to take time before they start using it regularly? Do their searching skills mean they don’t need to rely on folksonomies? I very much doubt the last one, and I hope it’s the second last one…

The Oakville public library’s 2.0 catalogue seems to be well used and loved – we can only assume patrons are getting something out of it – and that’s what we need to strive for. So folsonomies work, but only when the tools are used, so librarians need to make sure they are implementing something that the patrons will find useful and they have to promote it and convince them to try it, convince them that they will get something out of it. Just because social media is popular outside of libraries doesn’t mean we can implement it and expect adulations from our patrons for being so ‘with it’. I think because we still do have that traditional, stuffy stereotype, we have to work harder than other organizations to prove that social media can be effective tools in our libraries, that libraries and social software tools can compliment each other. And this means knowing our patrons and community base, developing tools that will engage them because they are targeted to their needs, and promote them effectively.

However, Spalding’s article shows that Amazon, much more technologically advanced than the average public library, has a tagging system that isn’t able to capitalize on the collective intelligence. So maybe some social software applications fit better with libraries and our ideology than some might think. It makes sense in this case; people don’t want to organize Amazon’s things, but they might want to organize their library so they can find the items love and related items easier, and stay away from items they did not like. People have a sense of ownership when it comes to library items, which means they will put more effort into tagging and make it a useful part of their library catalogue.

Not every community will embrace folksonomies as an information retrieval tool, and it won’t always end up harnessing the collective intelligence. But, if we promote it well, and convince our patrons that it is worth trying, over time it will become more effective and they will probably really start to appreciate it. The time thing seems to be a pretty big issue with tagging and OPACs, it takes time for a folksonomy to develop and grow from the bottom up – months, maybe years, before the tags are prevalent and refined enough for everyone to use it as an effective information retrieval tool. And even then, something will inevitably be missed, so you hope the controlled vocabulary will pick it up. In my head I would trust the taxonomy first and hope anything it missed would be picked up with the folksonomy… but it really doesn’t matter if they are both there.

When I chose links to add to delicious, I focused on two things: the different perceptions of social networking tools, and how the tools are used in libraries. It wasn’t intentional but those seemed to be what I found most interesting. So I added links to articles and blogs that talked about how annoying or historic they are, how revolutionary or ‘not-revolutionary’ they are, as well as the New York Public Library’s twitter page (they seem to be a good model) and how libraries should address social media in their policies (you know, the practical side). But I think my favourite one is the link to using one social networking tool to help quite different one (it’s kind of ironic right?).

I didn’t see too much overlap in the lis9763 tag, but I didn’t expect there to be. As far as I can tell, this is great example of crowdsourcing in an ideal state – many people bringing together their individual knowledge (of pertinent links) so that more information that any one of us could find (assuming we have lives), covering different aspects of the topic, is right there and easily accessible through tags. If I was looking for specific information on an interest of mine I would check out delicious, sure, it would be useful. But I wouldn’t stop there. I mean, social bookmarking works, but to be thorough I’d want to see what I could find using my own search skills and a search engine.

So, social booking tools in a library setting. At my public library we have a delicious account for the staff. We use if to bookmark sites that are useful for professional development and providing reference services. It’s nice because one someone finds something good or there is something we should all know about – we all have quick and easy access (reduces emails, etc.). But, we also have a Google group site that houses procedures, useful links, etc. They pretty much do the same thing I think, and that is because we are not really using delicious to its full potential. It’s what you make of it, it can be similar to a stagnant webpage with a list of neat URLs, or it can be a place where you tap into the constantly updated wealth of other people’s resources to increase your knowledge on a topic. I’m going to try and spend more time on our account looking for tags and links that may be interesting to us.

That’s social bookmarking for the librarians, but what about the patrons? Well, many of them will have their own accounts for their interests, and we’re not really needed for that. Maybe just informing patrons that the library tags reliable information that could help answer their reference questions… but we already have a list of homework help sites, online encyclopaedias, etc. on our website… if they are going to use social bookmarking, they will use it and they will find helpful links using the tags there, they probably won’t be looking for/need the tag ‘library reference.’ I’m thinking there are other, better, ways to engage our patrons using social media tools (blogging, tagging on the OPAC…)

I definitely use the bookmarking features of my browsers all the time. It just makes life easier. I never gave social bookmarking much thought but I can see its benefits – easy access to a lot of information about something you’re interested in, in one place – building off of and using other people’s knowledge, something that wouldn’t really be possible on such a large scale without social bookmarking. Yes… I’ll probably investigate this further for my own interest later on when I have more time.

This fairly obvious conclusion of mine made me think of Joshua Porter’s statement that “if we are to build networks of value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves before they can contribute value to the network.” It just makes sense right? People aren’t going to go around collecting links and tagging things that hold no interest to them – unless they are being paid. If people are going to use this tool it will spring from a passion. The desire to collect ‘everything’ on the web about Victorian house plans, the iPad, or artists signed to the Matador label. Then, over time, with the collections from other people, a site, like Del.icio.us, becomes a place for crowdsourcing. And a place you might want to direct patrons when they are searching the web for something?

I’m definitely a fan of subject guides by libraries for patrons. In this case, they make more sense to me than wikis – one place where students can go to and search in a way that makes sense to them, for great links to useful and reliable information. The subject guides at Waterloo don’t have as many links as the case studies (Buley and Chelmsford) but I still love showing them to students and they seem to like them, so as more content is added, I imagine that they will be used and appreciated even more.

I see social bookmarking as a supplement to library catalogues and classification schemes, not a replacement for them like Lee Rainie might. Tagging allows us to collect and sort items in a way that makes sense to us as individuals, which is great because we all think differently and will organize things differently – and when you’re searching your personal collection that’s fine, but when you go to search someone else’s, that can become difficult. There is no one perfect identification and organization system, but we have two that are logical and people understand, for the most part, and I don’t see why we would get rid of them. For our print materials, Dewey and LCC work, not perfectly, but alright. And so far, tagging works for a lot of digital material, not perfectly (you can’t do any real complex searching), but alright. So, we have both; I don’t think one should replace the other.

I don’t have much to say about Flickr, just that it’s pretty cool. We’re lucky that we live in this time and have these great advantages for sharing and finding information.