This week I'm posting a screencast I created using Screencast-O-Matic.
I like this screencast software because it allows me to stop and start recording, go back and re-record over mistakes, record for up to 15 minutes, and it's free! I've embedded the same video twice; the first one is on YouTube and the second is directly from Screencast-O-Matic. If you don't see the embedded video from whatever reader you're using (e.g., Google Reader), here's the YouTube url link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4LD2fVAuZA. Here's the Screencast-O-Matic url link as well: http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cXfoY0D3e. (You also might want to click off the Halo button along the bottom of the screen for better viewing.)
Friday, April 15, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Anonymity and lurking in online communities: They can be a comfort . . .
Being uncomfortable with sharing too much personal information in the online world as well as being an introvert, I understand the appeal of remaining anonymous as well as lurking in online communities. I have experienced both.
1. Anonymous member: This suggests a user who contributes content, but does so without revealing his/her identity. I think in some cases, online anonymity serves a valid purpose. For example, I belong to the SJSU MLIS Yahoo Group where I view and contribute to the Course/Professor Recommendation database each semester; contributors to this particular section are automatically anonymous by design so that SLIS students (who comprise the members of this group) will feel free to publish honest comments. Also there is a moderator, as Rosenberg (2010) suggests, if needed to monitor inappropriate comments. Without the use of anonymity I don’t believe these recommendations would be as helpful and many might not even be written.
On the other hand, while I often do not feel comfortable revealing my true identity to the online world (as evidenced by my blog name), I also do not typically contribute online content in a completely anonymous form (with the above exception). I usually prefer using a pseudonym; Grohol (2006) refers to this as “anonymity that hides a person behind an online persona via a username.” I agree that “people [can] build reputations in their usernames, and so their reputation becomes something they value and want to protect.” While my writing may not always come out sounding the way I want it to, I do think very carefully about what I post online. Even though my blog viewership more than likely consists of a small number of fellow library science classmates, it is possible in theory (although highly unlikely!) that the whole world could be watching. This should be enough to make anyone think twice regarding what they reveal about themselves online.
2. Lurker: As Reed (2009) noted, this suggests a user who may engage in the community by viewing content but does not actually contribute new content themselves. Before enrolling in this Web 2.0 class, I didn’t really have much of an online presence. Not that I have a huge one now, but it is growing slowly. For the most part, I have been a lurker; although I’ve never thought of myself that way before (other meanings of the word can conjure up some creepy images!). I would say the main reason for my “lurking” rather than “contributing” tendency has been due to the risk of “sound[ing] like an idiot”, as expressed so eloquently in three different comments to Reed’s blog. Yep, that’s the reason. Though upon reading this week’s assigned articles, I have a new appreciation and understanding for why online communities tend to thrive even more when more members contribute. I don’t know that my lurking behavior will change soon, but I will consider being more of a contributor in the future when joining new communities and making my way out into the online world.
1. Anonymous member: This suggests a user who contributes content, but does so without revealing his/her identity. I think in some cases, online anonymity serves a valid purpose. For example, I belong to the SJSU MLIS Yahoo Group where I view and contribute to the Course/Professor Recommendation database each semester; contributors to this particular section are automatically anonymous by design so that SLIS students (who comprise the members of this group) will feel free to publish honest comments. Also there is a moderator, as Rosenberg (2010) suggests, if needed to monitor inappropriate comments. Without the use of anonymity I don’t believe these recommendations would be as helpful and many might not even be written.
On the other hand, while I often do not feel comfortable revealing my true identity to the online world (as evidenced by my blog name), I also do not typically contribute online content in a completely anonymous form (with the above exception). I usually prefer using a pseudonym; Grohol (2006) refers to this as “anonymity that hides a person behind an online persona via a username.” I agree that “people [can] build reputations in their usernames, and so their reputation becomes something they value and want to protect.” While my writing may not always come out sounding the way I want it to, I do think very carefully about what I post online. Even though my blog viewership more than likely consists of a small number of fellow library science classmates, it is possible in theory (although highly unlikely!) that the whole world could be watching. This should be enough to make anyone think twice regarding what they reveal about themselves online.
2. Lurker: As Reed (2009) noted, this suggests a user who may engage in the community by viewing content but does not actually contribute new content themselves. Before enrolling in this Web 2.0 class, I didn’t really have much of an online presence. Not that I have a huge one now, but it is growing slowly. For the most part, I have been a lurker; although I’ve never thought of myself that way before (other meanings of the word can conjure up some creepy images!). I would say the main reason for my “lurking” rather than “contributing” tendency has been due to the risk of “sound[ing] like an idiot”, as expressed so eloquently in three different comments to Reed’s blog. Yep, that’s the reason. Though upon reading this week’s assigned articles, I have a new appreciation and understanding for why online communities tend to thrive even more when more members contribute. I don’t know that my lurking behavior will change soon, but I will consider being more of a contributor in the future when joining new communities and making my way out into the online world.
Allowing library wiki patron participation: Why not?
According to Aaron Tay’s 2009 blog post, “As seen by the listing of libraries wikis, the vast majority of wikis are edited only by librarians in the same institution . . . None allow users to edit."
A contributing factor may be related to the amount of time and effort involved in maintaining and updating a wiki. When outside participation is allowed, content must be regularly monitored, particularly for spam, vandalism, or profane language. Or patrons may end up not contributing content at all or on a regular basis, in which case library staff may need to solicit input to keep the wiki updated. Therefore at least one library staff member is needed to facilitate patron participation in a wiki. Many libraries are already short on staff so there may not be anyone who can afford to give time to this endeavor.
Setting up a participatory wiki also requires a kind of trust that its members will contribute quality content. Therefore it may be difficult for library staff to fully accept the process of allowing patrons to contribute, thereby handing over “ownership” of the wiki. Meredith Farkas’s 2007 blog post discusses some of these concerns in more detail as well as ideas on how to encourage wiki participation if libraries would like to establish this kind of collaborative space with their patrons.
A contributing factor may be related to the amount of time and effort involved in maintaining and updating a wiki. When outside participation is allowed, content must be regularly monitored, particularly for spam, vandalism, or profane language. Or patrons may end up not contributing content at all or on a regular basis, in which case library staff may need to solicit input to keep the wiki updated. Therefore at least one library staff member is needed to facilitate patron participation in a wiki. Many libraries are already short on staff so there may not be anyone who can afford to give time to this endeavor.
Setting up a participatory wiki also requires a kind of trust that its members will contribute quality content. Therefore it may be difficult for library staff to fully accept the process of allowing patrons to contribute, thereby handing over “ownership” of the wiki. Meredith Farkas’s 2007 blog post discusses some of these concerns in more detail as well as ideas on how to encourage wiki participation if libraries would like to establish this kind of collaborative space with their patrons.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Online Collaborative Tools: So many choices . . .
Playing with this week’s online collaboration tools was a bit overwhelming for me. Unlike past weeks, I found that I had never heard of most of these, let alone actually used any of them other than Google Docs, Meebo, and Skype. And I’ve only used these three a combined handful of times beginning last semester during my library internship. I used Google Docs and Skype to collaborate briefly with two other SLIS student interns and Meebo to ask a digital reference question of a librarian. So I have not had much experience using any of these tools for extended collaboration purposes.
One of my questions when contemplating using any new kind of social software is how do you know which one is best to try and use? In one of this week’s readings, Dembo comments that “the problem with the proliferation of Web2.0 tools and free resources [is that it] makes it too easy to just jump in without thinking ahead.” Most of these tools seem pretty cool upon first review, but how do I know which ones will fit my needs and my organization’s needs the best? In another reading, Suarez (borrowing from McDonnell) lists as one of the questions to ask before full adoption of a wiki, “Is a wiki the best technology for what I am seeking to accomplish?” This question could easily be changed to reflect any of these collaborative tools, e.g., Is Google Docs the best technology to use for document collaboration or would TextFlow be a better option? Also what if I begin using one of these tools and then it goes away? For instance, out of this week’s links, I was disappointed to find that there were a number of them that no longer work (Present.io, drop.io) or in which the software’s fate is questionable (Etherpad, DimDim, Google Wave).
Suarez suggests that you may not need to dump what you’ve been using if it’s been working, but that perhaps a new collaborative tool will enhance what you’ve been using which might make it worth a try. He states that “social software needs to meet a set of requirements, of needs.” Carpenter makes a similar argument: “the goal is for a use case that’s “real”, not some made-up activity for the sake of testing the software.” Having not had much experience with any of these collaborative tools, I definitely feel lured in by their seemingly cool features. At the same time I agree that it’s very important to look at what’s already working for your organization, really think about what the organization’s needs and goals are, and make sure there’s a need that’s not already being met with existing software before investing too much time and effort trying out the latest tool that may be gone sooner than you think.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Exercise 5 – Discovering bookmarking in del.icio.us
This assignment was an exercise in exploring “the value of social bookmarking tools for re-finding items of interest and for discovery.” Since I first set up my del.icio.us account two months ago, I have basically only used it as a dumping ground for the required weekly class bookmarks as well as for links to my classmates’ blogs. This exercise opened my eyes to some quick and simple ways of discovering additional interesting “items of interest”.
The first of these involves looking at the popularity factor of a bookmark, i.e., the more people that bookmark an item, the greater chance it will be a valuable resource. I tend to view bookmarks as recommendations. One thing to note in looking at a recent bookmarked resource is that it may not yet have a large number of bookmarks until more people have had a chance to view it.
A second strategy in discovering interesting, relevant items involves common tagging. When bookmarking I tend to choose suggested tags because it inherently makes sense to do so for future searching. I also want others to be more likely to find my tagged items by using common labels. For example, I use the tag ‘socialbookmarking’ (46,110 bookmarks) over the similar but less used ‘social_bookmarking’ (11,130 bookmarks) due to the popularity of the former. Tagging is fairly new to me and I look forward to using it in del.icio.us as a way of researching topics.
A third strategy for discovery is to review another person’s set of bookmarks. I picked a person at random and found myself scanning his bookmarks overall to get a feel for the kind of items he chooses to bookmark. Upon seeing several interesting looking resources, I felt confident that the one I ultimately chose would be a useful one.
A fourth and final strategy involves looking at bookmarks of colleagues (in this case, my classmates) or those who are interested in similar topics. In doing so I found that my peers had indeed bookmarked some of the same sites as me. I also found other interesting resources due to our shared common interests, by being in the same class as well as library school in general. Scanning for people recognized in the library or social media fields is another idea for viewing bookmarks in order to connect to relevant resources that they deem valuable, somewhat like using references at the end of an article to find further information. With social bookmarking, I can review an authority’s or peer’s bookmarks, make my selections, and save them.
All the strategies I’ve practiced for this exercise have given me new, quick, and simple ways of discovering interesting and relevant information in my future search endeavors.
The first of these involves looking at the popularity factor of a bookmark, i.e., the more people that bookmark an item, the greater chance it will be a valuable resource. I tend to view bookmarks as recommendations. One thing to note in looking at a recent bookmarked resource is that it may not yet have a large number of bookmarks until more people have had a chance to view it.
A second strategy in discovering interesting, relevant items involves common tagging. When bookmarking I tend to choose suggested tags because it inherently makes sense to do so for future searching. I also want others to be more likely to find my tagged items by using common labels. For example, I use the tag ‘socialbookmarking’ (46,110 bookmarks) over the similar but less used ‘social_bookmarking’ (11,130 bookmarks) due to the popularity of the former. Tagging is fairly new to me and I look forward to using it in del.icio.us as a way of researching topics.
A third strategy for discovery is to review another person’s set of bookmarks. I picked a person at random and found myself scanning his bookmarks overall to get a feel for the kind of items he chooses to bookmark. Upon seeing several interesting looking resources, I felt confident that the one I ultimately chose would be a useful one.
A fourth and final strategy involves looking at bookmarks of colleagues (in this case, my classmates) or those who are interested in similar topics. In doing so I found that my peers had indeed bookmarked some of the same sites as me. I also found other interesting resources due to our shared common interests, by being in the same class as well as library school in general. Scanning for people recognized in the library or social media fields is another idea for viewing bookmarks in order to connect to relevant resources that they deem valuable, somewhat like using references at the end of an article to find further information. With social bookmarking, I can review an authority’s or peer’s bookmarks, make my selections, and save them.
All the strategies I’ve practiced for this exercise have given me new, quick, and simple ways of discovering interesting and relevant information in my future search endeavors.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Library Success Wiki: one of the best
I was enlightened and impressed upon reviewing this week’s examples of library wikis and the varied ways in which they are used. These include sharing information for internal staff purposes (Antioch New England Graduate School's Library Training Wiki, Alaska Association of School Librarians), strategic planning (Durham County Library Strategic Plan wiki), conferences (ALA Chicago 2005 Wiki), subject guides (Plymouth Regional High School Library Wiki, Ohio University’s Biz Wiki), and even as a library’s website (University of South Carolina Aiken Gregg-Graniteville Library).
My favorite out of the group though is the Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki which is a conglomeration of ideas, links, and materials contributed by librarians or any interested party. It is truly a collaborative and positive endeavor whose purpose is to collect and organize information and ideas in order to help and inspire librarians everywhere in their pursuit of instituting successful programming. The wiki effectively accomplishes this due to many of the factors discussed by Cashel (2007) and therefore is one that in his words, works well: 1) “for groups that already know each other” – the community served is made up of librarians sharing a common goal of pursuing library successes; 2) “for co-assembly” in addition to “co-editing” – this is a project that encourages many contributors; 3) “when a clear nucleus is provided” – the first page introduction, community information, and contribution guidance is much appreciated by a new participant like me; 4) “with a clear final product in mind” – while this product is meant to be dynamic, its intent is clear; and 5) “in documenting consensus rather than opinions” – it is set up is a place for shared ideas and links, but not in the form of a discussion board.
On this wiki there is a wealth of information on most library topics of current relevance to librarians, and if not, you can just add it yourself! But beware because once you start editing, you may just get hooked and have trouble stopping. I’d never contributed to a wiki before and I must confess, it can be addicting, but fortunately in a very good way.
My favorite out of the group though is the Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki which is a conglomeration of ideas, links, and materials contributed by librarians or any interested party. It is truly a collaborative and positive endeavor whose purpose is to collect and organize information and ideas in order to help and inspire librarians everywhere in their pursuit of instituting successful programming. The wiki effectively accomplishes this due to many of the factors discussed by Cashel (2007) and therefore is one that in his words, works well: 1) “for groups that already know each other” – the community served is made up of librarians sharing a common goal of pursuing library successes; 2) “for co-assembly” in addition to “co-editing” – this is a project that encourages many contributors; 3) “when a clear nucleus is provided” – the first page introduction, community information, and contribution guidance is much appreciated by a new participant like me; 4) “with a clear final product in mind” – while this product is meant to be dynamic, its intent is clear; and 5) “in documenting consensus rather than opinions” – it is set up is a place for shared ideas and links, but not in the form of a discussion board.
On this wiki there is a wealth of information on most library topics of current relevance to librarians, and if not, you can just add it yourself! But beware because once you start editing, you may just get hooked and have trouble stopping. I’d never contributed to a wiki before and I must confess, it can be addicting, but fortunately in a very good way.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The UIUC Undergraduate Library
The University Library was originally founded in 1867, along with what is now known as the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It is “the largest public university library in the U.S.” with over 11 million volumes, and third in North American academic libraries overall after Harvard and Yale. The Library consists of a Main Library, an Undergraduate Library, and 30+ departmental libraries. It serves a student population of over 30,000 undergraduate and 10,000 plus graduate students, as well as university faculty and staff and visiting scholars.
The Undergraduate Library first opened in 1969. Its architecture is somewhat unique in that it was built underground and is connected to the Main Library by an underground tunnel. This library “provides in one location more reference resources for undergraduate instruction than any other undergraduate college library in the United States” (History of the Undergraduate Library, 2010).
For the most part, all library web pages are set up similarly with a blue and orange navigation bar at the top and three columns filled with links and information underneath; heading and link colors are also blue and orange. One noticeable difference is the Undergraduate Library home page; although it has the same top navigation bar and stays true to the blue and orange color scheme, the arrangement of content and page set-up have a different look than other library pages.
Undergraduate Library’s (UL) Online Marketing Efforts
While the University Library and a handful of departmental libraries have each dipped their figurative “toes” into the online world of social media, the Undergraduate Library has delved much deeper into this marketing world and so the focus here will be on this particular library.
1. Facebook
Undergraduate Library @ UIUC has 496 people who like this or “fans”. On average the library posts 2-3 times per week and these are typically different than their Twitter postings. The majority of posts are by the library with occasional posts by other university entities such as the Union. There doesn’t appear to be a great deal of interaction by students on the Wall although the library does respond in a timely manner when there are student questions.
Besides the Wall, there are five additional tabs; these include Events which lists upcoming and past library events that invite student attendance and allow them to RSVP as well.
A potentially useful link is UIUC Library Search under Likes which is described as a “handy widget [that] searches the UIUC Library catalog, as well as some of our journal article databases, right from Facebook.” It is unclear how much this widget is used by patrons since there are only two reviews of 1-2 stars out of 5. Since Facebook login is required to use this app, and I don’t have an account, I was unable to test this out myself. Apparently it is the same search assistant that is available on the MySpace page, but that one no longer works. Over a year ago there was quite a lot of discussion on this site by outside librarians asking how to set up this app.
One way to get to the UL Facebook page is by clicking on the Facebook button located on the library’s home page. I had also Googled “university of illinois library facebook” and the first result pointed to an outdated Undergraduate Library @ the University of Illinois page. While the UL librarian has posted a link here to the new page, I’m wondering if there is a way this old page could be deleted so as to avoid any confusion.
2. MySpace
This account does not appear to be promoted and for good reason (I Googled it). UIUC Undergraduate Library features mostly outdated information including a library federated search tool that no longer works as well as a link to the old Facebook page. The library made one post in 2009 and the last patron post before that was made three years prior. There are two functioning links (the UL home page and Ask a Librarian) and a side panel of streaming tweets by askundergrad (the UL’s Twitter account), but for the most part this account appears to be abandoned.
3. Twitter
@askundergrad is the UIUC Undergrad Lib account and currently has 1,049 followers. There is a link on the UL home page as well as a streaming Twitter feed. Although the UL was one of the early adopters of Twitter (May 2007), the tool had not been used as effectively as hoped. There was a re-launch in 2009 and since then the library has continued to keep its feed updated and lively, making on average 7-10 tweets per day. Tweet content focuses on research tips, library services and resources, historical and current events, and other topics of interest to undergraduates. Relevant links are often included as well.
Examples of recent tweets:
# Need a computer? Every terminal in the UGL taken? Check out a laptop from the undergraduate library circulation desk!
# Movies with sound have been around 88 yrs tomorrow, but there were some classics before that: http://bit.ly/evUQWv
# Have a question yet to be answered to your satisfaction? Try QB: http://bit.ly/bDoK6f
# Free lunch! And... "City Kids, Country Kids, and Suburbanites: Does Geography Matter?" @ 703 S. Wright, 2nd floor: http://bit.ly/eRwov1
In speaking with the Learning Commons (LC) librarian who is in charge of the UL’s use of social media, it is clear that Twitter currently plays the biggest part in this arena. Graduate students spend 25 hours per semester uploading the majority of tweets to ahead of time for efficiency. The library is sensitive to current events though and does incorporate timely tweets as well. T
itional links to both Twitter and Facebook on other UL content pages (Learning Commons, Collaboratories, Partnering Across Campus, Digital Display, Technology, Undergrad Calendar). The Twitter feed also runs on the right side of the first four. In addition, the UL highlights streaming tweets at the library itself using digital signage and flat screen displays.
4. Blog
It is not clear to me how one would initially find this blog. I searched “blog” on the library web site which led me to this page of UIUC Library RSS feeds. A link for the Undergraduate Library News and Blog is halfway down the page.
On the blog page itself, the university’s branding colors of blue and orange are effectively incorporated into the top navigation bar. Blog posts are used to expand on tweeted information about certain library events. One month’s worth of entries (5 in February) are displayed at a time with the latest update as of 2/27/11. There is no option for patron comments. This page also provides library links such as Ask a Librarian, My Account, UIUC Catalog, etc.
5. YouTube, Flickr, Foursquare
On the UL home page there is a link to six “Videos Produced at the Undergraduate Library.” These videos also appear on YouTube via askundergrad's Channel. In Flickr I searched and found the Undergraduate Learning Commons' photostream which contains 16 photos posted in 2006. In Foursquare I found an Undergraduate Library page with 3 tips, 151 people, and 427 check-ins; also a link to the askundergrad Twitter page.
Payoff of UL’s Current Marketing Efforts
Regarding overall branding efforts, all library web pages are set up using the same blue and orange navigation bar at the top along with blue and orange headings and links. This makes for a consistent online brand.
Regarding the use of social media, unfortunately the Undergraduate Library has not been as successful in having two-way conversations with students as the LC librarian would like. She seeks to engage students further so as to give them a sense of all the library has to offer. It is clear from our conversation that the Undergraduate Library and its staff want to be as accessible and approachable as possible to students. In the process of interviewing students, the library has found that many are not aware of various library resources and services. So the challenge lies in trying to find effective ways to use social media to address this issue.
Currently the UL Facebook account is used to post about library information and events as well as other topics of interest to students; generally there does not appear to be much student response. When using Facebook for outreach, student privacy is a concern for the library. For example, students can RSVP for library events via Facebook which can raise privacy issues. So at the moment, it is somewhat unclear how to best use this tool to connect students with services and resources.
The way the UL is using Twitter in “connecting undergraduates to their intellectual life via library services” is quite impressive. Posting 7+ informative tweets per day requires the organization and use of multiple tools in addition to Twitter as well as many working hours. The LC librarian has some very definite ideas about how to effectively use this tool and they seem to be paying off in an increased number of students who follow @askundergrad.
While the UL blog is informative about events, I’m not sure how students typically find it and therefore how many actually read it. Also at this point it is basically a one-way conversational tool since there is no way for patrons to add comments.
I did not see any online promotion for the library’s YouTube videos, Flickr photostream, or the Foursquare page. At this point it would seem that these are not a priority in the UL’s online marketing efforts.
Thoughts Regarding UL’s Marketing Efforts Going Forward
At first glance it may seem straightforwardly easy to review a library’s social media accounts and offer suggestions for improvement. But when you really get into the meat of it and consider all the factors that affect the successful use of these tools, it becomes a rather daunting task. Such is what I realized during my conversation with the LC librarian. I also realized that the Undergraduate Library is clearly concerned with working on these issues.
Having said that, here are some of my thoughts on the UL’s use of social media:
When thinking about the use of social media, the question arises in my mind of whether or not students even desire to connect with the library via these tools. Perhaps to begin with, the library could create a survey asking students how they would prefer to receive library information.
Links to Facebook, Twitter, and the library blog could be placed on all of the library’s content pages, not just a select few. If it is not already being done, these tools could also be promoted in the physical library itself via fliers and at instruction sessions. While all three of these pages are updated regularly (Twitter updates are amazing!), perhaps the content could be even more user-friendly by asking questions and soliciting feedback more often.
Privacy issues regarding Facebook need to be looked at in-depth so the possibility of adding a more useful search widget or other library widgets to the page might be incorporated. Also on the subject of Facebook, I think the outdated Undergraduate Library Facebook account should be deleted. Students may not use the library’s home page to find the current account; instead they may search Facebook directly. Since I don’t have a Facebook account, I don’t know which account would come up first using this kind of search. It could be confusing to anyone who visits the outdated account instead of the current one.
I would also recommend deleting the Undergraduate Library MySpace account since there is very little current information and the federated search link is dead. Besides most college students now use Facebook rather than MySpace.
Additionally I would also like to see a more visible blog which offers patrons the ability to post comments.
There is currently what appears to be an inactive Social Media link on some of the UL web pages. The LC librarian mentioned working on creating a library page that lists and explains the various social media tools available. I think this is a great idea for promoting these tools and directing students to them in order to encourage more of those highly valued two-way conversations between students and their library.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Building presence in the online CMS . . .
Academic librarians need to consider certain issues when trying to build presence in an online course management system (CMS). They must decide the overall intent or goal of integrating library services and resources into the CMS, such as whether to cover a majority of courses by delivering general, broad services or target specific courses by delivering more personalized services. In the latter case especially, the library must assess staff size and ability to take on this more time consuming alternative. If staff and their time are in short supply, librarians must consider which courses would benefit the most from an integrated library presence, e.g., those with a major research component.
Librarians must then strive to collaborate with instructors on ways to best serve students’ library and information literacy needs in relation to their coursework. This collaboration is a key component that cannot be overstated. Initially it’s important to discuss what expectations the instructor has regarding what he/she would like students to learn in terms of research skills, etc. Just as important is clarification by the librarian about what services the library is able to offer the class. The role of the librarian in the course itself also needs to be established. For example, will the librarian be regarded more as a T.A. with limited instructor privileges or perhaps as a guest instructor with privileges equal to the class instructor? These kinds of issues are best resolved at the beginning of the course. Then communication should continue throughout the semester if the partnership between the instructor and librarian is to be a successful one, thereby carrying over to the ultimate success of the students.
As previously mentioned, librarians need to assess what services they can offer through the CMS that would be most valuable to students for their particular class, such as electronic reserves, supplementary course content, or bibliographic instruction. In my Libr 220 experience as a student embedded librarian for three UCM classes, I found that one undergraduate Psych class only needed instruction on finding article permalinks while a graduate nursing class needed substantial guidance with the many components of a major research paper. In all cases, trying to build presence in an online course management system requires proactive commitment on the part of librarians and their libraries. In the end, it is well worth their effort.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Timely iLibrarian posts re: Twitter
iLibrarian posted two timely blog links this morning on ways to use Twitter. The first post links to Jeff Young’s column, 'Embedded Librarian' on Twitter Served as Information Concierge for Class, which discusses an interesting and relevant way to use Twitter in a library environment. Plus it’s a quick read.
The second post summarizes the key points of Stephanie Sammons column, How to Use LinkedIn With Twitter for Better Networking, which are useful for professional networking. For further elaboration, check out Sammons' full article.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Twitter: A dip in the stream
I am a bit overwhelmed by the idea of a streaming real-time Web. While it’s exciting, it can also be mind boggling at times. Take for instance this week’s exercise using Twitter. After a week of trying to familiarize myself with this medium, which included attempting to follow 10 assigned tweeters along with many class tweeters, I haven’t quite figured out its appeal to the average person or how anyone actually manages to follow more than a few tweets per day (and I thought managing blogs in Google Reader was challenging!). I just don’t know if this is something I could personally keep up with without becoming bleary-eyed and exhausted while doing so.
Erick Schonfeld’s post in which he quotes John Borthwick’s suggestion of “letting go of the notion that you can ever master the stream,” lessened my guilt about not being able to keep up. No problem there; I have no grand illusions of ever mastering Twitter let alone the entire stream. Borthwick is also quoted as describing the stream as something that “we as users and participants can dip in and out of and whether we participate . . . or simply observe we are a part of this flow.” Currently I’m more comfortable as an observer but I do like the idea of still being a part of the flow.
Although I feel trepidation about the reality of conquering Twitter on a personal level, I am encouraged and wowed by some of the very positive attributes of this medium. Two in particular stand out to me. Firstly, using Twitter and other social media for social and political change as mentioned in some of the readings this week is truly amazing and impressive. Secondly, in his blog post Ken Fromm points out that “[Twitter’s] arbitrary constraints can have a liberating and profound effect on creativity.” I have found this to be true; the 140 character limit per tweet forces me to focus like a laser on what I really want to convey. Unlike blogs such as this where I could go on, and on, and on . . . Suffice it to say, the “short and sweet” nature of Twitter greatly appeals to me. I just wish that some tweeters would keep this concept in mind before posting their 20th tweet of the day.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
LibGuides: A personal plug from a future librarian
I was initially introduced to LibGuides in 2009 shortly after the software had been adopted by SJSU librarians. Although a librarian introduced the LIS subject guide in an email, I quickly forgot about it. I didn’t think about LibGuides again until last semester when I introduced them to other students during library instruction and reference sessions as well as had the opportunity to co-create a guide myself during my student internship. I quickly became a LibGuides fan, probably even more as a future librarian than a student.
When teaching library instruction sessions, I first used the guides as a starting point, a place to direct students when beginning their research (instead of the library’s website). All of the students were upper level or graduate students in the health or biological sciences working on some kind of research paper. Not having a science background, I found the LibGuides for these subjects to be fantastic teaching tools especially in the area of suggesting subject-specific databases to use. I myself could follow a guide and walk students through the process thereby increasing awareness of the guides and teaching how to search effectively as well.
Another part of my internship required manning the main reference desk once a week. I found that by consulting the appropriate subject-specific LibGuide (of which there are currently over 200), I could find a good starting place for research to share with students of any major that came to the desk seeking help.
The most fun came though when I got to work on creating a new LibGuide with one of my supervisors. I found the software very easy to work with; after a little reading, viewing a tutorial or two, and playing around with it, I was excited to add and change links and information until the guide became a finished product, ready to publish (since I have no programming or website creation background, I was relieved at the fairly low learning curve required). The great thing is that because LibGuides are never really finished products, when it inevitably came time to make some changes, it was a snap to do so. (At the time I didn’t add any RSS feeds because I didn’t actually know how to use RSS, but I’d love to try this out in the future.) Academic content is dynamic and a tool such as LibGuides makes keeping on top of that content a much easier task.
The annual subscription fee for LibGuides ranges from $899 to $2,999 which can be prohibitive for some libraries. But especially if an academic library can afford the software, I see it as a worthwhile expenditure and valuable aid for both students and librarians.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Exercise 2 – Library Blogs: A Whole New World
The first five . . .
The following summarizes various characteristics of five library-related blogs I am currently following:
- Authors: seven different librarians representing public, academic, and school libraries; group post every few months; allows guest bloggers; “each article is peer-reviewed by at least one external and one internal reviewer”.
- Content: varied topics related to libraries.
- Recent topics: part-time temporary library jobs, Facebook, disappearance of books, WikiLeaks, student library & technology use study results.
- Most recent post: 2/9/11 post; updated every two weeks.
- Narrative and tone: some posts are first-person; some are third-person; more formal; reads like an article.
- Average post length: quite long so that only one post will fit on a page – the most recent post took 12 page scrolls from top to bottom.
- Graphics: each post typically begins with a colorful photo and uses bold headings to delineate content sections.
- Live links: yes, but not overwhelmingly so; depends on author.
- Author: community college librarian.
- Content: libraries and technology, higher education.
- Recent topics: weeding printed books, researching a reference question, fear of computers/technology, beginning of semester busy-ness, negativity about librarianship.
- Most recent post: 2/15/11 post; updated weekly.
- Narrative and tone: first-person; informal; conversational; posts are mini stories based on author’s reference desk observations.
- Average post length: about four paragraphs; a quick read.
- Graphics: each post typically begins with a colorful photo.
- Live links: sometimes a few.
- Author: university librarian.
- Content: Library 2.0 tools, technology and libraries.
- Recent topics: many posts are short snippets with links to other people’s content about technology and libraries, e.g., an eBooks and libraries presentation, a mobile library site post, technology book reviews.
- Most recent post: 2/9/11 post; updated quite sporadically, anywhere from five days to three weeks or more.
- Narrative and tone: first-person; informal.
- Average post length: one to four short paragraphs; a quick read.
- Graphics: some posts have a colorful graphic; some video.
- Live links: about 2-4; also a list of three more links at bottom of each post.
- Author: public librarian.
- Content: technology and libraries.
- Recent topics: top ten personal links; eBooks and libraries, PostPost, OITP digital literacy announcement, librarian superhero contest.
- Most recent post: 2/13/11 post; updated every 2-3 days.
- Narrative and tone: first-person; informal; conversational.
- Average post length: most are two to four paragraphs, a few are fairly long – the most recent post required 4 page scrolls from top to bottom.
- Graphics: most posts have at least one colorful graphic or video.
- Live links: can range from one to many depending on content.
- Author: public librarian.
- Content: social web, emerging trends, libraries.
- Recent topics: library mobile app, social media use questions, making videos, Addict-o-matic.
- Most recent post: 2/17/11 post; updated every 2-4 days.
- Narrative and tone: first-person; informal; conversational.
- Average post length: most are four to eight paragraphs.
- Graphics: most posts have at least one colorful graphic or video.
- Live links: typically 0-4.
The first blog, In the Library With the Lead Pipe, strikes me as the one most different from the rest: several authors as opposed to one; a tone more formal than conversational; unusually long posts that read more like articles as opposed to short, concise observations or chunks of information. Other general differences amongst the blogs: authors – academic vs. public librarians; frequency of new posts – some are updated every few days while others are updated twice a month or less; content – most concentrate heavily on tech and Library 2.0 issues while some cover other general library topics as well.
After reviewing these five blogs (having never previously been a reader of blogs), it became clear to me that I prefer a format composed of concise observations and ideas. I like to scan and skim for information, and therefore am most comfortable with bite-size bits of it; long posts that require a lot of scrolling lose my interest quickly. I also very much appreciate the informal, conversational tone of writing evident in some of the blogs. My favorite of these is easily The Librarian’s Commute due to the author’s engaging story-like style of writing and the fact that her personality comes through in her weekly accounts of academic librarianship.
Three more of interest . . .
For this blogging exercise, I am also subscribed to and following three additional library-related blogs of my choice:
Author: Ellyssa Kroski, college librarian (also an adjunct SJSU SLIS faculty member).
Subsection of Online Education Database; updated several times each week. While the author doesn’t offer her own content, what I like about this blog is that she alerts readers to interesting articles “on Library 2.0 and the information revolution” by providing very brief summaries with links, thereby allowing the choice of which ones to read in more depth.
Author: Meredith Farkas, university librarian (another adjunct SJSU SLIS faculty member).
Updated 2-3 times per month. Topics run the gamut from various facets of librarianship and library services to info lit instruction to tech trends and libraries. While the posts are lengthy, the topics and writing are very thought-provoking.
Author: Sarah Houghton-Jan, public librarian.
Updated 2-3 times per month. This author’s tongue-in-cheek sense of humor really comes through in her posts about libraries and digital services. Until recently I also appreciated her posts about services at the San Jose Public Library (since I am a patron); alas she has since moved on to a library north of San Francisco, but I won’t hold that against her and will continue to follow her blog.
From my viewpoint, these three blogs are all successful. What makes a blog successful? The fact that somebody chooses to read it. So in my eyes these blogs are successful because I choose to follow and read them. The reasons for my choices?
iLibrarian:
Reason 1. Interesting content – links to Library 2.0 and information topics, both of which I have an interest in.
Reason 2. Brief, concise posts that I can easily skim and choose from.
Information Wants To Be Free:
Reason 1. Interesting content – often about social software and tech trends, two of my interests.
Reason 2. This blog breaks the usual mold for the length of posts I prefer to read, but I thoroughly enjoy the author’s subject knowledge and exceptional style of writing; it makes me think and I appreciate that.
Librarian In Black:
Reason 1. Interesting content – digital library services, again an interest of mine.
Reason 2. Author’s humorous style of writing – I always a good chuckle.
The common theme here is that content is king; my greatest interests lie in all things digital and technological when it relates to libraries. Secondary, but nevertheless important, characteristics affecting whether or not I choose to read a blog include brevity and conciseness of posts (unless the author’s writing style is particularly engaging), a conversational writing tone (humor goes a long way), and the ability of the author to connect with the reader on some level.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Blogging and those three little words . . .
No, not those three little words. These three: frequency, brevity, personality. For my blogging assignment this week, I googled “what makes a good blog”. References to these three words spoken by the creator of Blogger, Evan Williams, showed up in more than one result.
As I reviewed several of the “successful” blogs listed for our assignment, I kept these three words in mind. I quickly skimmed through seven of the blogs listed because I am a skimmer, not a reader. As such I realized immediately that the blogs that were most attractive to me right off the bat were the ones that were obviously short and succinct, concise bite-size chunks often no longer than two or three paragraphs (librarian.net; Tame The Web, Seth Godin’s Blog). Regardless of content, I might be inclined to view any of these simply based on their brevity.
Kudos also to ReadWriteWeb and Gizmodo for their cool use of graphics and videos. As I am a skimmer, I do appreciate interesting visual aids.
In terms of frequency, I appreciated that all seven blogs were updated regularly by their authors, the most impressive with multiple daily posts (ReadWriteWeb, Tame The Web).
As far as personality, I’m not sure I could comment on that at this point without reading (not skimming) more of each of these blogs. But based on the brevity and visual attractiveness alone of the aforementioned five blogs, I’d be interested in following all of them in the future to get to know their “personality” better.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Girl Scouts: An Inspirational Use of Social Media
Girl Scouts of the USA is a national nonprofit organization founded in 1912 that seeks to empower girls by helping them “build character and skills for success in the real world.” While the group has dedicated itself to maintaining the same core values in place when I was a young Girl Scout, the organization has also kept up with the Internet age by maintaining an impressive online presence in today’s world of social media. From the main website, you can get to several of their other related websites including the GS Cookie site dedicated solely to their yearly cookie sales. This organization makes excellent use of various social media tools that are linked to from the website, including: Twitter with over 5,000 followers; Facebook with over 36,000 fans; YouTube (the Girl Scout Videos channel has over 550 subscribers), and Blogger (the Girl Scout Blog is consistently updated daily M-F). Even Girl Scout Cookies, besides having its own website, also has its own Facebook page with over 72,000 fans, as well as a GirlScoutCookieSale’s channel on YouTube.
But what I find most impressive and even inspirational about the Girl Scouts’ use of social media is the way in which the organization is also using it to teach business skills and values to scouts themselves. Girl Scouts teaches girls how to use social media effectively and safely for marketing and business purposes. The Girl Scouts’ online marketing guidelines indicate that scouts (13 and older) may use social media “to market product, as long as they have a parent/guardian’s permission, are under adult supervision, and follow Safety Checkpoints and Volunteer Packet guidelines.” With Girl Scout Cookie sales quickly approaching, the Girl Scouts and their smart use of social media have been featured often in the news lately. Through the direct experience of using social media to support their cookie sales, scouts themselves will have the opportunity to learn about social media use in business first hand.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Exercise 1 - Kara's Cupcakes
Kara’s Cupcakes is a small business founded by Kara Lind in 2005 that sells cupcakes at six locations throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. I first enjoyed these cupcakes at a birthday party and had to find out where to get more. Then I happened to watch an episode of Cupcake Wars on the Food Network, in which Kara competed and almost won. I had to have some cupcakes after that, so I visited the San Jose store and confirmed that hers were the best I’ve ever tasted (and no, I don’t have a relationship with the company; I just love their cupcakes!). So I decided to find out more about how this small business is using social media.
What’s the buzz?
To find out what people are saying about Kara’s Cupcakes online, I began by using the social monitoring tool, Social Mention (www.socialmention.com), which resulted in 176 mentions.
The following scores were calculated for Kara’s Cupcakes: 1. 1% strength which supposedly indicates the likelihood that a brand is being discussed in social media; being that Kara’s is a small local business, this score is not surprising; 2. 70:1 sentiment which indicates the ratio of mentions that are positive to those that are negative; this ratio fits with the majority of posts I read about Kara’s; 3. 16% passion which indicates the likelihood that those talking about a brand will do so repeatedly; and 4. 15% reach indicating how many unique customers are discussing the brand. Although this tool lists a breakdown of many different sources, I focused mainly on Google Blog Search, Twitter, and Facebook.
On the first page of 50 Google Blog results, 10 different blogs over just two days mention Kara’s Cupcakes and the enjoyment of them, so it appears that people like the products enough to blog about them. A direct search for Kara’s Cupcakes on Google Blog itself resulted in 17,400 hits. Randomly skipping to pages 10 and 28, I found more mostly positive comments about eating the cupcakes. I’m guessing most people who blog about Kara’s Cupcakes on their personal blogs do so if they like the cupcakes; I didn’t come across many negative blogs at all. Regarding specifics about what customers are saying about Kara’s, the majority of statements are similar to the following examples: “Nothing better than a cupcake at Kara's. I had the coconut filling + chocolate cake and it was divine!” “We left the store with four different cupcake flavors: fleur de sel, neopolitan, banana caramel and passion fruit cupcake. They were as awesome as we remembered it to be.”
Using Social Mention’s results, I also browsed 14 recent customer tweets, basically all of which mention trying Kara’s Cupcakes and liking them. Although only six Facebook entries were listed for the last two weeks, they were all also positive regarding the cupcakes.
Next I checked out the social monitoring tool How Sociable? (www.howsociable.com). This site provides an overall visibility score (unsure about the value of this), as well as a number of boxes representing various social media tools such as Twitter, that show a brand’s social media activity. Yahoo Images contains 1,500 images, many of cupcakes, posted by customers; Flickr contains 108 images, mostly cupcakes posted by customers; YouTube contains 12 videos posted by satisfied customers enjoying their cupcakes on camera; the Twitter results showed only six recent tweets in which those tweeting appear to be doing so using other social media including Foursquare and LikeList to originate their tweets. (I also tried searching Tweet Scan for customer tweets but it produced zero results.) Overall I did not find How Sociable? to be as helpful a social monitoring tool in this case; perhaps it would be more valuable for a company with a larger online social presence.
Finally, I reviewed recommendations on Yelp for “kara’s cupcakes” but since there are six locations, I chose the San Jose store to review more closely. Out of 581 reviews for this store, the average rating was 3 out of 5 stars. Most lowered starred comments centered on the priciness of the cupcakes and the taste (too sweet, too dry, other cupcakes were better); there were also some complaints about this particular store’s service, its tininess, and a smaller selection of flavors. The five other locations all had an average of 3 ½ or 4 stars each. With the volume of local reviews for each store on Yelp, this tool may be the best indicator of what people really think about the bakery and its cupcakes, and something for the company to keep an eye on.
Kara’s Cupcakes has a website at www.karascupcakes.com. The home page is uncluttered so the links to their Facebook and Twitter pages are easily noticeable, as well as the option to subscribe to their email list. This is the extent of social media actually present on the website.
Kara’s Facebook page shows close to 11,000 “people like this”. There is at least one wall posting a day (sometimes two or more) by the company that advertises an event or just the cupcakes in general, e.g. “Don't fumble and forget to pick up your Super Bowl 6-pack. Pre-order your Steelers or Packers logo cupcakes today!” Every posting has at least three or more comments, and they seem to be from customers usually praising their cupcakes. There are also daily postings by customers, the majority of which are positive. When a question is asked either in a posting or in the comments, an employee does respond back most of the time though this could be more consistent. When there are complaints, Kara’s does respond back in a positive way, as shown in the following example: “Kara's Cupcakes so sorry to hear that.... We will take your input and keep baking more! Thanks for the info....”
Kara’s Twitter page currently shows 3,781 followers. The company’s daily tweets are basically the same as their Facebook postings, with additional tweets about where the Karavan, their mobile cupcake bakery, will be stopping next to sell cupcakes. This serves as a way to get the word out and excite followers about the Karavan.
Facebook and Twitter are the only two social media tools that Kara’s Cupcakes seem to really be proactively using to communicate with customers. I think for a small company such as this one, it represents a good start. Customers do seem to be responding and creating content of their own regarding this company, I think mostly because they like the cupcakes. But while both social media tools are updated at least once daily, I would like to see a company blog created or a bit more personalized postings on Facebook and Twitter (rather than event listings) to help create more of a two-way conversation between Kara’s and their customers. Because Kara’s is small and local, using social media and more of it, could be very effective in boosting business in the future.
Tags: exercise1
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Library 2.0: More questions than answers . . .
Five of the seven required readings for this week were written four or more years ago (2006 & 2007); social software and networking have exploded since that time which makes me wonder how many librarians still think of social software as a fad or continue to downplay the concept of Library 2.0. What I’ve learned through this week’s readings is that Library 2.0 is not just about promoting the library using whatever social software technology is popular at the moment; the ideas behind it are more about cultivating relationships with patrons and their communities. This means resisting the urge to slap up a Facebook page that lists library events assuming that patrons will suddenly be interested just because the library now has a presence in Facebook. Meredith Farkas, a guest at a Library 2.0 Gang 12/09 podcast discussing social software in libraries (http://librarygang.talis.com/), points out librarians sometimes wonder why no one comments on their blogs; she suggests that there may be nothing of interest in their blogs on which to comment. The most interesting concept about Library 2.0 for me at this point then, is figuring out how to use these social software tools to connect and converse with patrons about what’s important to them, i.e., maintain a two-way conversation rather than just deliver a library’s information.
I believe in 2011 that most librarians are coming to the realization that attention needs to be paid to the ideas behind Web 2.0 and Library 2.0. At this point, it’s important to ask questions: What do we do with these ideas and technologies in terms of our libraries? What’s our intent in using these tools? How do we use them effectively to form relationships with our patrons, rather than just as promotional tools? Planning before implementation is the key to success; this idea is also discussed in the Library 2.0 Gang podcast mentioned above. This is not to say that libraries should not endeavor to try out new technologies for fear of failure, but rather to exercise caution in jumping on the bandwagon every time some new software comes out.
Not enough time in a day . . .
My online escapades consist mostly of working on my MLIS degree, reviewing email, checking this week’s weather, and managing my library account. While pursuing my online degree, I have participated in using wikis, creating screen casts, and interacting with patrons via chat reference. These are tools I’ve used for my coursework but not on a regular basis. Therefore the extent of my daily activities using social software is generally limited to checking email; while I have three different accounts, only one is used primarily for keeping in touch with friends and colleagues, while the other two are used as aggregators for school forum messages.
The main reason I’ve shunned social software on a personal level is my perception of the time involved using it. Once I’m online, I tend to go into addiction mode: checking email every half hour, clicking on interesting sounding hyperlinks, reading news and entertainment blips, searching anything and everything, etc. Therefore if I set up a social networking account such as Facebook, I would undoubtedly invest a significant amount of time checking it repeatedly throughout the day. This is a predicament for me since I often feel that I should be spending the majority of my time doing just about anything else besides being online. So it remains to be seen how I’ll do budgeting my time after I’ve delved further into the world of social software, and especially social networking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)