Networking

Social networking sites are, for me, primarily a marketing opportunity for the library. If a presence is established in online social networks, then it is a great opportunity to draw new users to us. The trick is to attract current users to our online presence. If we can do that, then hopefully we can use that as a base to expand. Doing so however, is not as easy as it sounds. Someone else might have pointed it out already, but the Facebook group "State Library of New South Wales" has 30 members, whilst "I MAKE THE NSW STATE LIBRARY BADASS" has 179 members. I believe the trick to establishing an online presence in these networks successfully is to achieve the right mix between informality and authority. We don't wish to denigrate ourselves, but we do need to make any presence casual enough that clients are attracted to it and are relaxed enough to engage with us through our online presence. An overly formal presence reinforces our image as stern gatekeepers, and effectively discourages clients from talking to us. And that's the second use of these networks: to engage with our clients. A greater online presence allows us to have a discussion with our clients in regards to what they see as our successes and failures, and what we can do to improve our services. By observing any discussions between themselves, we can also gain further insight into how they use the library and its services.

I think some of that might have actually been coherent.

Google docs

I can see the usefulness of this. Obviously clients frustrated by the lack of Office applications on the reading room PCs find Google docs useful. The other use for these applications is for people who travel a lot and lack a laptop. They could access their documents wherever they are (assuming there's net access).
For the library itself, I'm not so certain it could be used for work by staff. We already have a network for common access to documents, and the capability to restrict access to anything that might need it. Also, for professional purposes, they may not provide enough features that are required.
It would be useful for anyone working with colleagues in other institutions, be it in public libraries or the other state libraries. There are also possibilities for those who work with suppliers and publishers. I imagine there would be issues surrounding any sensitive documents though. Would we trust our documents to be stored on servers and equipment outside the library?

Can I have some salt with my mash?

Ok here is my mash-up, put together very hastily I should add. Its a photo of one of my favourite bands when they performed at Lancaster Library. Its a good way of getting people to come to the library, and certainly draws publicity. I'm not sure what the clients actually using the library might think though.

I don't see too much to get excited about with using mash-ups at the library. At first glance there's nothing new about it. Its basically the same ideas that have been used in computer publishing and design for years. It would be very interesting though to let the clients loose with the library's pictures collection (digitised of course) and see what they turn out.

Podding along

Podcasting is much like anything else that the library would choose to place on its website. Its a form of communication with our clients and colleagues, and the only new thing about it is the format it is delivered in. Theoretically anything we currently choose to communicate can be produced as a podcast - news and events at the library, reviews of new items, blogs from staff in an audio-visual format, staff presentations, history of [insert your own item/topic], talks by authors about their work. The list is endless.

My favourite would be to see vodcasts from staff in regards to the collection material, and not just the heritage items within the collection. It would be nice to see some presentations or discussions in regards to the library's more contemporary material, or the more controversial material in the collection. If nothing else it might get people talking about us, and might appeal to a new generation of library users.

The trick with p/vodcasting of course lies within the production standard. Having listened to some of the podcasts out there, there's nothing worse than listening to an otherwise fascinating topic being ruined by a monotonous drone. If a client or stakeholder finds a podcast boring then they are unlikely to listen to another one.

Is slamming the boards like wobble-boarding?

Is there a role for our library in regards to answer boards? Certainly. Any activity that involves the conveyance and distillation of information is pertinent to librarians. The question though is how do we find the time and resources to do so? It would be nice for librarians to spend their time on these boards, but the library's main clients must come first. Perhaps it is an opportunity for library staff to spend some of their own time in answering these questions, but make it clear as they do so that more information can be gained by visiting the library itself (or its website). I would love to see librarians rostered to answering these questions, if we had the time to do so. Perhaps the library could even set up something like this on its own site. Not just simply talking to a librarian online, but allowing for other clients to suggest answers and material.

The questions that are asked are of course interesting in themselves. Many of the questions asked seem to be factual requests. The fact that they are asked shows that not everyone knows how to retrieve information and that not everything can be easily found on Google (yes, it means we are still relevant). I'm not sure however, of our professional capacity to answer the questions posed in the relationships section Of Yahoo Answers.

Opening up our catalogue to our clients is a fantastic idea (with some moderation). I'm a big fan. Our clients, being the end users of the material, are the ones most likely to be able to evaluate an item's usefulness. For students, largely using the same material from year to year, their own comments on collection material would undoubtedly be of use to others in the same subject areas. If we could couple these features with online item requests, we could even offer similar services to sites such as Amazon - "others who used this item also requested ...". Structured subject headings and access points are great for grouping together obviously similar items, but they don't easily allow for such lateral connections between collection items, which are often highly useful.

Libratithing

Aha, now here are some things that I'm excited about. Technorati is a lot of fun. This, for me, is a site where you can go never knowing what you might stumble across. Its the sort of site where you could spend days just wandering around and seeing whose opinion you can most disagree with (or agree with, whatever takes your fancy). Its good to have a spot to go to where you can just focus on perusing blogs.

LibraryThing as well is one that I really like. I have to admit, I'm the sort of person who tends to judge people by their book collections, and what better way to do this than by using LibraryThing! But seriously, this is a great site for finding new literature and material that you might find interesting (its also a lot better constructed than Delicious). None of the features are really new - its basically a combination between Amazon and any library catalogue you care to mention. But the great thing is getting to see which books are liked by people with similar taste. Quite frankly, this is a far better way of picking something to read than by making use of published book reviews. The State Library of Tasmania integrates LibraryThing with its catalogue, and I think it works really well.

Cuil

Has anybody else made use of Cuil yet? Launched this week, and meant to have greater web reach than Google. I've tried it for a few things and it seems ok - for simple searches anyway. There doesn't seem to be any option for advanced searches though. Either you have to know how to make complicated search queries, or you're stuck making dirty searches.

I just like the format. A lot easier to peruse results than Google. I have to admit that when trying to think of something to search for at first, I tried my own name. Very shallow of me (is it a good thing or a bad thing if very little comes up?). Which raises the question: is it still googling yourself if you're not using Google?

Not so tasty

Ok, I'm back from my wonderful adventures through the looking glass (wait, that might have been someone else) ...

Anyway, straight into it. I have to admit I'm not a big fan of Delicious (I know, I'm forgoing the full stops). Not to say that it doesn't have its uses, just that it doesn't suit me in particular. I don't use multiple computers, so I don't need to have a central point for my favourites. The format and layout also tends to annoy me. Maybe its my profession speaking, but a collection of links that - on first glance - lacks any organisation or coherence tends to make me automatically ignore them. Clouds can be useful, but only up to a point. They can often get out of control, so that looking through them is akin to putting your hand in a lucky dip. And don't get me started on the illegibility of blue text and pink highlighting.

Well, that's the negatives out of the way. "But, Hellene, didn't you like anything?" I hear you say. Yes, actually. Delicious does have its uses. Mainly this is that it allows you to point out sites that others may find useful from a particular perspective through the use of tags. Personally, I like the idea of free association tags. Unlike things like LCSH, tags utilise language actually in use. They allow for the use of slang, colloquialisms, abbreviations etc. that people actually search by - no matter how much we tell them not to.

From a personal perspective, its good to type in a few terms to find random sites that others with similar interests liked. But it must be remembered that what you find is just that - random. This is not an authoritative search of the interweb, but a search of what people like.

Obviously this is good for librarians who wish to make links that they found useful available to others (possibly for clients to add links as well). My own preference though would be to amalgamate all the links for NSW public libraries into one account, so that there is less duplication. The links that one library is likely to find useful will undoubtedly be found useful by other libraries.

Anyway, that's my rather incoherent two cents.

What goes on in the Reading Room

You never know what the clients are up to downstairs.

Woops... I knew I forgot something

As has been pointed out, I forgot to say in my last post what the Library could add as an RSS feed to its own site (I'll forget my own head next). As Natarsha stated, one of the best areas is that of new additions to the collection. Considering the amount that we receive in a day, it would probably make sense to break them up into a few basic subject areas. Like the news feeds, a couple of hundred new items landing in someone's reader every day will quickly become overwhelming. This should also include not just standard collection material, but original materials as well.
There are a range of items that could be added as feeds. Theoretically it could include everytime there is an update on the site. I think the most useful aspects would be news items such as changes to collection access, exhibitions, events at the library etc. Pretty much anything that is included in the monthly email sent to library users.
Also to be included could be a client-oriented message from the State Librarian, or any senior librarians regarding developments at the Library that would be useful for clients to know. Perhaps research tips from reference librarians, or hints for useful material that's relevant to what has been in the news recently.

RSS induced overdose

I like the idea of RSS. Being a newsjunkie, there a lot of websites that I continuously look at - ABC, SMH, Age, Guardian etc. - to get my fix. I also keep a lot of blogs in my favourites folder to be looked at everyday. Having them fed to one place certainly makes things easier.

For my Library RSS I've picked a selection of items along this line. Powerhouse of course, the world news feed from The Guardian, international and domestic news feeds from the ABC and, for fun, the Science Show with Dr Karl from Triple J. There are piles of others I could have picked, but I'll save those for later.

The obvious use for RSS in libraries and work situations is to use them to monitor journals, news sites, blogs etc. that are relevant to your work. Rather than constantly going back to peruse sites and potentially missing new developments, you can have them sent to you and, in theory, you won't miss anything. The drawback that I can see, and it's minor, is that a reader account can be overloaded with feeds to the point where a person cannot be bothered to trawl through every feed thay are receiving. I've already noticed this with the ABC feeds. They send every little news update, which can be overwhelming to read. You really have to skim through them for what's interesting or relevant., which almost defeats the purpose of having a feed in the first place. Or maybe I just have to be more selective in what I pick. Also you can fall prey to not looking for new sites that are relevant, and just looking at the feeds you are already getting. As I said though, these are minor points.

For libraries in particular, I would say that they could be used to monitor not just library specific developments, but also to monitor publisher and historian websites for anything that might be useful. Also, any sites or blogs of library users. They're our clients after all and we should be paying attention to what they are saying. How else do we improve?

Wikirant

Ok, this is the point where I have to admit that 2.0 has to be applied selectively. I like the idea of wikis, but the concept has major flaws.

For something like Wookieepedia a wiki is great. It's allows for the vast spread of knowledge concerning an aspect of popular culture to be accumulated and accessed. Much of the info that's given is not readily available from one source, and a wiki allows for it to be gathered together. I can also see the use of a wiki for a collaborative project within a workplace, as long as the changes, and who made them, can be tracked.

Wookieepedia, however, is an unofficial site that carries very little real authoratitive weight. If someone garners inaccurate information from it then the potential for harm is very minimal. The same cannot be said for sites that convey official information and are considered to be authoratitive, such as libraries. Wikis, when applied to library sites, need to be applied selectively and only to those parts of a library's site that convey subjective information, such as book reviews. Even then it must be made clear that the information presented is part of a wiki.

Although wikis are useful, the potential for abuse is extremely high if they are not monitored carefully. Yes studies have been conducted on the accuracy of Wikipedia, but that is a site which can afford to conduct rigorous monitoring of its information. It does not account for the wikis that do not conduct such monitoring.

If it is monitored carefully, then wikis could be used very well for reviewing library material and their usefulness. They could also be used for subject guides and bibliographies used by the clients. A client is very likely to find material, not otherwise mentioned, that's useful for a particular topic.

I suppose my point is that wikis are great if they're carefully monitored and applied. If that's done then they would be great in letting clients feel as if they are involved in the library. Here endeth the rant.

Optimus or Optimi

This image sums up teamwork pretty well. http://www.flickr.com/photos/revlimit/635768954/

Plus it appeals to my great love of 80s cartoons. Now I just need to find one of Thundercats.

Flickring through the library

The Flickr images of SLNSW seem to consist of a few different types. There are all the usual grand photos of the external facade of the building itself. But to me the more interesting photos are the shots that depict either the small, oft forgotten, details of the building, such as the frieze along the Mitchell building. Also there are the photos of how people actually use the building, whether it is the people having coffee on the steps, those within the Reading Rooms or the lady taking photos within Mitchell. This is what's missing from the photos of the Mitchell entrance. Very few of them actually show people entering the library!

Shakespeare and Starfleet.

For my inaugural blog post I'd like to point out the main reason I like working at the library. Simply, the completely absurd and surreal things you can find just by looking through any random part of stack. My favourite is of course the complete Klingon translation of Hamlet, within the Mitchell collection.

Published by the Klingon Language Institute, the book restores the original Klingon version of Hamlet, as written by Wil'Yam Shex'Pir. I have no idea why the library has this, as it isn't even published in Australia, yet I think it is an item that should be treasured simply because it highlights the lengths some people will go to for their passions. Even newer items can be obscure.