Oh, Libraryman
your humor amuses me
please don’t ever change
Ok, so it’s not the best haiku ever. But I had to find some form of poetry to express my love for Libraryman’s recent short film. Oh, Gorman, how I’ve missed you! And Michael, I so owe you a drink at Internet Librarian for this…
Google has made an interesting move with Book Search…they just added a “My Library” component, which allows you to catalog your home library using Google.
Now, if you do a search in Google Books, one of the options is “Add to My Library”
If you click the link, and are logged into Google, it starts your collection:
The links on the side give an option to Import/Export you library, but the import options is woefully weak…it only allows you to paste in a list of ISBNs. No CSV or Delimited files, no xml, no other formal metadata. Just ISBNs.
Export is possibly even worse. Google My Library exports an XML file with the following structure:
<book>
<id>drYIAAAACAAJ</id>
<url>http://books.google.com/books?id=drYIAAAACAAJ</ur>
<title>Pattern Recognition</title>
<contributor>William Gibson</contributor>
Ă¢Ë†â€™
<identifier>
<type>ISBN</type>
<value>0425192938</value>
</identifier>
</book>
Google? What’s with the non-existent metadata? I can do better at Amazon, not to mention a real library tool like LibraryThing.
Google My Library also has the ability to display just the cover view of your library, but there doesn’t appear to be any ordering/sorting options…although it will limit a search to just your library, it would still be nice to be able to order. How about some faceted browsing, Google?
This is an interesting product from Google. It is yet another set of information they can use to target advertisements (if they know the contents of your library and 982734987234 other people, they can cross reference that and target ads). But as a product from the consumer’s view, this seems way less useful than LibraryThing, which has given serious thought to what people want to do with their own books, and gives a nearly obsessive number of tools to the user.
On the other hand, this is Google. They are likely to gather a huge number of users from their existing base, even when there may be better tools out there for the given job. Haven’t seen this over at the Thingology blog…Tim, what do you think about this?
Many libraries are undergoing a re-evaluation of their technology underpinnings…their ILS, their electronic access mechanisms (OpenURL resolvers, OPAC, Metasearch), and other pieces of the melange we use to get our patrons what they need.
If you were going to attempt to move away from commercial, closed-source products and towards open source solutions for the following, what would you use? What are the areas where you are just not convinced that open source is ready for prime time, and in those cases who do you think is the most progressive choice for an academic library?
I’ve got some feelings about a few of these areas, but in others I’m just not sure. Help me make up my mind what to play with…
You will almost certainly see this call for input on a few blogs this week, as well as listservs and other electronic means of communication in libraryland.
Consider that behind the scenes, some of us are trying desperately to build a different sort of library conference…Better than other conferences. BetterĂ¢â‚¬Â¦strongerĂ¢â‚¬Â¦faster. One that makes cool sound effects when it runs.
To that end, any input you are willing to give will help. Fill out The Survey, and leave feedback here if you wish to give more thorough answers. We will pay attention.
Oh, the humanity.
So Apple launches a completely new swath of iPods yesterday. I, like most of us, drooled over the iPhone when it was released, but now we have the choice between the iPhone (8GB, $399) or the Touch (16GB, $399). Confounding that choice is the still-mind-boggling 160GB iPod Classic. 160GB.
The Touch is clearly the technological marvel of the group…wifi, safari, touchscreen allows for infinitely variable UI upgrades…but with the classic, for the first time I could actually carry all my music in my pocket. That’s pretty nuts. But the screen on the Touch is really marvelous.
So what say you all? Touch or Classic? At some point my old 40GB 4th gen (over 3 years and still kicking) will give out, and I’ll need a replacement.
Been thinking a lot about user interfaces lately…what happens when the “language” of your users changes? For example, how many companies have cute phone numbers that spell their name…something like 1-800-GRIFFEY. Before cell phones, dialing this made sense: you pressed each letter in turn: 1-800-475-3339. (warning, number goes nowhere)
Post-SMS, how many teens do you think will see that number and try to dial the number as if they were texting? I’ll admit that when I think about dialing letters, I default to “txt” behavior.
This isn’t an example of the interface changing. It’s the same phone, with the same letters in the same order. But the expectations of that interface have changed.
Where have libraries been guilty of this? We have an interface, and it’s still being used…but the patron expectations have shifted slightly, and we haven’t taken that into account…
So I’ve launched a new theme, just a day after starting my search. Either I’m easily swayed, or I’m just not picky.
Either way, let me know what you think! Still a few tweaks to make…not happy with the bottom bars, not happy with the archives, so much…but overall, it’s good.
Last week the Annoyed Librarian started a somewhat interesting conversation with the wonderfully caustic post “The Cult of Twopointopia“. I won’t respond fully to the post (plenty of people have weighed in, both in the comments and on their own blogs…see Meredith, KGS, and David Lee King for more). I did want to comment briefly on the AL’s followup post, “An Alternative Voice in Librarianship“. In it, the AL says (heavily edited for length, read the original if you think I’m missing anything important here):
…I can’t just ignore things when I’m bombarded with them in the premier publication of the American Library Association, now can I? That seems to be the twopointopian strategy. Never say anything critical. Don’t engage the opposition, because the opposition just isn’t on the “cluetrain,” so we can ignore them. Don’t analyze, just proselytize. Sorry, baby, it doesn’t work for me. I like evidence and argument, not mantras and affirmations.
…
They publish stupid “manifestos.” They ignore criticism and never seriously engage with any opposition, because they think they can ignore the opposition. The opposition is too timid and well mannered to take on the regressive thugs. The opposition (sometimes) is too poorly informed to take the twopointopians on on their own ground.
I find this to be a bit disingenuous, especially after reading things like:
the twopointopians “get it,” while the rest of us just don’t understand. They’re like religious converts preaching the gospel of 2.0 to everyone, and they just can’t understand either that nobody cares, or that everyone already knows about it.
For the diehard twopointopians, their way is the way. They don’t like criticism or discussion, because they’re not up to it. They like captive audiences of neophytes who they can impress with their speeches about all this great new stuff. They like to use the mystique of social software and new technologies to impress upon their crusty colleagues how hip they are. They like to pretend that people who aren’t impressed with how righteous and “user-centered” they all are are just ignorant clowns who don’t know anything about how libraries ought to be run.
That’s a long way around to get to my own thoughts, but here goes: The AL rants about wanting the “twopointopians” to produce “evidence and argument” for Library 2.0. I’m not a fan of the phrase “Library 2.0”, but as shorthand for “the use of web-based tools with a social bent for informational exchange, rating, searching, and creation” I think it works. Even if I don’t like the nom de guerre of the concept, I certainly count myself as one of the “twopointopians”. At least, as I think the word is being used. I will happily count myself in the company of David Lee King, KGS, Jessamyn, Meredith and others.
What I want to know is: Where is the evidence and argument from AL? Given the above quotes from AL, it appears that we are all religious zealots. I can’t say that AL reads anything like a well-reasoned and cogent argument for…well…anything. It looks like a lot of hyperbole and name calling to me. What exactly is the argument for “Not-library-2.0”?
Here’s my argument FOR Library 2.0: Alexa’s Top Websites for the US. Out of the top 10 most visited sites on the ‘net, 8 of them have some type of social facet. What’s your argument for Not-Library-2.0…whatever that might look like?
After just a few months with my new theme, I’m already sick to death of it. I really like the color scheme, but the white on black text is tiresome. So I’m off to find a grand new theme…no hurry, but if I find one that strikes my fancy, expect to see some changes.