Comments on: SocialPACs, Community and… Sourdough.

By: Library 2.0 Roundup « Life as I Know It

Library 2.0 Roundup « Life as I Know It — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:56:54 +0000

[...] SocialPACs, Community and . . . Sourdough – posted on May 31, 2006. [...]

By: Simon Chamberlain

Simon Chamberlain — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:50:20 +0000

I agree with Karen that I see value in both types of comments. Local recommendations are good because they create situations such as Edward mentioned. But the internet makes horizontal communities possible, where we can draw on the knowledge and recommendations of people with similar interests to ourselves, wherever they are.

I know that some of the most valuable music/books recommendations I receive come from people that I have never met, and will never meet, face to face.

Really, what I want is a plug-in for my local library’s catalogue that will let me draw in recommendations from local readers, will aggregate item use data on a large scale, (maybe importing from Amazon), and will draw in recommendations from people/sources that I know and trust. So I can look at a title in a catalogue and see that it has been recommended by a trusted poster on a bulletin board I read. I don’t just want Amazon, or just the local catalogue – I want something that brings all the information that’s relevant to ME together, in one place.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:46:55 +0000

At IUG, III showcased their upcoming reviews capability. They mentioned that they were looking into a way to pool the reviews from their customer libraries to provide a repository such as you discuss. I agree that such a repository would be good for a library that is just getting a review/comments feature up and running but in the long run, I think our patrons will find local commentary more relevant.

By: What I Learned Today… » Blog Archive » Touched a Nerve

What I Learned Today… » Blog Archive » Touched a Nerve — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:44:19 +0000

[...] John Blyberg wrote a post yesterday (somewhat unrelated) where he says: Many of you who follow what I write here know that’s a contentious issue for me, but I’ll keep my hackles down for now and simply remind everyone that this is another reason to demand a few basic rights from our vendors. [...]

By: john

john — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:59:52 +0000

Fiona: That’s exactly right. Though I think reputation is not necessarily a deciding factor in all cases. Community pairing is an option too.

Ed: I do too, the ideal case would allow users to see if their recommendations have triggered a hold or a checkout. Maybe a “Reserve this item based on this review” button could work… Hm..

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:34:13 +0000

I love it that on a local parents list someone can recommend a book, link to the local library catalog (not to Amazon), and then have someone else mark up the catalog card as ‘Recommended by Kate’. And then see that there are two holds on the book because of the recommendation!

By: Fiona Leslie

Fiona Leslie — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:38:24 +0000

John,
I just wanted to say I really enjoyed the posting. Notwithstanding the concern you and undoubtedly others have about creating large monolithic repositories, I wondered if you had any thoughts about how libraries starting out might make choices from the hundreds of web services that the library domain could make available. Dare I say that “reputation” might become a factor – another Web2.0 concept?

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Wed, 31 May 2006 15:44:28 +0000

I’ll leave aside the monolith-versus-snowflake-database and say that I really like the idea of BOTH types of comments: local and global. We don’t use GIS info enough in our systems.