blyberg.net » Library 2.0 Debased

Library 2.0 Debased

Kate Sheehan makes some interesting observations about the cultural awareness of librarians. She also touches on an unfortunate truth about Library 2.0:

It’s easy to become enamored of social networking sites and Web 2.0 toys to the point where they seem like a panacea for everything that’s wrong with your library or your job. Slap a wiki on it and call me in the morning. The most successful uses of the newest tech tools have recognized that they’re just that: tools.

I’ve been feeling, for awhile now, that the term Library 2.0 has been co-opted by a growing group of libraries, librarians, and particularly vendors to push an agenda of “change” that deflects attention from some very real issues and concerns without really changing anything. It’s very evident in the profusity of L2-centric workshops and conferences that there is a significant snake-oil market in the bibliosphere. We’re blindly casting about for a panacea and it’s making us look like fools.

Ignoring the information ecology

Perhaps the most significant area of neglect is our failure to recognize that Library 2.0 is a delicate ecology. Like Web 2.0, it represents technology that is inherently disruptive on many levels. Not only does Web 2.0 undermine notions of authority and control, but its economic and human costs are very real. There is, indeed, something very exciting about the fact that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 Billion–especially since it was only a company of sixty-odd employees. But at the same time, I’m a little alarmed that sixty-odd people could dominate such a large piece of that market-share. Not for the same reason that we have (soon to have had) the FCC’s media ownership rule, but because the force of that type of change has to be felt somewhere. Think of it in terms of a bag of nitrate dumped in a stream–the algae does really well, but the fish suffocate.

Luckily, Web 2.0 as a whole exists in a large, rather well-insulated economy that will adjust over time. Libraries, on the other hand, are significantly more delicate ecosystems that require more care and discretion. Specifically, we need to understand how our internal information ecology works and how to tend to it. How and where we interface with our users is where the rubber meets the road and should merit a little more thought then simply thrusting a MySpace page in their face or building a new library in Second Life–a service our users overwhelmingly do not use and, which seems to me, like a creepy post-apocalyptic wasteland. I’ll even turn the tables on myself and admit that I was wrong about local tagging in the OPAC. SOPAC was by-and-large a success, but its use of user-contributed tags is a failure. For the past nine months, the top ten tags have included “fantasy”, “manga”, “anime”, “time travel”, “shonen”, “shonen jump”, and “shape-changing”. As a one-time resident of Ann Arbor, I can assure you that these are not topics that dominated the collective hive mind. Well, maybe time travel, if hash-bash was going on.

So we need to understand that, while it’s alright to tip the balance and fail occasionally, we’re more likely to do so if we’re arbitrarily introducing technology that isn’t properly integrated into our overarching information framework. Of course, that means we have to have a working framework to begin with that compliments and adheres to our tradition of solid, proven librarianship. In other words, when we use technology, it should be transparent, intuitive, and a natural extension of the patron experience. If it can’t be transparent, then it should be so overwhelmingly beneficial to the user that it is canonized not by the techies, but the users themselves.

You can’t buy Library 2.0

…And vendors, you can’t sell it. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be attempted. I think perhaps there is an expectation that real-life should somehow mimic the success of the software plug-in model. There may be something to be said for the “object-oriented” library, but that is a far cry from stuffing a new product into an already-awkward, malformed, and ill-suited portfolio. For example, third-party OPACs, as they are currently being sold to us, are likely to fail. Not because they are inherently bad products–some are, some aren’t, but because the companies producing them are only mimicking the Web 2.0 widget–the deliverable. What they are not doing is reevaluating their business and development processes with the goal of realigning them with the interests of libraries. I discussed the pressing need for significant development partnerships back in the July 2007 issue of LJ’s NetConnect and I still believe that that particular model for collaboration is the only way to significantly improve our ability to embed technology in the library. It’s not a long-term viable solution to sell the concept of development partnership when all it really is is just the opportunity to report bugs on software that is not quite ready for prime time.

As libraries, we need to realize that the answers to our larger questions cannot be found out on the exhibitor’s floor. That’s where we find solutions to specific needs that have been identified by a thorough self-examination.

Meeting technology half-way

Don’t hold your breath waiting for technology to adapt to the library environment. Web 2.0 did not evolve with libraries in mind, and there’s no reason to think that it ever will. I realize that, at first glance, that statement seems to run counter to what I’ve been saying with regards to not forcing a square peg into a round hole. What I mean is that we cannot expect to retrofit our libraries with tomorrow’s technology. The true pursuit of Library 2.0 involves a thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology so that any hand-offs in the patron’s library experience are truly seamless. We can learn a lot about collaboration and individual empowerment from Web 2.0, but we cannot be subsumed by it because we have a mission that eclipses “don’t be evil” which is the closest thing to a conscience the Web will ever have.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

60 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Excellent post. Some of my frustration with the L2 chatter has been the sense of the phrase being waved around as a magic incantation. The reality is much tougher and requires harder planning and a deeper awareness of what you call the information ecology.

i think one advantage of being a librarian who’s not hyperaware of what’s new and notable in tech (like myself) is that we only focus on the really huge stuff that’s right in our face, that my patrons are asking for blatantly. again, if you work with a population group that’s using technology, you’re providing it to them when they ask or when it’s so obvious that they’re using it that you can’t ignore it–which is happening with teens.

Library 2.0 was a bad term to begin with, piggy-backing on the Web 2.0 hype without having anything *really* to do with Web 2.0, only growing into the Web 2.0 idea after the fact (sort of the same way that JavaScript really had nothing to do with Java).

There needs to be tough love for the hyperaware, “just do it” technology cheerleaders to cut it out, as well as for librarians in general who think they’re “doing it” when they’re not really doing it to get with it. I hear a lot of “at least it’s progress,” but you know, progress isn’t enough. We either need to start innovating with our patrons in mind (and not depending on vendors/non-library services/whatever to innovate for us), or be content with relegation to second best at everything, including understanding our patrons and providing quality service in the digital age. And this isn’t just about technology, it’s about general patron interaction and our place in our communities.

Frankly, I’d prefer innovation to relegation. How about you?

This is a very good post, and I think a lot of the underlying angst that is behind this post (if I may presume) is a large part of why, despite getting my MLS, I do not particularly want to work in a library. I have experience working on library systems and with academic librarians and their corresponding administrations. In my experience, none of them are talking about the big picture, but rather are either too busy arguing amongst themselves in order to protect their egos, or searching for the technology panacea as you describe. Web 2.0 is such that by the time most libraries, already behind the curve on technology and understaffed, get around to implementing something new, a large chunk of the 2.0 community has already moved on to the next hot thing.

My general feeling is that libraries are way too consumed with technology, when they really face more fundamental questions that should be addressed. These include viable funding, marketing, and justifying the need for libraries in a population that is becoming less educated (and embracing it) every day. The question of technology, often poorly aimed at the OPAC, is often a good distraction from these questions because it is, in general, more fun to deal with; the perception is that with the right code (or vendor product) the technology question can be fixed. There is a perceived light at the end of the technology tunnel, especially if the tunnel vision is aimed at the OPAC which is a tangible product. The other questions…not so much.

I wonder if the problem was that the L-2-niverse was too confusing for most that many were looking for the easiest way out?

My biggest L2 blogging claim to fame was my ten “no brainers” post, and I think the reason for that was because I seemed to offer easy answers to what appeared to be confusing issues raised by techies.

The assumption, of course, is that “techie” stuff, even the social techie stuff, can replace the social piece. Even designing programming syntax has become an exercise in how people understand share and manipulate information.

What the non-techies do not realize is that the techies’ problem solving skills are only a small piece of the puzzle — and the softer pieces of the puzzle — empathy, appreciation of beauty, interaction etc. are the missing link. L2, as much as it was about change, ought also be a cry for help. Techies need non-techies to learn, play, experience, communicate, appreciate and imagine the user experience on the web too.

Sarah, my impression is that teens will always be light-years ahead of the curve when it comes to anything tech-related. To try to force a connection there would be sort of like dorky parents wearing sideways baseball caps saying, “yo, I’m down.” I like the idea of “observing and providing”–wait to see what teens want or need then quietly and unceremoniously give it to them when they’re not paying any attention.

Soam, There is a great deal of technolust in our profession and I agree that it often displaces the real issues. You’re also correct to say that the OPAC is the focus of our malcontent. As a library technologist, though, I personally feel that technology is a very important load-bearing pillar of library service. It just needs to be done properly.

teens will always be light-years ahead of the curve when it comes to anything tech-related.

(i hope my html tages work)

i think teens are light-years ahead of the curve in terms of knowing what’s COOL tech–and there’s a difference. chances are they don’t know 5% of what you know about the latest gadgets, but they know what they like and they use it. and THAT is what i pay attention to–the really cool stuff that everyone wants and that everyone uses.

Yah, good differentiation. When teens adopt something wholesale, that’s a pretty good harbinger of what will be successful. Often times its the teens who glom on to the next killer app. Of course, the same could be said of tweens and younger kids as well. Not that Club Penguin is going to change the world, but there is probably some kind of programming opportunity there…

Quoting:

“The true pursuit of Library 2.0 involves a thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology so that any hand-offs in the patron’s library experience are truly seamless.”

I’m not sure the recalibration you describe is truly a pursuit of Library 2.0, but it sure as hell is important. Slapping L2 stuff on an organization that has not thought out and implemented “process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology” carefully and completely is like building a castle on quicksand.

I agree with the general tone of everyones comments, but I think it must be said that we as a profession cannot just simply ignore what other industries, business or otherwise are doing.

I work in both a academic/public library (hybrid) as well as a corporate library for a Fortune 500 company (part-time)and in both envrionments we are looking at Web 2.0 because our customer base is looking for some of those features & functionality.

No we do not drop useful, maybe even out dated ways of doing things, but that does not mean that the adapting of new tools, that encompass Web 2.0 concepts are not a good thing. We just implemented Aquabrowser and it provides the functionality our users have been asking for years.

Changing just for changing sake is not the solution, but change is & can be a good thing.

Alan, Within the context of what I’m discussing here, I think it is. On its own, seamless customer service is not inherently representative of L2–that’s just good business. When we fundamentally change how we operate in response to technology and those wikinomic ideas on collaboration that are so iconoclastic, then we are talking Library 2.0. I’d be interested to know how you’d define it.

[…] Library 2.0 Debased by John Blyberg Of course, that means we have to have a working framework to begin with that compliments and adheres to our tradition of solid, proven librarianship. In other words, when we use technology, it should be transparent, intuitive, and a natural extension of the patron experience. If it can’t be transparent, then it should be so overwhelmingly beneficial to the user that it is canonized not by the techies, but the users themselves. […]

Well said, thanks. I think you get it exactly right.

I find myself repeating frequently these days “You can’t solve workflow issues by buying the right product.” You also can’t solve organizational culture/mission/allocation-of-resources issues by buying the right product. [Can you solve bad metadata issues by buying the right product? Not sure.]

And PS, I’m a library technologist too, and think library technology is _incredibly_ important, and libraries DO need to focus on it. I like John’s phrase ‘pillar’.

But just buying the latest cool thing without thinking about how it fits into the larger picture gets you nowhere. And focusing on technology in a vacuum gets you nowhere. In fact, as difficult as our technology issues are, most of our organizations have EVEN BIGGER organizational and workflow and resource allocation and mission and culture issues that you can’t just buy your way out of by throwing money at the ‘right’ product.

I’m dissapointed to read that you think free tagging in the catalog has been a failure.

Usually, the reason to incorporating social networking tools in library resources has been to make an appeal to a certain kind of user who values an enriched online experience.

That seems to have worked. Clearly, the anime and fantasy crowds in Ann Arbor are loving it, though they may not represent the community at large.

Social aspects of online library resources alienate parts of the community in a similar way to how physical aspects do (oh, the smells we smell), but that’s no reason to label our buildings as failures.

Amazon.com had the same problem when they added tagging - maybe they still do. We’ll get better over time.

Caleb,
Free tagging in the Ann Arbor catalog as it pertains to the discovery of material is indeed a failure, simply because the data set hasn’t grown large enough to become terribly meaningful. The anime and fantasy crowds you speak of consist of one or maybe two people who went on a tagging frenzy very early on. Because of that, nine months later, the system has not been able to garner enough tag data to compensate for the skew. From a findability standpoint, the top tags are meaningless to anyone who isn’t interested in anime or fantasy.

Compare, then, with the tags you get from a LibraryThing for Libraries search result (check danburylibrary.org to try it out). Because LT has a much much larger dataset to draw upon, the resulting tags are much more useful. From a readers advisory standpoint, LT wins hands-down.

If you want to make the argument that local tags are representative of the local community, then I can understand–that was my original argument. But if a community like Ann Arbor cannot support a meaningful tagging system, I’m skeptical that many others would–maybe large metropolitan systems, but anything smaller? Probably not.

But remember, the public side of folksonomy data is only part of the picture. There is significant benefit to the end user who develops a collection of tags for personal reasons and it’s much harder to quantify the success of that one way or another.

[…] John Blyberg - “I’ve been feeling, for awhile now, that the term Library 2.0 has been co-opted by a growing group of libraries, librarians, and particularly vendors to push an agenda of “change” that deflects attention from some very real issues and concerns without really changing anything.” […]

John, now I can feel better… because I’ve been saying that about Darien (and the Penn Tags project) for a while. But you weren’t wrong to experiment; you tried something and you learned important stuff. If there’s anything to be learned from some of the 2.0 bandwagony stuff, it’s that there is some value to concepts such as “perpetual beta” (particularly when the alternative is “we slap you with massive change every forty years”–hello, AACR-to-RDA?).

And yes, it gets my shorts in a bunch when some vendor throws tagging in an interface and says they are now 2.0… say no more say no more.

One of the clever things librarians *can* do is leverage massive social networks. LibraryThing for Libraries is smart that way. Bring the socialness into the library. We should also watch Bibliocommons, which is designed around certain types of engagement.

Anyway, good post.

Well said. As always. I am particularly interested in the disconnect between conceptually good ideas that would capitalize on the engagement of patrons for the benefit of all (tags in the OPAC) and the actual engagement level of patrons. Our new Web sites have been up less than a year, and they are packed with opportunities for comments and patron reviews and yet we get maybe 1-3 comments or reviews every 3 months. (not true for the teen site, but we’ve already discussed that teens are different animals online). Maybe some of things just need more time, and it will take a few years for something to really catch on with everyday patrons. But even when it does, I think we would always have to tap into larger data sets before the connections became meaningful–unless you’re at a really, really big library (what library is as big as LT or Amazon–even Amazon’s tags are pretty thin right now). Although I do think that the possibilities with WorldCat Local might be heading in the right direction–local format/holdings but access to the world library of tags/reviews/connections.

When you think about the stats from Pew–that only a small percentage of the American public are really interested in full online engagement and scale that down to our own communities, it seems crazy to think that we could build robust collections of tags that significantly and consistently enhance findability on our own. We will be stronger and more interesting together.

My favorite thing you wrote is the last line–”We can learn a lot about collaboration and individual empowerment from Web 2.0, but we cannot be subsumed by it because we have a mission that eclipses “don’t be evil” which is the closest thing to a conscience the Web will ever have.” I totally agree. We are in it for the long haul, and while it’s our job to figure out what libraries can become, it’s also our job to not screw up what libraries have managed to build in terms of public goodness. (ok that was far less eloquent than your comment…I’ll leave it at that

I don’t have enough experience or background to speak to OPAC issues, but where other L2.0 elements are concerned, I think there’s much value to be had if we focus on those tools that will be most useful to ALL (or the bulk of) our users. And there ARE some. Though the recent PEW report indicated that tech-savvy members of Generation Y are the heaviest users of public library computers, at my large public library things look more like the “myth” that the report supposedly dispelled: the kids, teens, and adults who show up daily to use our computers are the ones that don’t have computers at home. We have 80 computer stations, and they’re filled daily with the same folks: kids who are paying $1 to print out color illustrations for their science projects, 10 cents a page for b/w essays–because they don’t have computers and printers at home, adult immigrants reading international newspapers online because they don’t have access at home, etc.

Aspects of 2.0 that might be most useful to these regular users of library computers? Online word processing and photo editing (only 1/2 of our computers have Word; none have photo editing or manipulation software). Online storage (GoogleDocs, Flickr, etc.)–so they can access their stuff from any library computer, because they’re on a different one every day (and accidentally leave behind 5-10 disks and flash drives a day). I’d also argue that RSS has practical uses for just about everyone, and I would teach it.

Stuff they don’t need? Stuff WE (libraries) perhaps don’t need to spend so time focusing on? I’m not certain how many new users MySpace and Facebook library pages attract–the teens, for ex, that “hang out” at (and helped create) my library’s MySpace page are the teens that would have been on the teen advisory board or volunteering at the library in earlier years. Same with library Flickr accounts, which to me seem most useful professionally–I can see what neat displays and programs your library’s had, etc.–I’m not sure that patrons are spending hours clicking through photos of our last Big Screen Wii event. Ability to leave comments on the library home page? Kind of cool, but, again, it seems to me that the folks leaving the comments are mostly the ones who’d stop by the desk or call or fill out comment cards in earlier times. Same with the folks reading the library blog and listening to the library podcasts–they’re the ones who’d otherwise read the newsletter, the BookPage hand-out, etc. We’re reaching out with these tools, but WHO we reach looks a lot like who we always have.

There are the “fun” L2.0 and W2.0 tools–and there are the most useful to the bulk of our patrons L2.0 and W2.0 tools. “Playing” is great–I love playing–but we should not take our play more seriously than we take the needs of most of our patrons (many of whom don’t really have the time to play with us).

Well, how many “2.0″ services are about the library to begin with… and not the users? Good point, Emily.

Though I think there’s something to be said for serving the “frequent flyers”–these become the folks who will go door to door in library millage campaigns, and serving them is an art in itself–the mistake is in confusing them with the masses.

I believe Kate has made a similar point (though to me over a drink ) about who uses libraries. It’s food for thought… about who we serve and how we serve them. (As a passionate writer and reader, I often feel very ignored by some of the very services I’ve touted… though again, stuff like LTFL is great.)

For a post about the limits of 2.0, this has been very 2.0

Another way to look at where things have gone wrong with web 2.0 applications in libraryland is to view it from the design perspective. Design thinkers are problem finders - before they are problem solvers. They first seek to understand the problem before identifying the solution. I think what happened with library 2.0 is that some folks discovered blogs, wikis, podcasts, social networks, etc. and being enamored of the technology and seeking to exploit the next shiny toy they said “Hmm, here’s an interesting solution - now what problem can I attach my solution to?” So instead of starting with the problem (e.g., why isn’t my user community visiting and using my web site, OPAC, etc), understand the root causes of the problem, and identifying an appropriate solution, it was much easier to identify cool technology solutions and then apply them hoping they would solve the problem. It doesn’t always work that way. As we say over at Designing Better Libraries - approach library problems the way that designers approach design problems. You’re likely to have a better outcome.

Karen, yes–definitely something to be said for serving the frequent flyers (heck, I’m one of the folks who advocated for a Flickr slideshow on our web page, and I teach [and love teaching] a very “2.0″-happy class at the library called “Internet Trends”)–I’m just saying we should keep in perspective that they’re who we’re serving when we use certain technologies–similar to why the most frequently occurring tags in the SOPAC include “Shonen Jump” [grin].

StevenB: absolutely.

A brilliant expression of Slow Library. Your sensitivity to ecological issues, commercial co-opting, and the risks of getting too comfy in bed with the web, represent exactly the kind of balance that is my view of Slow Library. Others may see it differently, of course.

[…] ever, John Blyberg is right on the money, Library 2.0 Debased . … we cannot expect to retrofit our libraries with tomorrow’s technology. The true […]

Hey come on! Without Library 2.0 how am I supposed to impress co-workers with my creative wizardry such as creating a blogger blog, or a del.icio.us account?

It appears that libraryland is still caught in the “Hey, check out how this works phase” (e.g.–the numerous twitter, flickr, myspace, facebook presentations), and I fear, it will be quite awhile before we hit the “Oh yeah, but who and/or what is it good for” phase.

Calling it Library 2.0 in the first place seems to be what makes the phenomenon such an easy target. Maybe Service 2.0 would be a nice change.

Erica, you articulate it very well. As libraries, I just don’t think we have the constituency to develop any significant network effect–and certainly nothing that even begins to approach the critical mass that is the holy grail of Web 2.0.

But I don’t want to leave people with the impression that I’m throwing the baby out with the bath water. I agree with Karen that the idea of “perpetual beta” has some practical appeal–but again, if we’re to extend the idea of perpetual beta to the presentation layer, it needs to resonate with our users in such a way that they appreciate it and are active participants, not guinea pigs.

In fact, Louise Berry, our director, likes to call my area in the New Darien Library the ‘Skunk Works’, ala Lockheed Martin. While we’re not designing fighter jets, we’re still willing to put any idea, no matter how far-fetched, on the table and play with it until we decide if it should be introduced into our ‘operating environment’. And like Lockheed Martin, we’re not going to force the public to be test pilots–it’s unethical and inconsiderate.

Also, I think the issue with using many Web 2.0 sites is not so much what the site is, but how we use it. Flickr is a good example because we have a choice as to how it’s implemented within the library environment. Should we just create a Flickr account and start befriending patrons and other libraries, or should we fully commit to Flickr as an image hosting solution for our own website? Certainly the emergence of the API suggests that we’re only scratching the surface of all the posibilities–mainly because most libraries don’t know how to take advantage of that particular technology. Most vendors, of course, don’t even offer reasonably useful APIs which has severely retarded our ability to participate in the Web 2.0 revolution.

Here’s an example of vendors and 2.0. I got very, very excited when I heard that a certain ILS had OAI functionality. Wow, we’d be able to seed the network cloud with our data and put our library in the user workflow! Then I found out that said ILS was (theoretically) equipped to *ingest* OAI data… but not to *expose its own data out in the cloud.*

Sigh.

Regarding using Flickr as an image repository, hmmm. I can see using Flickr as outreach, but as a real I-trust-this repository?

Karen,
I’m not at all surprised by your OAI example and that vendor is obviously so typical of its breed. I’ve come to the conclusion that either these vendors think we’re too stupid to recognize that they’re screwing us or, worse, they know we know and grin their Cheshire cat grins while they suck us dry. The fact that the ILS in question “supports OAI” in one direction (in) is no cooincidence or oversight. I could spell out exactly what it means, but I think Hugh MacLeod does it best.

Their time is coming though.

With regards to Flickr–I’m not suggesting that we use services like Flickr as trusted repositories. Instead, we ought to consider services like Flickr as a way to distribute our footprint beyond the boundary of our own web offerings. If we can start incorporating Web 2.0 at a “lower level”, I think we can build more natural, fluid transitions between these disparate pieces. At the same time, we’d be building more in-roads through an implicit “outreach” as you call it (and that’s a good name for it).

Concur on your explanation of Flickr, which is what I advise.

this is pathetic horn-tooting, but a year ago I wrote a largely-ignored post that is related to this one… I use it as the URL for this comment. Let’s just say this kind of issue was just one of many things that drove me from MFPOW. If I’m now in a place that worries it isn’t “agile” enough, at least they aren’t all over the freakin’ map.

I remember reading that post last year (huh, funny that it’s almost to the day). As your post points out, there are many practical issues to consider with, well, pretty much anything you try to do with technology. Non-IT folks seldom understand all that is involved in everything we do. Even the smallest request can have a complicated set of prerequisites.

I tell the people I work with that I will never say “no” to a request for something they really want to do. But that comes with a major caveat: they need to do their part to make it work. If something succeeds, we’ll all succeed together. If we fail, then we pat each other on the back and try to deconstruct where we went wrong.

I just became aware of this great post.

As libraries and librarians bumble around, eventually social computing will loose its buzz and settle into our information ecology where it belongs. For now we ignore that, and insert it wherever it might stick.

It is important to recognize that online communities, be it Facebook or Gaia Online are actually communities with unique rules of social interaction. The rules of interaction are embedded within the media. Libraries are community building institutions, so it makes sense that we’d jump at an opportunity to get involved in this new kind of community building. The problem is that we all too often jump in blindly, use the conventions of interaction in physical spaces and ignore the rules in these digital spaces.

A. Mercado had it right in her post about cultural context…

[…] librarians culturally self-aware?” She also gets a few responses from John Blyberg (”Library 2.0 Debased“) and Rochelle Hartman (”Blyberg Speaks: Safe to come out of hiding“), among […]

[…] also references John Blyberg’s blog post Library 2.0 debased, which prompted me to actually make this blog go live. I particularly liked this line: The true […]

[…] found John Blyberg’s post, Library 2.0 Debased, very interesting and in many ways, a breath of fresh air. I agree with him on a lot of levels. I […]

[…] library 2.0 Yes, I’ll join the growing amount of discussion on library 2.0 since John Blyberg wrote a post re-examining the library 2.0 movement. Like most, I’ve had mixed feelings about […]

Why do people tag books at LibraryThing? Because people use LibraryThing to organize a list of their own books, and by adding tags they can get a more useful (to them) list of their own books. They can also get a more usable list of their own books to show off to friends, since showing off one’s book collection to friends and strangers is another reason to use LibraryThing. You could have an untagged collection to show off to friends, but your tags help friends see what you have better, and let you show off how you categorize them too. (LibraryThing’s userbase is certainly a nerdy one).

Tagging your own library in LibraryThing gives you personally immediate benefits.

Why do people tag things in del.icio.us? Again, there are immediate personal benefits–helps you keep track of your bookmarks, which is why you use delicious in the first place.

Why do people tag things in a library catalog? Oh yeah, they don’t. Why would we think they WOULD? What is the immediate personal benefit to do so?

We can hypothetically imagine that libraries could give our patrons a full-featured and actually useful research environment, for conducting their research and organzing their research and even sharing their research. The library ‘catalog’ would be one (small) part of that. We can hypothetically imagine that there would be a purpose for tagging library materials and other things in such an environment, with immediate personal benefit. If we somehow got there, then patrons would tag.

But I don’t think it’s an issue of ‘how big is our user base’. The biggest library in the world isn’t going to have anyone tagging books if they have no reason to.

[…] whiz. Every now and then, someone decides to share that some new-fangled “library 2.0″ project didn’t work out […]

[…] Filed under: flotsam, libraries, tech — snail @ 11:46 am John Blyberg has a nice commentary up re Libber 2.0 stuff; some folk are recanting, some are stopping to question. I think Farkas hit […]

Jonathan,
You may be partially correct, except that SOPAC does allow users to build a collection of items they have tagged for personal use, which is why I say:

“…the public side of folksonomy data is only part of the picture. There is significant benefit to the end user who develops a collection of tags for personal reasons and it’s much harder to quantify the success of that one way or another.”

And that may have a little to do with why people tag items in the AADL catalog. But I think you’re incorrect to assume that users will only contribute if there is something in it for them. After all, almost 600 reviews have been left since SOPAC was launched about a year ago. There is no direct personal benefit to the user to do that beyond simply sharing their opinion.

I think users of social networks ask themselves, “is this network worth my time?” In other words, is it legitimate enough for users to contribute to. Libraries have an implicit leg-up there by virtue of the fact that we are perceived as benign, trustworthy institutions.

[…] to match the tools you use to the needs of your users. Read her post as well as the one from John Blyberg that she uses as a springboard. Also read through the many comments — you might even want to […]

[…] Library 2.0 “course correction” which is both healthy and inevitable. Kate Sheehan and John Blyberg are particularly astute on this topic. This doesn’t mean that Library 2.0 is […]

[…] Library 2.0 Debased- from blyberg.net by John Blyberg on January 17, 2008 […]

One of the things that I believe to be essential for modern libraries is technology that enables dialog.

This might be why we get the 2.0 comparison, but, in the case of libraries, I don’t think that it’s a dialog between peers, it’s dialog between an expert and a customer.

[…] been staying out of the “is Library 2.0 overrated” debate that was sparked by John Blyberg - until I read David Lee King’s take on the discussion. As always, David has some intelligent […]

[…] John Blyberg argues that Library 2.0 has been debased by (some) librarians and by vendors looking for a quick technology fix. This is really one of the best posts (and comments threads) that I’ve read in a long time. Really. Go read. […]

[…] blyberg.net » Library 2.0 Debased (tags: chapter1 libr246-13) […]

I was so disappointed to read in this very interesting post that John Blyberg believes that “I’ll even turn the tables on myself and admit that I was wrong about local tagging in the OPAC. SOPAC was by-and-large a success, but its use of user-contributed tags is a failure. For the past nine months, the top ten tags have included “fantasy”, “manga”, “anime”, “time travel”, “shonen”, “shonen jump”, and “shape-changing”.”

Let’s consider the customer who is or rather in this case, isn’t tagging. I work in a large public library system in Australia where customers still only use a small proportion of the available information and tools on the OPAC. How long does it take to have a large number of customers using the databases? Even if you tell or show them how to do it there is always so much more for them and us to find out how to use functionally on the OPAC. So, perhaps in this case (although I don’t know how you’ve gone about supporting or encouraging customers to tag their borrowed items) time and conversation with customers to familiarise them with the ease of the process would result in more customers tagging. Let’s consider why would a customer want to spend time learning how and then tagging their borrowed items. As a customer myself who has learnt about the subject terms (small amount of customers) I know that someone has created these terms and that I can search for books or other items by these terms. Now if I read a book which hasn’t got a subject term such as “comedy” when I’ve found it very funny, I could tag it as “comedy” and then on a search for someone else it would come up as comedy when it doesn’t at the moment. If others got into the swing of how easy it is to do this then the OPAC would become a more rounded tool of shared experience. I think it’s a great idea. Especially as the people who have to create the subject terms in the first place don’t get to read the book and the advice of another reader would be an addition and not replace the library’s cataloguing terms. If customers understand that they would be adding value to the catalogue and experience value themselves when they look at tags or reviews, I believe that it would enhance their experience of libraries. When I use Amazon I’m always interested in other user’s comments and reviews and would love to have the ability to put connecting links on the OPAC on a title or series to direct other people to a series they may like if they have liked this one - just like the section on Amazon where you see what other people purchased as well as the current item.

So, rather than saying that this tagging has failed because only a few manga aficionados have taken up the challenge, perhaps customers simply haven’t taken it up because they either don’t know how or don’t understand why or that their tagging could make a difference to someone else and vice versa.

This is probably like telling a grandmother how to suck eggs and I apologise for not having read the earlier posts where you may have explained how you went about setting this up in your library. I just think that this tagging and reviews on the OPAC are a really worthwhile use of some of the Web 2.0 tools in the library and if really encouraged and supported would have our customers more involved in the whole library culture.

[…] on all my reading, amongst which was a very thought provoking post by John Blyberg entitled “Library 2.0 Debased“, which in turn was inspired by Kate Sheehan’s post “Are librarians culturally […]

Web 2.0 工具不是萬能靈丹…

這二個禮拜忙著搬家，一直沒有時間寫部落格，但心中總是思索著二週前 John Blyberg 的一篇博文 (部落格文章)，趁新家大致佈置妥當之際，趕快跟各位介紹那篇文章。

事情是這樣的，John Bly…

[…] fall somewhere between the hopeful posts listed on the page for Thing 2 and the newer Library 2.0 post on Blyberg’s blog. I do have one basic problem with Blyberg’s blog post that is required […]

[…] Library 2.0 Debased, John Blyberg makes the excellent point that “when we use technology, it should be […]

[…] blyberg.net: Library 2.0 debased […]

[…] Library 2.0 Debased by John Blyberg, currently the Head of Technology and Digital Initiatives at Darien Library in Connecticut. […]

[…] here’s John Blyberg’s post on the debasement of Library 2.0 that Janie handed […]

[…] Library 2.0 Debased […]

[…] 的館藏目錄等。但從 PennTags 網站上觀察使用情況，以及 AADL 的前系統主管 John Blyberg 針對 […]

I’m late to the discussion but I really enjoyed this post!

I agree with Jonathan re: the success of tagging being dependent on sufficient motivation for users. That goes for any user-generated content. I do not believe tagging will improve findability unless lots of people are tagging lots of books. Even then, only the most popular items will receive enough tags to benefit others. Until libraries can decentralize their catalogues and share with other libraries, I think the use of tagging (or ranking) will not be especially useful even for the largest public libraries.

The OPAC can be improved without the help of tacked on folksonomies. Improvements could be made in better keyword searching, popularity factored into the sorting algorithm, and more cross-linking between search results and booklists.

There is a lot of implicit user-generated data libraries already collect that could be leveraged to create great online content: most requested books, most checked out books, book recommendations based on what others have checked out. Online comment cards and suggested purchase forms could be online and made public. Personal booklists could be made public. Patrons could choose to make some of their information public and allow others to see what they’re reading. They could then find others who have similar tastes and compare booklists.

I’m not too hip on what’s being discussed on library blogs but I was very happy to read this post. Most of the articles I’ve read about designing web sites for libraries have used the term Web2.0 as little more than a catch-phrase. I’d love to see some real innovation happening on library sites. Tagging, blogs, wikis, those are all things that can be easily added to any website. But without thought to what users are actually there for, those things will be gimmicks and obstacles to usability.

- a web worker and library worker

[…] My thoughts on this are best summed up by John Blyberg in a recent blog post titled “Library 2.0 Debased“: […]

[…] came across this interesting blog post by John Blyberg of CT’s Darien Library this morning, and it got me thinking about how we use Library 2.0 […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>