[Web4lib] Reconsidering Library 2.0 ?

[Tim Spalding]

I understand the appeal of "moving past" technology to understand
"Library 2.0" as something deeper, something user-centered, and I
understand the appeal to evaluate outcomes judiciously and with
metrics, if possible.

But, from where I sit, the appeal of Library 2.0 is *at least* and *in
the first instance* about a solid core—having library technology that
does things and integrates with its users' lives in a way that could
be described as "not failing."

There's a certain reconsideration of Lib 2.0 going around, some
breath-taking, and even a certain amount of backlash. Yet very little
has actually *happened*. A few libraries are doing interesting things,
but they're a tiny minority. There's been no general spread. The
number of conference talks with "Library 2.0" in their title far
exceeds real action taken. What action has happened has largey occured
in activities which I at least see as peripheral, like giving your
library a MySpace page which, like as not, nobody visits.

Meanwhile, the core experience languishes. Library websites haven't
changed much and OPACs have changed even less. Indeed, the core
technology experience is if anything worse today, as patron
expectations have risen.

It's been said before, but it deserves repeating: OPACs are
*dreadful*. "The OPAC sucks" has become a sort of Lib 2.0 shibboleth,
but they haven't stopped sucking. Libraries talk about getting on
Twitter and Second Life, and they're not on Google. Here and there I
can get library photos on Twitter, but my OPAC won't tell me that
although the book I clicked on is out, there is another edition
available. Mid-90s spelling correction and relevancy ranking are
sometimes available, but often as a paid feature. Looking at these
issues from the outside, the landscape can seem surreal.

I know I have a bias. I'm a software developer. I see software
problems. And I am not blaming library technologists, who are
generally at the mercy of systems and organizational limitations that
would drive me mad. Still, I see the library's core web presence as
central, and so obviously behind as to nearly moot other, reasoned
discussion.

So, let me climb down and open this up:

*Should the core web presence be the center of Lib 2.0?
*Can reconceptualizing the project away from technology actually
achieve the technological goals more readily?
*Am I missing real progress? If so, what have I missed?
*Is the talk/action ratio unavoidable?

Tim

On 11/3/07, B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   The concept of ROI and libraries is an interesting one. I would imagine that in the physical library there are a lot of returns on investments that don't look too good (e.g., books that are acquired but never read, etc., etc.).
>
>   To be fair, if libraries were to try to measure ROI for Library 2.0 projects, they should do the same for projects in the physical library. Do libraries do that? If so, how?
>
>   Bernie Sloan
>
> "Anderson, Patricia" <pfa at umich.edu> wrote:
>   The flaw in this question is the assumption that unless something brings patrons to the physical library it is useless. Gatecounts are a ROI metric whose time is past. There are other ways we can and should be measuring patron engagement with the librarians and the resources provided by the library. For one, I would like to see something that measure the amount of TIME spent in what type of interactions with patrons, rather than numbers of questions answered, just for one.
>
> Sorry for turning the question on its head, but I think this really is a "return on investment" question, rather than a Library 2.0 question. We have to answer first how we measure ROI, and *then* we can look at how Library 2.0 and social technologies impact on that.
>
> My two cents,
>
> Patricia Anderson, pfa at Umich.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of Jorge Serrano Cobos
> Sent: Fri 11/2/2007 6:20 PM
> To: Web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: [Web4lib] prove that library 2.0 isn´t useless
>
> Hi:
>
> Reading "We Know What Library 2.0 Is and Is Not" by Michael Casey and Laura
> Savastinuk in
> http://www.librarycrunch.com/2007/10/we_know_what_library_20_is_and.html comes
> to my mind the need to have more figures, more numbers, more indicators, to
> demonstrate if a change in our websites to Library 2.0 approach, even just a
> 1.0 better performance and user centered design change, does really brings
> more users to physical library.
>
> Do you have any figures on this issue? Could you prove it? Any experiences
> showing that a usability design change, not only brings more users to the
> web, but more requests? And a library 2.0 approach? Or is the step from the
> web to the real bookshelf too long?
>
> Thanks in advance, and sorry for my english... (I´m spaniard)
>
> --
> Jorge Serrano-Cobos
> Head of Digital Content Department
> http//www.masmedios.com
>
> Social Networks:
> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=590138596
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jorgeserranocobos
> http://jorge-serrano-cobos.neurona.com
>
> Thinkepi Group Member
> http://www.thinkepi.net
> Personal web: http://trucosdegoogle.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>


-- 
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding