[Web4lib] Library Website Awards...?

[Walt Crawford]

I think Thomas Bennett says it well..

My own sense is that people wouldn't be putting their websites on
libsuccess.org or other similar sites unless they thought the sites were
doing something well. I'm not wild about a silver-platter approach, "these
are the *real* worthwhile websites"--do we really need that? Are there truly
objective criteria for Best Library Websites, regardless of local
circumstances?

When I wrote Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples, I deliberately removed the
list of "intriguing blogs" and never even considered a "best public library
blogs" list. I was burned enough when what I regarded as "a" list of
librarian blogs with broad reach was interpreted as "the" list--as somehow
being a Best Of.

To my mind, the last thing we need is for every library website to look like
X (whatever X might be), any more than every library blog should work like
AADL's. But then, I'm not even wild about posting lots of pictures of "bad"
library signage, so what do I know?

-walt crawford, speaking entirely on my own behalf--


On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Bennett <bennetttm at appstate.edu>
wrote:

> So, does the "Best" WEB site look pretty or can it be just hum drum and
> help
> you find your target much quicker.  Sort sounds like, what was it? Better
> Flavor : Less Filling debate or something like that ;-)
>
>  Who decides and what qualifies that judge? Maybe select a site a week and
> asks lists like this, reference lists, distance learning lists, ILL lists,
> and/or any other related lists to fill out a report card on each site
> submitted.  But then that is only 52 sites a year. If you want the Best of
> the Best then you need to look at functionality for the previously
> mentioned
> entities (lists) and others like the end user, the patron.  Not to mention
> it
> but I will, the man hours or woman hours it would take to prepare this
> data
> for review.  Sounds like it could be the Academy Awards of Virtual
> Libraries.
>
> Just food for thought.
>
> Thomas
> --remainder truncated--
>
>