Web 2.0 begat the concept of Library 2.0 and now I have managed to read a few articles on the topic for L&P (sources roughly cited below). Having seen Stephen Abram speak at OLC a few years ago, I figured his article would be a good place to start. He views Web 2.0 as being “about the more human aspects of interactivity…conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism.” Michael Casey states that services must successfully reach users, be evaluated frequently, and make use of customer input to be considered Library 2.0. So if we keep these elements in mind it makes me wonder: How 2.0 are we really?
Right now I’m primarily considering our own webpage. I love how we got away from trying to be a web portal (eliminating weather and news updates which seemed to be an attempt to have the CML page replace yahoo as a one stop page for our customers). Our page is vibrant and pretty focused. Could it be more 2.0-ish? I think it could, while also admitting that I don’t know all of the technical constraints involved in changing our page. To be a little more 2.0-ish it seems like we could go further to foster interactive conversations/input from our customers and evaluate ourselves more frequently. Here are some “What If” thoughts about Library 2.0 and CML.
WHAT IF we increased the profile of our “Power Users?” We privately identity this group behind the scenes at CML. Perhaps we could pull back the curtain and allow them to make their presence public. Allow them to help shape what we are. Maybe they are self-identified. Maybe they earn a power user rating by submitting reviews to our website that are deemed helpful by others. If ebay buyers trust power sellers more, would our CML users trust reviews from our Power Users?
Speaking of reviews, WHAT IF we allowed public review and comment on titles featured on our page rather than just a star rating?
Patrons have long asked for a way to record and keep track of the books they have previously checked out and returned. LibraryThing & Shelfari have beaten us to that task. But WHAT IF we developed a widget that allowed our customers to upload the books from their CML account to their LibraryThing or Shelfari shelf? (Incidentally, I found something called LibraryThing for Libraries, but it seems to work in the opposite direction by populating library catalogs with reviews.)
WHAT IF the book of the day on our front page was actually 3 to 5 books? If the featured book doesn’t look like your cup of tea, click it to cycle through several more.
WHAT IF we had a similar featured book that was up for a whole month rather than one day? And WHAT IF we allowed users to submit potential discussion group questions? And WHAT IF we hosted several discussion groups based on customer input?
Having solid functional database sources are good. Allowing customer reviews of sources could be better. But WHAT IF we allowed customers to share their stories of how they have actually used our sources? For example, Reference USA happens to be pretty boring. One of our customers has used this for the past couple years to find old friends from his military days. After his wife passed away he used it send thank you letters to her friends that had sent flowers of condolence. WHAT IF he chose to share this and turned a boring source into a story about what we have to offer?
WHAT IF we opened up some of our organizational challenges to public suggestion? For example, a few years back a problem was posed to staff. Our online catalog was working too well. Improvements made it easier to use the catalog and place loan requests. We were being overwhelmed with incoming materials on hold. Putting books into the hands of our users was a good thing, but what about the books that were requested and never checked out? This had a negative impact on our transportation costs. The question was posed to staff: How can we encourage the public to reserve what they need but also make sure they aren’t reserving so much that it goes unused without being checked out? Why weren’t we posing this question to the public too? WHAT IF we packaged some of our tactical plan items in an online “think tank” allowing the public to submit ideas? Would we be obligated to use every idea? No. But we might find useful ideas that were overlooked by our staff.
Perhaps not all of these ideas to open up interactivity with our customers will be viable. That’s where Michael Casey’s Library 2.0 element of evaluating frequently would come in. It seems to be even more 2.0 we need to try more ideas, more often, from more sources, and evaluate these ideas often. Throw out the things that don’t work and allow the ones that do to grow.
articles read:
Web 2.0 - Huh?! Library 2.0, Librarian 2.0Stephen Abram, Information Outlook, Dec 2005
Library 2.0
Michael E. Casey & Laura C. Savastinuk, Library Journal, Sept 2006
Library 2.0: The Consumer as Producer
Beth Evans, Information Today, Oct 2008
which then led to reading:
The Long Tail
Chris Anderson, Wired, Oct 2004
The Rise of Crowdsourcing
Jeff Howe, Wired, June 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment