Comments on: From the “to blog” folder

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:15:15 +0000

Yes, how we define innovation is key… I see it distinct from invention, in many cases better than invention. Approaches and processes can be innovative, too. Just because we should put a wheel on a cart and use it to move firewood does not mean that the first person to do that is not being innovative. Maybe I simply see outcomes as essential to innovation. To talk about something new (and in some areas of librarianship, to talk and talk and talk about it) is one thing; to do it, another.

I think it’s not as easy for people to grasp the Phoenix project, but it’s significant that Phoenix is doing the same exploratory work *in parallel* and with similar conclusions.

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:22:07 +0000

Hey Karen, I just read your ALA TechSource post yesterday (excellent, BTW) and I was surprised that I hadn’t heard anything about the project at the Phoenix PL until then. I guess it’s like most things; one example will get tons of media attention while another (that is perhaps less “sexy” or something) similar project gets very little attention. Then again, I talked about the Maricopa County PL Dewey thing at a Vermont Library Association mini-conference on Friday and most people hadn’t heard anything about that either.

I think what they did (”starting backwards from the user”) isn’t particularly innovative because it’s what we all SHOULD do (and some already do). I think it’s great. I think it’s smart. I think more libraries should make decisions that way. But innovative? I guess it’s probably more a difference in how we define the term than any difference in the way we see the project.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:15:02 +0000

Well, we will have to agree to disagree about whether the post-Dewey approach at the Perry Branch is innovative. The part I consider most innovative about it is that they started backwards from the user, surveying people, then asking what works and how can we adopt this? Think of how much in LibraryLand is done by voodoo science… In the focus on Dewey/not-Dewey, the novelty of the *approach* has been lost.

I’m also disappointed how little attention has been paid to the other deDeweyfication project I wrote about (see my ALA Techsource column): using BISAC headings in the OPAC at Phoenix Public Library.

But opinions make horse races, or something like that

By: Deborah Fitchett

Deborah Fitchett — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:26:29 +0000

I rather dislike having a ‘databases’ link on our homepage myself (though not as much as I dislike the term ’serials’). One problem is in both cases that for obvious solutions (eg ‘finding an article’ and ‘journals’ respectively) the law librarians point out that it’s not just journals and not just articles: they’ve got case laws and, um, I forget, but lots of other stuff that intimidated me. Which is a nuisance, because ‘databases’ and ’serials’ intimidate our users.

Going over to the Library Garden to comment more there…

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:22:18 +0000

Fred, I like that. Some good ideas there, Heather. I think that there are definitely better options than “databases” but no matter what we do, I think there will be confusion on the part of some of our patrons.

By: Heather

Heather — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:57:11 +0000

What about “journal search engines” or “resource search engines”? That does, I think, describe what they are pretty accurately, and even uses up-to-date terminology.

Maybe we should just call them “Fred.”

By: Heather

Heather — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:54:38 +0000

Hmmm… I have pondered the databases question myself… I tried to think of what we call them in the library. Books and journals. But “online books” sounds odd to me, maybe because it seems like a book loses some of its bookiness when it’s encased in ones and zeroes instead of paper and twine. But I’m o.k. with “online journals” or “web-accessible journals”, maybe because with a scholarly journal it is the content that matters, more so than the format.

Web-accessible is always pleasant — patrons seem to like knowing that they can actually get the entire work on the computer (rather than just a citation). But, then, that still leaves us in a sticky spot when referring to those-utilities-formerly-known-as-databases, because they aren’t always full-text. So “web-accessible journals” is out.

Then again, maybe we can lose the “online” and “web” and “Internet” stuff altogether — patrons ostensibly already know they’re online when they are using it. What about something like “Resource Search” or “Journal Finding Tool” or “Choose a Giant Money-Hungry Publisher’s Website in which to Search for Articles and Other Resources”?

But, yes — “databases” needs to go as a term, not least because, well, they aren’t databases, they’re database-driven web sites.

By: James Brown

James Brown — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:57:30 +0000

Hi Meredith,

Great idea to just get it all out there, I often find myself ditching good ideas because they’ve gone past their sell-by-date and news/tech has moved on. So I’ve taken your cue and done the same on my blog, with a couple of links going your way. Thanks for the inspiration!

Oh and if you enjoyed the “when to use a wiki” post, you might find this image helpful, I know I have: http://21stcenturylearning.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/07/21/usingwikisforlearningcommunities_3.gif

All the best,
James