Some Sunday Evening Reflections

It definitely seems as if there has been a great increase in the number of blog posts by authors of the blogs that I read within the past month. I have mentioned recently that the number of posts that I have saved in Bloglines is growing exponentially. Now that I am back in school and doing homework, I have other things that I need to be thinking about, so I keep adding things to my “I-really-need-to-read-this” pile. So, I though I put together some of my abbreviated thoughts about some recent blog posts that have caught my eye.

• About Competencies- from The Green Kangaroo – This is a reflective piece on the topic of core competencies for MLS graduates. This is an important topic that I really need to read more about. There is also a discussion about whether the MLS makes one a librarian. An excerpt: “So — did that MLS make me a librarian? I think not — but it made it possible for me to become one. The becoming was the work of practice in libraries and elsewhere, of conversation — and sometimes argument — with colleagues and mentors, of reading and studying about the issues that a changing field presented, of trial — and no small amount of error. First I was in positions labeled “librarian” — then one day I realized that as I thought about my own identity, I thought “librarian.” I came to see myself as a member of a community that practiced librarianship — tied together by many shared values, shared vocabulary and ways of approaching problems, shared history and memory. It has now been 20 years or so since I last worked within any organization called a “library,” in a position labeled “librarian” — and yet that remains a major portion of my identity: librarian — and still working on fully becoming.” Well said.
• Library Brand Names- by Christopher Harris from Infomancy – In this post, Christopher Harris asks “Who, besides the librarians and the companies care whether a database is provided by EBSCO or Gale?” The author plans to start using more descriptive terminology for resources on their portal. I’m looking forward to reading more about this.
• Feed Reading- by Steven Chabot from Subject/Object – I haven’t really decided what I think about Steven’s post. Without a computer at home, Steven has found himself reading actual books more – and finding that reading books is more engaging for him than reading blogs. I don’t find blog posts lifeless or dead in comparison to traditional books. I actually find myself thinking about issues more because of blogs. I’m still mulling this one over.
• Classifying the catalogue- by Owen Stephens and Damyanti Patel from Overdue Ideas – Here the authors discuss what the catalog is. They write “So, if the catalogue is not a list of what we have physically, or what we provide access to physically and virtually, what does it become? My guess is that we are heading towards realigning the ‘catalogue’ towards the physical collection – i.e. this is what we have in the building. This is essentially where we started. We can expect our users to start in a wider world of information, and only reach the ‘catalogue’ when they get close to the ‘delivery’ phase.” I think this is an important discussion – and I think the authors make a great point here.
• What is the catalog?- by Lorcan Dempsey from Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog – I try and read everything that Lorcan Demspey writes. Lorcan Dempsey discusses his difficulty in using the word catalog and gives some examples of the confusing ways that the term “online catalog” is used by libraries on their web sites.

The Beta Debate

Michelle Boule’s Building a Better Beta post over at ALA TechSource is a really fascinating blog post – definitely worth a read. In the post, Michelle argues that libraries can learn quite a bit from companies that are working with beta products – like Meebo, Google, Library Thing and Flickr. Two things that all of these companies have in common is that they are successful and that they have loyal users. Isn’t this what libraries need? Michelle writes:

Customers are given the chance to test products and make suggestions. They are let in, sometimes from the ground up, and that gives people a sense of empowerment and ownership. Going beta has become less of what you roll out and more of just what you do—a mind set. You could even call it a belief system. How can libraries build beta products and services and develop their own followings?

I guess that I am a bit uncomfortable with asking libraries to provide services via beta products. I think the idea behind the commentary is sound. I understand where Michelle is coming from. However, beta products are often buggy, filled with problems, and are generally not ready for prime time. Is this how we want to put out new products and services to our patrons? Can you tell that I’m pretty conflicted by Michelle’s post? I like the idea. She is really trying to change our mindset – how we interact with our patrons. I think this is important and necessary for libraries. I just wonder about how useful equating better service for our patrons is with beta products. Tim Spalding from LibraryThing agrees with Michelle and comments that “Beta is my license to play, experiment, screw up and create.” I think this is a great mindset for LibraryThing. It may also be a valuable mindset which could help libraries work with their constituents to develop better systems, but I don’t think this is how we want to present ourselves to the public. To me, a beta label means that I should use something at my own risk. Many beta products become successful applications with many loyal users. However, many beta products frustrate users and push customers to use a different service. Additionally, there are many people who avoid having anything to do with beta products because they want to give developers a chance to work out the kinks.

To me, services that are always in beta tend to give the message that they aren’t every really complete – that the designers can’t quite get to the point to which they envisioned their product when they created the application. I think that libraries can find a way to empower users and help them participate and interact with library systems without being in beta mode continuously.