> I think what needs to happen is turning cataloging from processing to
> an incentive. Cataloging quality is in decline because there's too
> much to be cataloged, putting strains on the people doing it and the
> library as a whole to catch up with it. It's gone from being a thing
> of passion (incentive) to a thing we do (process).
That's less a tech problem than a training problem, no? When I was
applying to library schools, I read somewhere that reference librarians
were the rock stars of library training. Everyone was scared of
cataloging because they thought it would be a. hard and b. boring.
Neither was particularly true, but those stereotypes remain- it's seen
as being about nitpicking and punctuation instead of building access to
information.
> Just like there's more to be cataloged, there's more restrictions and
> structures that one has to know about, and by golly, every single tool
> we use for cataloging is just plain horrible rubbish! I'm so sick of
> them I can't say that out loud enough! These tools are some of the
> least focused programs devised in the history of man (yeah, I know,
> big words. Prove me wrong), where the success is determined by the
> amazing skills of the cataloger. I'm even surprised and glad that such
> clever people exists! If quality metadata really is our most precious
> outcome, why aren't we pouring in all our resources in making this
> part better?
I'm not a cataloger, but I subbed for a cataloger on maternity leave at
a previous post. I spent so much time learning how to deal with the
tools! I thought it was me! I don't know how catalogers put up with it,
and I'll second the gratefulness that wonderful catalogers do exist to
rise above the mediocre tools at their disposal.
> > On the reference desk, I see tags and
> > more flexible metadata as the LC-to-English translation service.
Just as
> > I wouldn't hand a patron a bib number to find a book (though I have
had
> > them handed to me), I don't expect them to be able to use subject
> > headings on their own.
>
> It's amazing what users *can* do, though. Let's not try to
> underestimate them; those days are gone.
Oh, I wasn't trying to underestimate them! I just meant that the
rigidity of LC subject headings can be such a hindrance to users and I
don't think we're in a position anymore to demand that they figure our
systems out. I don't doubt that people can figure most things out, but
why sweat our catalog, when Google and Amazon are so much easier?
> It's about values. I belive that abriviated knowledge in which the
> library used to be king now is anywhere but in the library. We're
> stuck with the heavy stuff, and all sorts of other media has taken the
> fluffy stuff away from us. Adopt or die, I say.
Interesting. What are you putting in fluffy stuff? Do you mean ready
reference (which most people can Google themselves these days) or do you
mean web 2.0 stuff?
As a public librarian, I get hung up on this. We're stuck trying to meet
the needs of our (usually) remote users who want databases and tags and
all the cool Web 2.0 stuff and the needs of the people who come through
the doors who have never used a mouse and only kind of know what email
is. Plus, we've got to sell ourselves to the people who think they can
get everything they want online and are shocked to find out that the New
York Times isn't giving away back articles for free. We spend most of
our time doing the "heavy stuff" of basic information and technical
literacy and somehow, we're supposed to sell ourselves as cutting edge
and fun. Of course we want to be cutting edge and fun, but it's hard to
please all of the people all of the time!
> Indeed, maybe it's not. Maybe all they need is a commercial indexer or
> Google scholar. When it comes down to it, what does the library
> provide thse days? Mostly access to physical objects. I feel the
> knowledge battle and the digital content struggle has been lost,
> especially considering that we're not even pushing our precious
> metadata to any extent beyond searching. It's very sad.
Are we that far up a creek? You're kind of a downer, Alex. :)
I like to think we're teaching people on the other side of the digital
divide (I know, I know, it's such an overused, meaningless phrase). My
library does a lot of ESL and most of our one on one computer classes
are folks who want to learn to use a computer (either they just got one,
or they're job hunting or they're just getting online). I stopped using
the word "database" and kids doing schoolwork just light up when I show
them how to find "stuff online that Google won't find." Okay, some of
them sigh heavily and say "I only need three sources and I have them."
But some of them light up! Heck, sometimes just teaching someone how to
Google well makes my day.
It's not exactly cutting edge library service but if we can't keep up
with cataloging all that new stuff out there, at least we can help our
patrons navigate it a little.
Okay, /Pollyanna!
kate
> > Aargh, indeed!
>
> Ditto.
>
>
---------------------------------
Kate Sheehan
Coordinator of Library Automation
Danbury Library
170 Main St.
Danbury, CT 06810
203.796.1607
ksheehan_at_danburylibrary.org
http://www.danburylibrary.org
http://www.myspace.com/danburylibrary
Received on Mon Apr 30 2007 - 10:57:23 EDT