Hiya,
Me said:
> > [about cataloging] It's gone from being a thing
> > of passion (incentive) to a thing we do (process).
On 5/1/07, Sheehan, Kate <ksheehan_at_danburylibrary.org> wrote:
> 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.
Well, with the tools given to them, who could blame them? I had an
interesting experience a year or so ago. I was buying a drum-kit
second-hand (I need something to bash my frustrations out on :), and
went to get it, and it turned out that the guy who was selling the
drums (for his son) was a newly retired cataloger, and we ended up in
a 3 hour long really nice talk about how cataloging could have been
different. We talked about fuzzy searching, tagging as a means of
pre-ordained tagging (when you need to catalog something that doesn't
exist in LCSH, or is in waiting to be added), and systems that works
*with* the cataloger *over time* instead of the normal MARC record
"here and now" mentality our tools push. (Hmm, that mentality is
pretty much in all our tools, come to think of it.) All the technology
needed to make cataloging so much better are already here, but not in
*our* tools. So sad.
> 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.
Funny you should mention that, because I'm getting more and more wary
of the current trend to focus so much on clustering and groupings of
our subject headings; I'm not convinved they actually work. I have a
theory with most things that says "if something looks like the truth,
people will pursue it *as* the truth" (I've said this about ontology
work, semantic data modelling, programming, management, best practice,
and who knows what else. It's a good thing to remember sometimes; am I
pursuing the truth, or only something that looks like it? Google is a
good example of such.).
Sure, on the surface our clustered subject headings looks like they
are the next big thing, the very thing that will make sense of our
complex library world to our patrons. But every time I watch both
librarians and patrons use these clusters I see them struggle (and I
know librarians who design these systems struggle to; how *do* we do
clustering that makes sense across all the sub-fields of subject
headings, for example?) with when they expand a search, when they
narrow it, what the difference between the clusters mean, and so
forth. In fact, I assert that people need to know how subject headings
work before these clusters work, and hey! we're back to the original
problem of complex library systems that you need an education to
master.
Again, they look so fantastic, people mistake them for fantastic. Some
simple testing of their fantasticness seems to tell me that they're
yet another feature that sometimes work but often don't. IMHO, of
course, but I think more usability testing of this will show the same
(but of course, real usability testing is something the library world
still hasn't got into the habit of doing, and I can't blame them
either considering what the results might be ...).
> I don't doubt that people can figure most things out, but
> why sweat our catalog, when Google and Amazon are so much easier?
Yup, the classic argument for us to stop what we're doing in trying to
compete in an area we suck at, and rather focus on what we're good at.
I agree with that, up until the point where we give that
responsibility to our library systems vendors. In fact, I'm not sure
libraries are *so* special we shouldn't look to non-library systems
for much of our stuff. Why is aqusitions (sp?) so important to all our
ILS? Because ILS normally are terrible at communicating and connecting
with other systems. (Which makes you wonder why that web-services
initiative across vendors have gone nowhere. Maybe they simply don't
*want* to?)
> > 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?
Yeah, I mean that stuff you can find on Google easily, or just go to
Wikipedia to find out. All of that stuff used to be in our world, too,
but now all of that "fluffy" stuff is readily and so simply available
with a few clicks of a mouse. And why should we even try to get into
that world? I reckon we need to stop thinking about the simple
knowledge, and focus all our energies into the hard knowledge (and
content providing), because I think that's where people wanting hard
knowledge would like to see us help them out (because, frankly, it's a
*hard* problem in which we have a few thousand years of experience
...).
Having said that, the big guys are turning their focus there as well,
be it Google Scholar or their various next latent semantic parsing
initiatives that could beat the socks of any reference librarian any
day. Heh. Latent semantic parsing, decading data models and fuzzy
searching, and *we're* still struggeling with relevance ranking of
fielded search which these guys solved 10 years ago.
> 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.
The question is; for how long will that be a focus of the library? How
long does it take to train the populace to use a computer, a mouse,
and WikiPedia? Is our purpose in life to be helpdesk for
technology-deprived people? If we retrain ourselves in such ways, what
happens when the next generation have taken over and they're all
better than *us* with technology? Ouch.
> 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!
I think being cutting edge is essential, but not so sure about the fun
part. :) I think I understand what you're saying, though, and I'm not
sure I've got any good answers to this. To me, it feels like the
library world doesn't know what it should or shouldn't do.
Can anyone with some library history tell me how libraries in general
in the distant past have treated people wanting knowledge at the
library, but couldn't read? Were they their helpdesk, and read the
stuff out loud, or trained them in reading, or regarded it as someone
else's problem?
> > [..] 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. :)
Some days I'm an upper to, so I do try to balance things out, but I
can tell you now that I was a heck of a lot more positive and
enthustiastic when I began at the library than I am now. the more I
learn about this world, the less I see it do what I dreamt of when I
started, and I fear it's these things that will make me leave this
world, too. There's too many bad ideas trumping a few good ideas in
our world to make me enthustiastic anymore. I'm sorry I'm not happier
or more positive about these things, and this is partly the reason I'm
not so active on this mailing-list anymore either. I'm just giving up
on the whole thing. I'm tired of fighting. :(
> 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).
It sounds like you're doing a worthwhile job. Do you feel this is what
libraries should be doing, though? I'm not trying to say it's somebody
else's problem here, though, just trying to get a feel for what a
library is these days.
> 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."
That's darn good stuff. That's what we need to focus on. Stop
obsessing with competing with Google, and focus more on all the stuff
Google *don't* do. First of all, I think we have a strong foothold as
content delivers which we should focus more on rather than content
finding.
> 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.
I think a lot of us feel that way; we can't do the hard stuff well, so
we do the little stuff well, even if that's not our primary task at
hand. Maybe I should work down on the reference desk more instead of
trying to solve all the hard problems ... :0) See you there!
regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Mon Apr 30 2007 - 18:48:08 EDT