Anonymous monkey kisses / innovative use by libraries
Wired's Monkey Bites blog posted a list of Web 2.0 Champions and Stinkers: The People's Choice. Wired News readers voted on the sites they couldn't live without, and those that should die. (YouTube and del.ic.ious made both lists.)
We didn't know about the vote, and didn't ask people to help us. But we ended up among the winners anyway, alongside titans like Flikr, GMail, Digg and Writerly. In fact, except for Dimewise—which appears to have almost no traffic—we have the lowest traffic of the list, so presumably the fewest users. That we MADE the list is testimony to Thingamabrarian passion.
So, whoever voted for us, thanks!
Meanwhile, library blogs have been talking about how the Shenandoa Public Library is using LibraryThing and Feedroll to display recent acquisitions on their website. (Why not just use a blog widget?) It's an easy, innovative way to use LT. But it's sad that these hyper-expensive ILS/OPAC systems can't handle stuff like this. Hold me back before I rant about the library that wanted to use LibraryThing but couldn't get access to their ISBNs—their own ISBNs on their own records on their own books—without buying an "XML server."
We didn't know about the vote, and didn't ask people to help us. But we ended up among the winners anyway, alongside titans like Flikr, GMail, Digg and Writerly. In fact, except for Dimewise—which appears to have almost no traffic—we have the lowest traffic of the list, so presumably the fewest users. That we MADE the list is testimony to Thingamabrarian passion.
So, whoever voted for us, thanks!
Meanwhile, library blogs have been talking about how the Shenandoa Public Library is using LibraryThing and Feedroll to display recent acquisitions on their website. (Why not just use a blog widget?) It's an easy, innovative way to use LT. But it's sad that these hyper-expensive ILS/OPAC systems can't handle stuff like this. Hold me back before I rant about the library that wanted to use LibraryThing but couldn't get access to their ISBNs—their own ISBNs on their own records on their own books—without buying an "XML server."
posted by Abby at 11:30 PM
10 Comments:
Well, I'm in something of a bubble. They're pretty big to people like me. And their traffic is higher by far. That doesn't mean they're well known, however.
"All your ISBN are belong to us"
Digg is horrifically addictive, the best thing is it's always changing - not like a lot of these tech sites which update once a day or so :-(
If the stories on it get too boring, you can always find (or start) a flame war in the comments somewhere and watch the comments get buried or dugg lol.
Digg feels like one giant superstore to me: they have everything, but good luck finding it.
I'm fairly dependent on Del.icio.us, but only as another place to store bookmarks.
Actually, I was looking for some kind of free online word processor, so thanks for the link to Writely.
Abby wrote: Hold me back before I rant about the library that wanted to use LibraryThing but couldn't get access to their ISBNs—their own ISBNs on their own records on their own books—without buying an "XML server".
One of the things that I've learned over the past year in my self-continuing education in librarianship is that a lot of that data (ISBNs, ISSNs, MARC records)that feed into the automated services sold to libraries are in some form or another available freely on the Web. [See for example this title list from Thomson Gale.] They come in different formats (plain text, CSV, Excel, PDF, HTML, XML) and just the process of gathering and formatting them into one standard format could be quite a job for a library, especially one with millions of holdings. So I understand why libraries have largely allowed vendors to gather this data and package it for them as a service. What I don't understand is this attitude I sometimes get from librarians who regard this level of data as outside of librarianship. I have a presentation showing how data-centric a lot of library services are and one audience I presented it to opposed the idea to "user-centered" services as if that is the right opposition. Why must our discussion in librarianship degrade to such empty idealisms?
FYI, your link to dimewise is not correct and 404s to an LT page.
Anonymous said...and I agree!
FYI, your link to dimewise is not correct and 404s to an LT page.
7:25 PM & 1:46 AM
Hello, Tim?
ZZZzzz...
Yup, they've just forgotten the "http://" from in front of the link, so browsers believe the link is an internal LT link.
Speaking of awards . . .
Somebody needs to nominate Tim for this one: James Patterson PageTurner Awards
I think Tim would fall under either of these categories:
--Anybody who's publicly highlighted the entertainment value of books
--A . . . website operator, or other person that has singled out books in an exciting, unusual way.
The nomination form requires more info than most of us members would have, but Tim could nominate himself! Or perhaps his staff could, and share in the glory.
$500,000? My GOD that's a lot of money.
Post a Comment
<< Home