Vast Active Library and Information Science blog. From a recent library science graduate in Wellington, New Zealand. A focus on reference and current awareness tools and issues, especially free, web-based resources.

 
Sarah Houghton, the Librarian in Black, has been blogging the presentations at Internet Librarian 05. Almost all of her many posts have been excellent, and are well worth reading, but I'll point to her write-up of Mary Ellen Bates on evaluating search engines. Mary Ellen lists a huge number of tests to run on the search engine, suggesting a range of search techniques and ways of evaluating the quality of the results you get. Sarah calls this "a great session" - it is, and the write-up is great as well.

(I had a post all prepared with links to lots of similar posts from Internet Librarian, but Blogger crashed on me, and there's no way I'm re-typing it. I was planning on linking to LibrarianInBlack, MamaMusings, Librarian.net, The Shifted Librarian and Library Stuff posts).

| posted by Simon at 8:18 pm

 
Phil Bradley has updated his chart comparing major search engines. Of greatest interest, Exalead comes out on top and Google only 4th, tied with MSN. It's worth noting that Phil compared features only, he didn't conduct a qualitative analysis using sample searches. I was interested to learn that Exalead allows truncation, proximity searching, and sorting by oldest/newest. These (especially the last one) are features that I'd find useful at the moment. I must remember to give Exalead a try next time I'm searching.

| posted by Simon at 9:41 pm

 
The Guardian asks a group of experts to critique Wikipedia entries in their area of knowlege. Results are mixed, with scores out of ten ranging from zero to eight. The 'pedia seems to do well when reporting facts, and less well when analysis is required. I did like this comment from the former editor of the Brittanica:

Reading the entry on "encyclopedia" leaves one with the impression that it was written by someone who had no previous knowledge of the subject and who, once he got into it, found it did not interest him very much. He browsed here and there in one or more reference works and noted what seemed important, but had no understanding of the cultural and historical contexts involved. In other words, it is a school essay, sketchy and poorly balanced.

I saw a reference to Wikibooks somewhere else, and decided to have another look at the site. I really shouldn't have bothered. The idea of open source textbooks is a good and worthy one. But so far the results are wildly unimpressive. I skimmed through a couple of "books" in areas I'm familiar with. The contents were equivalent to a short introduction in a university textbook, at best. That said, there are a few good examples - e.g. the UK Constitution and Government, which is clearly written and informative. But it reads like an extended Wikipedia entry, not a book as such.

The Register publishes reader responses to an article critical of Wikipedia, claiming that the tide is turning against it, with readers being more likely to agree with criticisms.

| posted by Simon at 9:24 pm

 
Peter Jacso goes in-depth on Google Print, and concludes by advising readers not to cancel their Web of Science or Scopus subscriptions just yet.

| posted by Simon at 9:17 pm

 
News of yet another Google product "leaks" into the world. Apparently, Google Base will be a database that users can upload their own information to. One possible use would be for classified advertising, and there's talk that it will be a challenge to Craigslist or eBay. Techdirt is less sure, suggesting that the real value of Google Base will be to allow people to create their own specialised applications, powered by Google's search tools. This idea isn't unique to Google, Ning has already developed a similar service - but Google is the 800 pound gorilla, and any service they provide will be seen by vastly more people than niche services like Ning.

Ars Technica thinks that the intention is to challenge Craigslist and eBay. On top of that, Google Base will allow tagging - AT thinks that this is will enable Google to build "a kind of universal tagging schema for information and items, which could then be used to classify information across the net" (via Slashdot)

Ars Technica posts the following quote from the front page (which may be down now):

Google Base is Google's database into which you can add all types of content. We'll host your content and make it searchable online for free.

Examples of items you can find in Google Base:

• Description of your party planning service
• Articles on current events from your website
• Listing of your used car for sale
• Database of protein structures

John Battelle covers this briefly, as well.

| posted by Simon at 7:20 pm

 
Mamamusings has a good write-up of Mary Ellen Bates' presentation at Internet Librarian, in which Ms Bates covers '30 search tips in 40 minutes'. Lots here on new(ish) search engines, personalised searching and search histories on Google or Ask Jeeves, using Furl, searching podcasts, blog searching, and more. I liked this:

Use blogs to search hidden web content. A site may not be spidered by a search engine, but someone may well find and blog it. Use BlogDigger, BlogLines, Blogdex.net, blogsearch.google.com to find things indirectly—you’re leveraging the blog experts’s ability to find obscure content. (No time to dig up URLs…)

I'm finding this technique very useful, as I alluded in my post on companies banning blogs.

Thanks to Liz Lawley for a most comprehensive write-up.

| posted by Simon at 8:35 pm

 
The award wording didn't also say "of all films made by Americans since about 1940", but it might as well have.

Three films by non-Americans (four if we count Lord of the Rings, but that was basically a Hollywood film, even if it was made here in Wellington). Three or four from before the 1960s (Kane, His Girl Friday, It's a Wonderful Life). Vertigo correctly placed high, but no Raging Bull at all. Who are these people? Total Film? Nonsense!

Story at the Register (Total Film don't seem to want to put the list online).

| posted by Simon at 8:09 pm

 
From Wired News comes this story about companies blocking employee access to blogs. I'm not talking about employees running their own blogs on company time, which is a definite no-no as far as I'm concerned. I'm talking about banning employees from reading blogs. The reasons given don't even make sense:
Right. Your employee is breaching privacy by reading a blog? The security issue I can understand, but frankly, if you emply someone dumb enough or malicious enough to give away company secrets in a blog comment, that person is going to give away your secrets some other way, whether down at the pub or in a phone conversation. Blocking the technology will not help you here.

The article raises another issue, that of lost productivity through reading blogs. This seems like a case of staff needing guidance, rather than blanket bans on blogs. I read blogs at work - most of them are related somehow to my profession, though not necessarily to my current work. I treat them as a downtime, a chance to relax and stop concentrating on work for a few minutes. Other people might go for a walk round the office, or a cigarette break, or read the paper or have a chat in the kitchen. I read blogs. This shouldn't be a problem for reasonable employers, as long as the employees are getting their work done.

Most importantly, though, is that blogs are becoming increasingly important as sources of information. I'm responsible for media monitoring at work, and in at least some instances I find things on weblogs that I've missed in the mainstream media - or that the mainstream media itself has missed. I can't afford to ignore blogs, so it seems to me that banning them is very short-sighted.

| posted by Simon at 7:56 pm

 
Eric Schmidt writes on the Official Google Blog on 'the point of Google Print'.

His argument is that Google Print (GP) will "make it easier for people to find books", and that the beneficaries will be publishers and authors, as well as readers. Schmidt provides a reasonable counter-argument to the claims that duplicating the entire contents of books can not be considered fair use - "if that were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages".

I'm gradually becoming convinced by this view. Initially, I had thought that GP couldn't possibly be fair use. But if it isn't, then neither is Google's indexing of the web. One could argue, however, that there is a difference between crawling a website and actively scanning a book and placing its contents online. The website is already online, and presumeably the author wants it to be discoverable online. The book is not online, and possibly the author/publisher does not want it to be discoverable online. The website owner can prevent search engines from indexing it by inserting one simple line of code; the publisher must write to Google and ask for the book to be excluded.

I guess it comes down to whether a judge considers there to be a fundamental distinction between the analogue print and the digital worlds.

Personally, I think publishers are being short-sighted by objecting to GP - but nonetheless, short-sightedness is their right.

John Battelle points out that there are other issues: "who is making the money? Second, who owns the rights to leverage this new innovation - the public, the publisher, or ... Google? Will Google make the books it scans available for all comers to crawl and index? Certainly the answer seems to be no.". The comments on John's post, including some from publishers, and others which address the website vs book issue I mentioned above, are fascinating.



| posted by Simon at 7:50 pm

 
Some good power user tips for RSS, from Micro Persuasion.

| posted by Simon at 7:26 pm

 
Ouch! I'm guilty of as many as nine or ten of these, in various ways. Usability guru Jakob Neilsen writes about the top ten mistakes made by weblog authors, from a usability perspective.

I'd gone off Neilsen a bit. I learnt a lot from his work a few years ago, but I don't feel like he's added much to it recently. This, though, was very helpful to me. If you blog, go read.

| posted by Simon at 8:18 pm

 
In today's Cabinet announcement a new Minister was named for the National Library and Archives New Zealand - Hon Judith Tizard, following the retirement from Cabinet of Marian Hobbs. This is an interesting time to hold those responsibilities. There are definitely some interesting issues for the Minister to deal with - the National Digital Strategy and recent legislative changes such as the Archives Act 2004 and the National Library of New Zealand Act 2003, and the policy decisions that will flow on from these changes.

Hon David Cunliffe has been promoted from Minister outside Cabinet to being a full Cabinet Minister. This may serve to enhance the profile of his Communications and Information Technology portfolios. His reappointment has already been welcomed by Internet NZ.

| posted by Simon at 7:48 pm

 
AnyQuestions is a chat-based help service for New Zealand school children, staffed by librarians and run by the National Library. They've just received sponsorship for the next year from Telecom and Sun Microsystems.

| posted by Simon at 7:28 pm

 
"Twenty-seven percent of adult Internet users access RSS feeds through personalized start pages, though they don't know that's what they're doing on personalized portal pages." Only 4% knowingly use RSS, and another 12% have heard of it. (Clickz.com).

Makes sense. Explaining to people what RSS stood for was never going be easy, especially when even proponents can't agree if its Really Simple Syndication or RDF Site Summary or Rich Site Feeds. Repackage RSS as 'web feeds' or 'news feeds', or better yet don't even tell people that they're using RSS, and maybe they'll be more likely to use it. Keep it simple, save the time of the (user)....

| posted by Simon at 9:57 pm

 
TeleRead provides (one) take on the library of the future. This library is all digital - using the e-book equivalent podcasts or webfeeds. You create a set of criteria, and are then emailed books that meet those criteria, at set intervals. You can read the book on your PC, or download to a PDA. A bookshelf programme on your PC keeps track of what you read, what you like, what books you don't finish, and more.

An interesting read. I have a feeling that we're a long way away from this, not so much because of the technology but because of copyright/DRM issues - will publishers and authors be happy for their books to be included in such a 'library'? Also, this seems to be not so much a library as a subscription bookstore. I would question whether libraries would be permitted by publishers to offer such a service.

That said, I think it would be freaking cool, and I'd be putting my money down to sign up, as soon as it was available ;-)

It does raise another issue, though, which is the future of readers' advisory services. It seems to me that these services are going to become less and less valuable as time goes on. They rely on a single expert (the librarian) giving their opinion of useful or interesting books. Which is fine. But we now have services like Amazon ("those who read this book also read....") and Literature Map, which aggregate the power of many readers to provide the same information. And I'm willing to bet that they are better (Wisdom of Crowds, not to mention that no one librarian can be an expert on all forms of writing. For example, typing David Foster Wallace into literature map tells me that Don DeLillo, Thomas Pynchon, and William Gaddis are similar to Wallace. I already know that the first two are similar to him, and I like their work. I haven't heard of Gaddis, but this inspires me to pick up one of his books. Now, a librarian might know that - but then again, they might not). It seems that automatic recommendations, based on the opinions of large numbers of readers, will increasingly be the way in which we discover new books.



| posted by Simon at 5:18 pm

 
Gary Price at Search Engine Watch reports Jim Lanzone of Ask Jeeves, talking about "the blogs that matter". Lazone defines a 'blog that matters' as any blog with at least one subscriber in Bloglines - there are 1.3 million of them. (Why this definition? If someone has bothered to subscribe, then the blog matters). 14, 363 blogs have 50+ subscribers - these "really really matter". 437 have over 1000 subscribers. I've currently got 48 - so if two of you could recommend me to a friend I'd "really really matter" - which would be totally sweet ;-)

| posted by Simon at 9:14 pm

 
Blake Carver is a convert to the digital future:

" Society in general, and younger people in particular, are moving away from the printed word, our bread and butter for a century or two now, and away from libraries, for a number of reasons. Why should they care about or use print? They can't put it on their iPod. They can't put it on their laptop. And they can't view it on a screen. They get most of the answers they need from Google. This is the essence of my argument. If most people are able to "get served" elsewhere, why do they need a book, a library, or a librarian?

It doesn't matter if you think digital isn't as stable as print. It doesn't matter if you think it's impossible to read for extended periods of time on electronic media. It doesn't matter if you think Google isn't meeting their needs. And it certainly doesn't matter if you think books are more convenient. Some of those things may be true today, but none of them will be true in 10 years."

David Rothman at TeleRead endorses Blake's comments, unsurprisingly: "librarians can thrive–if they can make the transition. In part that means more familiarity with the technology, and in part it means a changing of roles, with less emphasis on the routine aspects of librarianship and more emphasis on librarians as content-creators and -evaluators."

Walt Crawford has seen it all before.

| posted by Simon at 8:48 pm

 
I'm so late posting about Google's blog search that I've been overtaken by the launch of Yahoo's version. For some strange reason, Yahoo have put the blog search in a separate box on a sidebar on their news search screen - I missed it the first time I looked at the site.

On first impression, I'm not terribly impressed with Yahoo's offering. I tried it out with the names of a few prominent Kiwi bloggers - it turned up practically zilch. In one case, the only link was to a blog by another author on the same site as the person I was searching for. Google's is somewhat better - it returned blogs by the people I was searching for, and blog posts that mentioned them.

Even so, using Google over the last few days has been frustrating - I've been running a regular search for work, where I need to retrieve everything published on a given topic, and Google is missing posts that I know are out there. In spite of that, it's doing a pretty good job, as is Google News. I do find myself having to double-check media websites, though - Google News misssed an important article that was buried low-down on stuff.co.nz. And both services are still in Beta, so I shouldn't be overly critical - but Technorati is proving more useful at the moment.

What others are saying:

John Battelle;
Techdirt ("None of them are particularly comprehensive, and all of them have problems").

| posted by Simon at 8:33 pm