The Public Libraries Debate

The debate over what areas of the public sector should be cut has begun in earnest.  Unsurprisingly, libraries are at the top of the hitlist.  So much so that on Newsnight on Tuesday, somebody was forced to defend libraries from “swingeing cuts” in front of a panel of three politicians/advisers.  Unfortunately, it was not someone from the library profession or a CILIP representative (although they may not have been given the opportunity to appear), so it was left to Tim Coates to defend the service.

Although I have my disagreements with Tim, I was really rather hoping that he would ride to the rescue of a service under siege as a result of prospective cuts to public services.  Sadly, there was a lack of passion or a will to go on the offensive and pick up on some of the ludicrous comments that were made in advance of his introduction (ie “who needs libraries when everyone has broadband?” and “why borrow books when we have Amazon?” – two incredibly ignorant statements).  Yes he spoke eloquently and methodically, but debates like those on Newsnight call for something a little bit more passionate and forceful.  Maybe this was not the forum that Tim Coates was led to believe it would be, but a stronger individual was needed to force home the case.  But, to be fair, at least he stood up for the service.

There are a number of issues that I have with the debate as framed on Newsnight.  For example, the idea that everyone now has broadband so that eliminates the need for libraries is a joke.  Despite the belief of one of the advisers on the program who questioned the need for libraries, not everyone has broadband and a significant proportion of the population have no internet at all.  Consequently, public libraries provide a key role in both facilitating access to information via the internet, as well as providing free internet access to help bridge the digital divide (which politicians seem to believe only exists between industrialised nations and developing ones, not within a Western nation).  Take away this important role and suddenly you have a lot of disenfranchised people with no internet access and no way of accessing the information available without recourse to a commercial provider….which costs money.  Given that those most disenfranchised would be the lowest paid in society, how can anyone morally argue that there is no longer a need for libraries to provide free internet?  Such a move would only exacerbate the disparity between the information rich and the information poor.

Furthermore, there seems to be a growing, mis-placed belief that once everyone has broadband the problem will be solved and information will be freely available to everyone.  But this is simply not the case.  Providing broadband is one part of the problem, the other is ensuring that people have the skills to use the internet properly.  As far as I can see at present, even those that do have an internet connection and consider themselves to be reasonably IT literate, still don’t know how to search the internet properly.  Many people just plump for the top result in Google rather than bothering to ensure that their search terms are appropriate and that the resource is reliable.   This includes respected journalists who seemingly fail to grasp the intricacies of search engines.  Take, for example, this piece by Evelyn Gordon:

Neither Amnesty nor HRW has issued a single press release or report on Congo so far this year, according to their web sites. Yet HRW found time to issue two statements criticizing Israel and 12 criticizing the U.S.; Amnesty issued 11 on Israel and 15 on the U.S. To its credit, HRW did cover Congo fairly extensively in 2009. But Amnesty’s imbalance was egregious: For all of 2009, its web site lists exactly one statement on Congo — even as the group found time and energy to issue 62 statements critical of Israel.

I don’t want to get into the politics of this piece, but it is one that sticks in my mind as a member of Amnesty International.  What appears to have happened here (and lets trust that the journalist isn’t being deliberately misleading) is that the journalist in question used the search term congo amnesty international and clicked on the link Congo | Amnesty International which does indeed produce one result for 2009.  However, this refers to the Republic of Congo not the Democratic Republic of Congo which is what the article itself was referring to.  A simple error in using Google has led to inaccurate information being imparted via a supposedly experienced journalist (which was then repeated by another journalist, Melanie Phillips).  If a trained journalist makes such basic errors using a renowned search engine, how can we expect the general public to do so without some training or the support of trained professionals such as librarians?  Incidentally, if you are interested, there were actually over twenty statements by Amnesty International on the DRC.  See, being trained in these things is quite useful!

Then there is the question of how libraries demonstrate their value.  Despite common beliefs, it is not simply a case of relying on verifiable statistics to determine whether a library service is performing or nor.  There are many intangibles in play when looking at how the library service meets the needs of its users.  One certainly cannot rely on issuing figures to determine whether a library is performing or not.  There are a great many functions within a library that cannot be reflected by issues: making use of public computers, accessing local studies reference materials, making informational enquiries at the library’s enquiry desk etc etc.  These interactions between the public and the library service are simply not reflected in an analysis of book issues.

Not only are book issues a poor way of assessing the delivery of the library service, footfall is also a poor measure.  While some people look at declining visits to the library service as proof that the service is no longer in as much demand as before, they overlook a number of crucial factors in why this decline has been happening.  In the past, members of the public would not only visit the library to take books out, they would also visit to renew items, make use of reference materials and to make reservations.  Now, however, these services are also provided remotely via the library website.  No longer do you need to visit the library to reserve an item or renew your books, you can do all this from the library website.  Needless to say, this obviously has a big impact on footfall.  Someone making a reservation before would have made two visits: one to place the order and one to collect.  Now they need only make one visit.  That’s a 50% decline in visits (I probably didn’t need to spell that out!).  And book renewals….before a customer would visit once to take the items out and maybe as many as four further visits to renew.  That’s a potential 80% decline in visits (this is where my maths starts to get a bit questionable so I’ll leave it at that!).

Sure, there is a possibility that there is a decline in visits due to these factors…but if this was really the case, would there not be a massive increase in accessing the library service remotely?  Well, yes.  Looking at the latest figures for accessing library websites shows that many have demonstrated a 100% increase on access compared to the previous year.  So, I would argue, that there is not a decline is usage of the library service, there is simply a change in the way the service is used.  But it does not then follow that we need to abandon libraries as they are now, and shift everything online.  This would be a disaster for the service and for society.  We need to continue to provide a highly skilled service that is able to meet the needs of the general public.  We need to continue to innovate to take advantage of the way in which people are interacting with the service in a different way.  We need to ensure that we can continue to bridge the gap between those that have access to the Internet and those that do not.  If we do not, we run the risk of becoming a society that is ill-informed and ill-equipped to prosper in the so-called “information age”.  Libraries are the barrier to this becoming reality and they need reinforcing, not dismantling.

Facebook – More Privacy Concerns

There’s been a lot of talk recently about Facebook and privacy concerns.  The biggest concern has been the way in which privacy is managed from your Facebook account.  In short, the privacy functionality is far too arduous.  At present, there are 50 separate privacy settings and 170 options – far too many for anyone to keep track of let alone effectively manage.  So concerned are people by the complex nature of privacy management, there are many people who are considering switching off their accounts altogether (although it should be noted that this doesn’t mean your data gets wiped from Facebook…..they keep it forever).  Now some people are happy to give up a great deal of personal information to a faceless corporation (I wonder if these same people oppose ID cards??), but for many it is concerning.  If you are concerned about this, the BBC has makes a number of recommendations on its website.

Openbook - Searches Facebook Status Updates

If, until now, you were not overly concerned about your privacy you may be about to change your mind.  The Guardian this morning had an interesting piece about a new tool that is simultaneously scary and interesting.  Openbook is a website that could led make even the most open person pause for thought in their willingness to share information about themselves (note the quote from Zuckerberg in the top right corner).  Using a simple search engine (see image), it enables people to search through non-protected status updates for specific terms.  You don’t even have to have a Facebook account to use it.   Not only does the search result in matching status updates being listed, it also displays the appropriate profile picture so that everyone knows exactly who posted the update.  Scared yet?  The Guardian published a couple of examples of updates it found when searching the site:

“dam right i cheated i coulnt get it from u wen i needed it”

“I’m sorry, I lied before when I said I used to make lots of bets. My therapist tells me I should try lying a lot to help get through my… gambling problem”.

“im not gonna bother anymore…theres no point hiding the truth…..iv lost too much and all because i lied to the one i love…im such a fukin dick head, i fucked up the best girl i’ve ever had”.

None of which you’d really want anyone else to see, I’m sure.

Now, I ought to point out at this stage that only displays updates that are not secured by the user.  All updates that are subject to strict privacy controls will not appear in any search conducted on Openbook.  If you haven’t locked your account though, you may want to rethink your willingness to slag off your employer/colleagues/wife/girlfriend…it could lead to all sorts of trouble.

Having said all that, such a tool does provide some benefits, especially to those working in public libraries.  For some time now, I have been using Twitter‘s advanced search tool to seek out feedback from customers about their experiences of the library service.  It’s an excellent way of capturing feedback and communicating with customers.  Quite often, members of the public don’t expect random library employees to read Twitter feeds, so you can often get quite honest feedback (sometimes brutally so) about your service – a crucial tool for improving and developing the service.  Now, with Facebook open to similar types of searches, there is yet another avenue for librarians to explore in order to see how users view the service (more on this at Musings about librarianship).

This is not to say that I am not concerned by the latest developments on Facebook, I find it deeply worrying.  It’s one thing to make this sort of information open, it’s another to do it without the understanding of the user.  There is a very clear difference between Facebook and Twitter in the minds of most people.  Rightly or wrongly, most people assume the former is a closed loop where only friends can view the information you share.  Twitter, on the other hand, is an open system and there is a certain expectation that everyone will have access to whatever you write.  With this in mind, you tend to be more considered in what you share on Twitter.  On Facebook, however, the tendency is to write whatever pops into your head because (supposedly) only your friends will see it.  The problem is that Facebook has seen the growth of Twitter and wants a piece of the action.  That means increasingly opening up content (your personal information) to the wider Internet community so you can ‘share’ (there’s an innocuous little term) with everyone.  You may be happy with that, you may not, but it’s something that people are going to have to get used to as long as they are on Facebook.  After all, whatever you post on there (pictures of your children, comments about your job, criticisms of your boss) doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to Facebook.  There’s a scary thought, eh?

Google Introduces Customised Searching

Another day, another Google innovation.  Those people at Google have now introduced a tool that allows users to customise their search results.  At the moment only those with a Google account can actually take advantage of the new search engine, but it is an interesting step in the evolution of Google.  This new tool enables users to move search results up and down the rankings to suit their own needs.  Once results have been moved, when the user next conducts a search using the same terms, the results will be ranked as previously stipulated.  It will also enable logged in users to write comments next to web links which would then be displayed to other users.

The potential for this tool is huge.  Search results have the potential to be far more relevant to the user than they are at the moment.  By ensuring that search results are customisable, it also ensures that users can relevance rank according to their own individual needs, rather than simply accept the processes of Google’s search engine.  Greg Sterling of SearchEngineLand.com, hints at the possibilities:

“Lots of people have tried so-called ‘social search’, combining algorithmic search with human editorial input, because the perception is that humans have the ability to craft a better result in any given situation because they can make distinctions machines can’t.

“So this could be quite dramatic if they get a lot of people participating because it could improve the algorithms of the process and serve up better search results.”

It will be interesting to see how Google’s latest venture catches on over the coming months.  Could this be the future of internet searches¹?

¹ Have you used the new customisable search engine by Google?  If so, what are your thoughts?

Catalogue Solutions

So, as you may be aware, I have been spending some time working on a solution to our un-catalogued items.  Well, I have had to pass on my work to someone a bit higher up the ladder (guess I should have done that before I had done so much work on it!!), who is going to have a look at what I have been doing and see if it is either useful or an avenue worth exploring.  Hopefully I will get the all clear to continue as I think it could be a really useful resource.  If not, well, it’s back to the drawing board I guess!!

Google Chrome

I have been trying to get into the habit of using Google Chrome over the past few weeks to see how it stands up to Internet Explorer and FireFox.  Although it seemed a bit odd at first (the toolbar is much smaller than Internet Explorer (which I am using at the moment funnily enough), it does have some useful features that I quite like.  Firstly, I quite like the way it presents your most visited websites.  When logging onto Chrome for the first time you are presented with a screen similar to this one:

The visual representations make it easy to see your favourite sites at a glance and by simply clicking on one of the pictures, you are taken straight to the site you want to visit.  It’s quite a nice touch and makes it easy to access your favourite sites from the moment you launch your browser software.

One other feature I quite like about Chrome is the ease of searching the website that you are on.  Just by clicking on a menu option you are provided with a little box in which to input your search terms.  As you type in your term, the page highlights whatever you have typed so far on the page.  So, when you type in ‘library’ all the items on the page are highlighted (see below).

 

I find this website search tool much more efficient than other methods I have used before to find certain search terms on a website.  As it looks for the terms in real-time, you can see the terms on the page quickly and efficiently – very useful when you are hunting through a particularly long page.

So, in short, so far so good.  There are some little oddities (like the small toolbar and the lack of a ‘home’ link in the browser window) but overall I find Google Chrome to be quite a useful browser.  Having said that, I am still typing this whilst using IE!  It  might just be a hard habit to break, but when I do it will certainly be worth it!

Cataloguing on a Wiki

As I noted on a previous post, I have been working on solving a few practical problems at work.  As part of my drive to catalogue materials that are not on our library management system, I have been adding our collection of maps onto a wiki I have set-up at Zoho.  Up until now, the maps have been catalogued on a spreadsheet several pages long.  This meant that searching for a specific map was laborious to say the least.  To make the search process easier I split the maps up in to different areas and gave each area its own wiki page.  This meant that when a search was conducted, it would at least narrow it down to a general area.  However, the process hasn’t been without its blips.

The main problem has been with the hit-and-miss nature of the search engine.  When entering one particular search term, the engine threw up no results, even though I knew the term was in the database.  Thankfully, the guys at Zoho have been very helpful.  After encountering the problem, I decided to get in touch with a member of the team.  Impressively, they got back to me the very next day and said they would look into it.  It turned out there was a fault with the software and they assured me that they would rectify it.  They also asked of there were any features that would make the service easier to use.  I suggested that it would be useful if when a search is conducted, instead of just directing you to the page, the search terms could be highlighted on the wiki page.  Again I got an email the very next day, and they said they would look into it.  Impressive service!

I am really hopeful that this will make it easier for members of staff to use and I am hoping to build it into a one-stop shop for help with reference queries.  It will provide a wealth of information specific to our library that is easily searchable.  For example, a page would be created with copyright information on maps so that (as inevitably happens) when members of staff struggle to remember the technicalities of copyright laws, they can find the information via a simple search engine on the database.  It will take a lot of time to get to this stage, but I am confident that using a wiki in this way will make it much easier for staff to provide a quality service and, after all, that is what we should be aiming for.