Archive for March, 2008

Academic library blogs: Doing the quintiles 1, Posting frequency

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 17th, 2008

No long-winded introduction this time. Here’s the comparable post for public library blogs. I used the same sample period and rules for Academic Library Blogs: 231 Examples: March-May 2007, blogs had to have started before 2007, blogs had to have at least one post in two of the three months.

In all, the 232 blogs included 6,229 posts, for an average (mean) of 27 posts per blog–about two per week. The median is 14 posts, just over one per week.

The quintiles:

  • Q1: Most frequent posts: 34 to 762 posts.
    Average (mean): 83.4 posts.
    Median: 52.5 posts.
    This quintile includes 61.6% of all posts.
  • Q2: More frequent posts: 17 to 34 posts.
    Average: 24 posts.
    Median: 23 posts.
    This quintile includes 17.8% of all posts.
  • Q3: Average posting frequency: 11 to 17 posts. (The “extra” blog is here.)
    Average: 14.5 posts.
    Median: 14 posts.
    This quintile includes 11% of all posts
  • Q4: Fewer posts: 7 to 11 posts.
    Average: 8.9 posts.
    Median: 9 posts.
    This quintile includes 6.6% of all posts.
  • Q5: Fewest posts: 2 to 7 posts.
    Average: 4.2 posts.
    Median: 4 posts.
    This quintile includes 3.1% of all posts.

What percentage of blogs do I need to include for 80% of all posts (the Pareto number)? Quite a few–95 in all, or nearly 41%. That’s not surprising: After four blogs with 762, 468, 240 and 114 posts respectively, none of the blogs averages one post a day, and the number of posts declines fairly slowly.

Public library blogs: Illustrations per post - the final quintile

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 16th, 2008

Here we are at the end of the metrics for public library blogs (I’m not going to discuss “visibility” or how long blogs have been around): Illustrations per post.

Overall, the average blog in Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples had 0.72 illustrations per post; the median was 0.50 illustrations per post. The quintiles:

  • Q1: Most illustrations per post: 1.0 to 12.8 illustrations per post.
    Average (mean): 2.19 illustrations per post.
    Median: 1.44 illustrations per post.
  • Q2: More illustrations per post: 0.67 to 1.0 illustrations per post.
    Average: 0.87 illustrations per post.
    Median: 0.90 illustrations per post.
  • Q3: Average number of illustrations per post: 0.25 to 0.67
    Average: 0.47 illustrations per post
    Median: 0.50 illustrations per post.
  • Q4: Fewer illustrations per post: Zero to 0.25.
    Average: 0.09 illustrations per post.
    Median: 0.08 illustrations per post
  • Q5: Fewest illustrations per post: No illustrations.

And that’s it. You can identify any blog in the book as to its proper quintile. If your library has a blog and isn’t in the book, you can play along.

Which libraries fit where? Well, for that you’ll have to buy the book–and, since I said I wasn’t pushing it by doing these posts, I suppose I should be gratified that there haven’t been any new sales of either library blog book. Or not.

Soon: The quintiles for the academic library blogs. Same metrics, different results.

Public library blogs: Number of illustrations

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 16th, 2008

Here’s one of two related metrics where I don’t believe it’s possible to draw any conclusions of any sort–the number of illustrations per blog. After all, many excellent blogs have no illustrations at all.

For the three-month period studied in Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples,  I counted a total of 4,691 illustrations in all. Here are the quintiles:

  • Q1: Most illustrations: From 24 to 814 illustrations.
    Average (mean): 73.4 illustrations
    Median: 42 illustrations
    Total: 3,670 illustrations, 78% of the total.
  • Q2: More illustrations: From nine to 22 illustrations.
    Average: 14.5 illustrations
    Median: 14 illustrations
    Total: 727 illustrations, 15.5% of the total.
  • Q3: Average number of illustrations: From two to eight illustrations.
    Average: 4.7 illustrations.
    Median: 5 illustrations.
    Total: 246 illustrations, 5.2% of the total.
  • Q4: Fewer illustrations: From zero to two illustrations.
    Average and Median: One illustration.
    Total: 48 illustrations, 1% of the total.

This one’s as close as you’re likely to get to a Pareto limit: 21.4% of the blogs had 80% of the illustrations.

Public library blogs: Comments per post

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 15th, 2008

When surveying liblogs, I called this metric “conversational intensity”–but I’ll use neutral terminology here.

Across all blogs, the average number of comments per post is 0.3–that is, an average of three comments for every ten posts. Since the median number of comments per blog is zero, the median number of comments per post can’t be anything other than zero.

Here are the quintiles–noting that the blogs with the most comments aren’t necessarily the blogs with the most comments per post. (Indeed, the blog with the most comments is tied for 13th in number of comments per post; the single blog with more than ten comments per post only had two posts during the study period, so it’s a slightly artificial number. It and the second-highest blog in terms of comments per post are both teen or game blogs: This should not surprise anyone.)

  • Q1: Most comments per post: 0.33 to 13.5 comments per post
    Average (mean): 1.3 comments per post
    Median: 0.67 comments per post.
  • Q2: More comments per post: 0.11 to 0.29 comments per post
    Average: 0.188 comments per post
    Median: 0.184 comments per post
  • Q3: Average number of comments per post: 0 to 0.10 comments per post
    Average: 0.02 comments per post
    Median: Zero comments per post
  • Q4 and Q5: No comments.

And here are the “subquintiles”–excluding all the blogs with no comments at all.

  • Q1: Most comments per post: 0.67 to 13.5 comments per post.
    Average (mean): 2.2 comments per post.
    Median: 1.14 comments per post.
  • Q2: More comments per post: 0.33 to 0.67 comments per post.
    Average: 0.49 comments per post
    Median: 0.50 comments per post.
  • Q3: Average number of comments per post: 0.20 to 0.33 comments per post.
    Average: 0.253 comments per post
    Median: 0.250 comments per post
  • Q4: Fewer comments per post: 0.111 to 0.196 comments per post
    Average: 0.149 comments per post
    Median: 0.154 comments per post
  • Q5: Fewest comments per post: 0.016 to 0.111 comments per post
    Average: 0.067 comments per post
    Median: 0.08 comments per post.

Public library blogs: Comments on posts

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 14th, 2008

OK, let’s get to the one that I was postponing for a bit, in this series of detailed notes on aspects of the 252 public library blogs covered in Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples.

To wit, how many comments appeared on posts within the 92-day study period.

That metric certainly isn’t the only measure of a blog’s success. It may not even be a particularly important one. (See this post for a thoughtful discussion of blog metrics and other assessment issues.) But one of the big selling points for library blogs does seem to be a “build it and they will come” assertion–that blogs will get the community actively involved in providing feedback.

In all, there were 1,768 comments on all of the blogs combined (after I excluded a couple of cases with dozens of comments, all of them obviously and regrettably spam). That’s an average of seven per blog–and, as I noted in the book, that’s a wildly misleading average, since nearly a quarter of those comments appeared on a single blog. Two other blogs had more than a comment a day (average); those three blogs represent 37% of the total comments for all blogs. (Four more blogs averaged more than a comment every other day, and five more averaged more than one every three days.)

The median? Zero comments. Only 118 of the 252 blogs had any comments at all, so the median is necessarily zero.

Now, to be sure, some blogs simply don’t allow comments. If a blog consists of nothing but authors and titles for new books, there’s little reason to allow comments. If a blog is the library’s home page (and some pretty impressive blogs are just that), it’s not clear that comments would work very well. In a lot of cases, it was hard to tell why comments weren’t allowed.

Here are the quintiles:

  • Q1: Most comments: From five to 392 comments.
    Average (mean): 32.1 comments
    Median: 14 comments.
  • Q2: More comments: From one to five comments.
    Average: 2.9 comments.
    Median: 3 comments
  • Q3: Average number of comments: From zero to one comment.
    Average: 0.3 comments per blog
    Median: Zero comments.
  • Q4 and Q5: Zero comments.

Just for fun, I did a set of subquintiles–including only the blogs that had at least one comment. If all of those with no comments simply didn’t allow them, that might be a good metric–but, as far as I remember, fewer than half of those lacking comments had comments disabled.

  • Q1: Most comments: From 15 to 392 comments.
    Average (mean): 56.7 comments
    Median: 30.5 comments.
  • Q2: More comments: From six to 14 comments
    Average: 9.8 comments
    Median: 9.5 comments
  • Q3: Average number of comments: From three to six comments
    Average: 4.2 comments
    Median: 4 comments
  • Q4: Fewer comments: From one to three comments
    Average: 2.1 comments
    Median: 2 comments
  • Q5: Fewest comments: One comment per blog, thus the average and median are both 1.

Not surprisingly, this metric fits well within the Pareto principle, only more so: 80% of the comments were in 11% of the blogs.

Incidentally: You could argue that these counts aren’t quite fair–they don’t measure the comments received during the quarter or all comments ever received on that quarter’s worth of posts. They measure all comments received on that quarter’s worth of posts when I did the analysis, which was mostly in July 2007. On the other hand, most legitimate comments on most real-world blogs appear within the first few days after the post, or at least within the first month or so. (I now automatically turn off comments after six months, because most “late” comments are actually spam.)

Public library blogs: Average post length

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 13th, 2008

Conventional wisdom used to say that good blog posts were brief blog posts. That was particularly true for “weblogs”–that is, those blogs that are primarily logs of websites visited, links with little or no commentary. (”Linkblogs” would be a better term these days.) (Modified 3/14/08 to clarify that the term “weblog” doesn’t, in fact, carry the narrower suggested definition, even if some early webloggers think it should.)

Conventional wisdom has gone by the wayside, to a great extent. A good blog has posts that are long enough to say what needs to be said, preferably while being short enough so that readers stay interested. How long is long enough? That depends.

In Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples, I said that typical paragraphs run 75 to 150 words, frequently fewer than 75. I think that’s true for most print paragraphs. Online paragraphs tend to be shorter, for whatever reasons. (The original first paragraph in this post is 44 words long.) The “average average” post length for all blogs was 187.3 words, roughly two typical print paragraphs. The “median average” was 153.8 words–roughly one long print paragraph.

What do I mean by “average average” and “median average”? The average (mean) and median are taken on the set of average post lengths, which only makes sense. The average length of all posts, across the whole set of blogs, is 173.7 words per post–but that’s about as useless a figure as I can think of.

Here are the quintiles:

  • Q1: Longest posts (”essays”). From 251.9 words to 864.7 words per post.
    Average: 378.1 words per post.
    Median: 321.1 words per post.
    Four blogs really do qualify as sets of essays, with the average post being the length of a typical newspaper column (around 800 words).
  • Q2: Longer posts. From 180.1 to 251.1 words per post.
    Average: 217.7 words per post.
    Median: 218.6 words per post.
  • Q3: Average-length posts. From 137.1 to 179.0 words per post (52 blogs).
    Average: 155.3 words per post.
    Median: 153.8 words per post.
  • Q2: Shorter posts. From 95.0 to 137.0 words per post.
    Average: 115.5 words per post.
    Median: 115.6 words per post.
  • Q1: Shortest (terse) posts. From 11.4 to 94.2 words per post.
    Average: 71.0 words per post.
    Median: 74.7 words per post.

Since this isn’t a cumulative metric, the Pareto limit isn’t meaningful.

Next up: The most difficult metric given the supposed role of blogs for improving community involvement.

Public library blogs: Total words

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 12th, 2008

In an act of creative procrastination (I should be working on something else…), I’ll toss in a second installment today: Total words in all posts for the March 1, 2007-May 31, 2007 study period. (Yes, I know, that’s not the order of the metrics in Chapter 3. But it’s the order of the columns in the spreadsheets…)

As noted in the book, the complete set of posts totaled 1,038,237 words–roughly ten full-length novels. The average blog had 4,120 words; the median was 1,920, less than half that number.

Consider the quintiles:

  • Q1: Longest blogs: From 5,196 to 53,520 words.
    Average (mean): 13,453 words
    Median: 9,089 words.
    Total: 672,632 words–64.79% of the whole set.
  • Q2: Longer blogs: From 2,66 to 5,184 words.
    Average: 3,672 words.
    Median: 3,485 words.
    Total: 183,603 words–17.68% of the whole set.
  • Q3: Average length: From 1,454 to 2,663 words.
    Average: 2,013 words.
    Median: 1,968 words.
    Total: 104,651 words (52 blogs), 10.08% of the whole set.
  • Q4: Shorter blogs: From 731 to 1,444 words.
    Average: 1,104 words.
    Median: 1,066 words.
    Total: 55,198 words, 5.32% of the whole set.
  • Q5: Shortest blogs: From 89 to 710 words.
    Average: 443 words.
    Median: 469 words.
    Total: 22,153 words, 2.13% of the whole set.

The longest 91 blogs (36% of the total) contain 80% of all the words in all the blogs. Note that word counts do include most internal overhead (”Permalink” and such) but don’t include sidebars.

If you’re tempted to say “Well, the blogs with the most posts are the longest blogs,” that’s only partly true. While the blog with by far the most posts (almost twice as many as the second place) was also the longest blog, the blog with the second-most posts wasn’t anywhere near second-longest: It’s #63 in total length. And the second-longest blog, with almost 95% of the word count of the longest, had the fourth most posts–less than 40% as many as the blog with the most.

Next time, we’ll look at average post length–maybe because I’d rather postpone the “number of comments” discussion a little longer.


Ah. Mission accomplished. It’s too late to get a really good start on what I should be doing, so I’ll put it off until tomorrow. (Fortunately, I’m ahead of schedule. I’m almost always ahead of schedule, as a basic survival technique.)

Public library blogs: Posting frequency

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 12th, 2008

Doing the quintiles, part 1: Posting frequency

As noted in Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples, the 252 blogs studied had a total of 5,976 posts during the study period (March 1, 2007 through May 31, 2007: 92 days). That’s an average (mean) of 23.7 posts per blog, or about one every 3.9 days–which I called “a bit less than two posts per week.” The median was considerably lower: 12 posts, or a little less than one per week.

Here are the quintile figures. I needed to account for the two extra blogs (5 into 252 leaves a remainder of 2), and as it happens there were 52 blogs with fewer than 16 and more than 9 posts, so I included the extras in the middle quintile.

  • Q1: Most posts: From 33 posts (one every 2.8 days) to 400 (4.3 per day).
    Average: 73.9 (four posts every five days)
    Median: 58 (one post every 1.6 days).
    This quintile accounts for 61.8% of all posts.
  • Q2: More posts: From 16 posts (roughly one every six days) to 32 (one every 2.9 days).
    Average: 22.5 (roughly one post every four days)
    Median: 22 (same)
    This quintile accounts for 18.84% of all posts.
  • Q3: Average frequency: From ten posts (one every nine days) to 15 (one every six days)
    Average: 12.2 (just under one per week)
    Median: 12 (same)
    This quintile accounts for 10.61% of all posts.
  • Q4: Fewer posts: From five posts (one every 18 days) to nine (one every ten days).
    Average: 7.06 (one every thirteen days).
    Median: 7 (same).
    This quintile accounts for 5.91% of all posts.
  • Q5: Fewest posts: From two posts (one every 46 days) to five (one every 18 days)–noting that 15 blogs had five posts each, making it impossible to break quintiles at a number break.
    Average: 3.38 posts (just over one per month)
    Median: 3 (one per month).
    This quintile accounts for 2.83% of all posts.
    It’s worth noting that Q5 hits the lower limit of the study: Blogs with one post were excluded.

In an extreme case, if you took a sample of 50 public library blogs and happened to get all blogs from Q1, and then took another sample and happened to get all blogs from Q5, you’d have a truly ridiculous situation: One group would show more than twenty times as many posts as the other group!

With a distribution like this, it’s interesting to see how closely it approaches the Pareto assumption. The answer: Not very. To get 80% of the posts, you need to include 38% of the blogs.

Blogging libraries: Doing the quintiles

Posted in C&I Books, Libraries, Writing and blogging on March 11th, 2008

This isn’t going to be another lament about lack of sales and attention for Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples and Academic Library Blogs: 231 Examples. I did finally encounter a one-paragraph review of the first book which suggests that I failed completely as a writer and marketer–that, at least in that reader’s eyes, there’s simply no value-add in the book. (Also, although neither book is setting the world on fire, sales haven’t stopped completely. Close, but not quite…)

In my snarkier moods, I have a reason why the blogging gurus haven’t mentioned either book. The books represent the only large-scale objective surveys of library blogs, as far as I know–and maybe objectivity isn’t desirable in this case. Maybe there’s a clear desire not to know how library blogs are doing in the real world, other than a few cherry-picked examples. I’d like to think that’s not the case. It would be unprofessional to tell people about how wonderful library blogs are, and encourage them to create such blogs, without giving them honest and broad-ranging information on what’s actually happening with such blogs.

In fact, I biased the studies in both cases to make them more favorable to library blogging. Namely, I completely omitted blogs that were defunct or essentially moribund, along with blogs less than three months old. I did summarize the situation early in each book, but only very briefly.

  • Of 325 public library blogs that were in English and had been around since 12/07 or earlier, 116 (roughly 36%) were omitted but could have been included as “failed examples”: 68 reachable but defunct, 19 unreachable, 29 moribund (with no posts in two of the three months tested). (If you get 209 rather than 252, that’s right: The other 43 were additional blogs from libraries with blogs in the study.)
  • I didn’t provide as much information on academic library blogs, but there were 54 reachable and defunct, 22 moribund, and another 40 “problematic” (many of them unreachable). I’d guess the “failed examples” total about one-third of what might have been included.

I mentioned those numbers but only in passing, focusing on blogs with some evidence of success.

Perhaps I should have spent more time on metrics and less on offering useful examples, so that the books are more clearly surveys with analysis, not just a bunch of stuff pulled from blogs.

What I’d love to do, along survey and analysis lines, is a longitudinal survey: Look at the same blogs one or two years later, adding readily-available information on newly-formed blogs. In such a case, I’d probably skip the sample posts altogether and focus entirely on metrics. On the other hand, I wonder whether that would garner enough support to make it worth even $1/hour for the time it would require…and, let’s face it, I don’t have institutional support for any of this.


Anyway, I’m not trying to convince you or your library to buy either book, either as a $20 PDF or $29.50 paperback. That’s a lot of money if the books don’t add value. What I am going to do is some additional commentary on the metrics–commentary that perhaps should have been in the books.Namely, I’m going to “do the quintiles.”Quintiles?

A reasonably natural way to subdivide a universe along one dimension–into five groups, each making up 20% of the universe. There are even natural adjectives for each quintile. So, for example, for number of posts during the three-month period, the first quintile is “most frequent posting,” second quintile is “more frequent posting,” third quintile is “average frequency,” fourth quintile is “less frequent posting,” and fifth quintile is “least frequent posting.”

I’m going to do a series of posts over the next several days (or weeks–I’m fitting this in with more mainstream writing work) providing information on the quintiles for each metric within each book. I might interleave the two books or I might do all of PLB first, then all of ALB.

I trust a few of you will find this informative. If I did do a longitudinal study (probably combining both sets of blogs), I’d probably report the quintiles for each blog, but I’m not going to do that here.

Watch this space.

Changing your mind, coping with obstacles, physical and virtual users and more

Posted in Libraries, PLN on March 11th, 2008

Here’s the latest from PLN Highlights:


What’s new at the PALINET Leadership Network (PLN)?

When you click on that link, you’ll see one big change: the home page has a clean, minimalist redesign, so you can take in the whole thing and move on to topics or new articles in a few seconds. As always, comments on the redesign or any aspect of PLN are welcome.

Some of the newest additions to PLN:

  • Changing your mind — The March 2008 PLN Challenge finds one academic librarian questioning Turnitin.com–and a public librarian finding that web 2.0 initiatives haven’t been a big hit in her community. PLN Challenges are now just that: Open-ended challenges for your responses and comments, seeded with responses from the PLN Challenge Panel. What have you changed your mind about lately?
  • Different ways of dealing with obstacles — Morgan Wilson was inspired by a nature walk to suggest half a dozen ways of dealing with obstacles of all sorts. Thought-provoking reading, open for additional commentary on the Talk page.
  • Should libraries host user generated content? — Kathryn Greenhill makes a case for libraries hosting patron-written blogs and other user-generated content. Don’t miss related articles (on libraries serving as centers to create local content and helping to tell the community’s stories)–and you can add your own comments to the one that’s already there.
  • Should libraries rely on free commercial web 2.0 services? - Kate Davis considers issues raised by relying on the commercial infrastructure, particularly when there’s no direct payment for services rendered.
  • On door counters and carparks - Davis again, discussing the need to focus on physical and virtual library users and getting beyond “bums on seats” (no, not people on the down-and-out) as justification for physical libraries.

If there’s any doubt as to the international nature of PLN, this quartet of contributions from Down Under should clarify the situation!

The article’s not new–but it’s sparked a discussion. Glen Holt wrote Ranking and reality–We’re number one! two years ago, when St. Louis Public Library emerged as the leader in one library ranking. Now, there’s a discussion (click on the topic with the article’s name) in the Marketing Forum on the question of whether being ranked highly has a downside. Add your voice–and note that creating a new Forum topic is another way to discuss something you see in a PLN article or something you don’t see.


If you haven’t been to PLN yet, take a look–there’s a lot there, and it needs participation from you and other current and future library leaders to be even better.

And if you are a PLN user, subscribing to PLN Highlights is one easy way to find out what’s new. The posts won’t arrive more than about once a week: That’s a promise.

Unanswered questions: A natural for a new library wiki?

Posted in Movies and TV, Technology and software on March 10th, 2008

Wayne Bivens-Tatum posted “On verifying the nonexistence of nonabsurd reference objects” today (March 10, 2008, that is) at Academic Librarian. He describes two reference interviews that left him unsatisfied: He couldn’t find an answer to the question, but he also couldn’t be satisfied that no such answer exists.

He says:

I think what we reference librarians need is a reference source that lists all of the questions for which we know there is no answer. Then I could go to this source, look up the obscure German artist, and say, “See, it says here that no biographical information exists on this person, and this is the authoritative reference source on the nonexistence of nonabsurd reference objects. Do you have any other questions?” A source like this would let me rest easier after a fruitless search. It could be, though, that this reference source already exists, and I just can’t find it. If only I could know for sure.

A reference source listing all questions for which we know there is no answer is a tall order, as unanswered questions sometimes get answered. (Do we know with reasonable certainty who the model was for the Mona Lisa? We do now, apparently.)

What’s needed here, I believe, is something different. (Remember, what you’re about to read is coming from one of those nasty aging Luddite anti-L2 people; I even precede the boomers!)

I think there should be an Unanswered Questions Wiki. Librarians with legitimate reference questions they haven’t been able to answer could post them here. If someone else comes up with a resource answering the question, they add the resource. If the original poster, or someone else, agrees that this is a legitimate answer, they change the item’s category from Unanswered to Answered.

You would, of course, need some combination of logon and oversight to avoid the spam problems that seem to plague almost all wide-open wikis these days (and wide-open blogs, and wide-open whatever…)

Yes, there was STUMPERS-L and is now Project Wombat–but wouldn’t this make more sense as a wiki, incorporating the open questions from PW?

As I said in my comment on the original post, this seems like a natural project for RUSA, but it doesn’t need to be that formal. No, I’m not volunteering: I may “run” a MediaWiki wiki but I didn’t set it up and I’m not at liberty to host another one. (Yes, I think MediaWiki is the right software, bless its ugly-syntax heart: It’s used by several widely-used multilibrary wikis already–LISWiki, Library Success, PLN–and, to be sure, the whale of all wikis, Wikipedia.)

Let me say this again: Whoever does this needs to have provisions to minimize spam.

The 12-hour entrepreneurial book!

Posted in Books and publishing, Language, Writing and blogging on March 7th, 2008

I get press releases sometimes–presumably because I write a column for EContent, maybe because I’ve started writing a column for ONLINE again. Most of them I simply delete. Those that plead with me to call for an interview with Mr. X, I respond to, noting that “disContent”–my EContent column–is based on my being an outsider, a “citizen,” thus having inside contacts would weaken my role.

And then there are others. What appears below in indented paragraphs is a press release I received yesterday. Names will be neutralized, for reasons that may be obvious…

Author A Discovers Cure For Information Overload With Help Of Proven Authoring And Business Development System

B, author and infopreneur guru, demonstrates to fast write a money-making book in less than 12 hours and build a business focused on multiple streams of income.

That’s an italicized small-type sentence under the large-type title. We’re talking about writing and reading a supposedly professional press release, so editorial nitpicking may be in order. Let’s see: no “how” between “demonstrates” and “to.” “fast write a money-making book in less than 12 hours“–well, this isn’t editorial, but I cringe instantly at the thought of a book written in less than 12 hours.

Not too long ago, when someone wanted information, she would have to drive to the library, use the card catalog, and search the stacks of books and magazine to find it. Then the Information Age arrived. Computers and the internet have brought information home to the average person. There is now too much of a good thing because of this fact.

Yep. There were no sources of information other than libraries before the information age–no newspapers, no telephones, no friends to call for advice, no experts. Never mind. It gets better.

Many people believe we are still in the Information Age. What they do not realize is that people are drowning in too much information to the point where they are easily overwhelmed. Anyone who wants to test this can look up almost any search term on Google to experience the feeling of information overload.

Isn’t that what happens with you every day? You look up something on Google and say, “Oh no! I’m overwhelmed! I can’t cope!” And, of course, being smart, you never use Google again. Information overload claims another victim!

Technoradi Inc. estimates that over 75 thousand new blogs are created each day. A recent University of Iowa study calculated the size of the worldwide web at more than 11.5 billion pages. Having too much information to sort through is counter productive.

I wonder how many blogs Technorati thinks are being built? I’ve never heard of this other outfit. And, of course, thinking the number of entities in a universe has anything to do with what you need to sort with is not so much counterproductive (one word) as it is, well, stupid. There are more than one hundred million books; somehow, that doesn’t prevent me from finding the ones I want in Worldcat.org or my local library.

What people are really looking for is not the information, but what results the information will give them. Someone who buys a drill is really buying the holes that the drill will make. One who buys a mattress is in search of a good night’s sleep. Information is a means to an end.

This paragraph’s OK.

Now people are looking for more than information. With too much of a good thing ready at hand, what they want is a trusted guide to go beyond facts and figures to provide a recommendation. They want advice, easy answers, and a shortcut to the answers they seek.

So when there was less information, people were satisfied to get the information? When (he asks) has there been a time that people were more interested in information than they were in results? And when has there been a time when people didn’t seek shortcuts. Like, for example, shortcuts to writing “books” so that they take less than 12 hours, instead of the several hundred hours that sloths like me require.

Society has moved from the Information Age to the Recommendation Age. The savvy author and entrepreneur who understands the Recommendation Age can become the industry leader in his or her area of expertise and build a business around a book even before the manuscript is complete.

Now we’re getting to the crux of the matter–and it’s clearly not about crafting superior books. “Recommendation Age” leaves me cold, but that’s personal.

A, author of C D, of C.com, currently offers the book as an electronic book or e-book. He is building a business around his system for E and getting feedback from readers as he prepares to publish the book in print. Jensen worked with B and his team at E.com to create the book and build a well-developed business model around it.

If you’re wondering C and D are both multiword phrases, one the title and the other the subtitle of the book; C is in italics, D isn’t. There’s no colon between them.

The ebook is available through Lulu.com. While Lulu won’t show me somebody else’s sales, it does show anybody what the sales rank for an item is. So how is A doing on feedback from readers of the ebook? Well…let’s just say that the item ranks somewhere below 60,000. The print version of Cites & Insights 2007 ranks somewhere around 31,000. It would be inappropriate of me to say what the actual sales are, I suppose–particularly since sales rank may not mean the same thing for ebooks as it does for print books. (I will say that C&I 2006 has sold fewer than one-half as many copies on Lulu than Academic Library Blogs, which is doing better on Amazon–and that book, in turn, has sold roughly 5% as many copies as Balanced Libraries at Lulu. I’ll also say that BL is nowhere near my previously announced “Success point.” Draw your own conclusions.)

B’s F Program teaches clients to write a money-making book in 12 hours of actual writing time. Clients who complete the program discover how to write a book that is “entrepreneurially sound.”

I went to E.com. Yep, it’s there in big type: “Write A 100 Page Money-Making Book In Less Than 12 Hours Of Actual Writing Time And Gain Instant Access To A New York Publisher.” Note That Every Word Is Capitalized, including articles and conjunctions. Yes, the string from the space before “12″ through “Publisher” is also underlined (interestingly, the underlined space is on the line before the rest: this page doesn’t for any of that new-age flowing text crap), but of course it’s not a link. There is a link a little further down. If you click on that one, you get the same text–but this time it’s all underlined. Further down, there’s the eloquent “Here you will see for yourself Why our program works and what sets us apart from others who make similar claims”–a random capital letter being one of the marks of successful book writing.

Here’s a warning for you: “WARNING: If You Are Not A Knowledge Broker In The Recommendation Age, You Are A Nobody!” All in big red type. (Look, B is a Former Vice Principal, so you better not doubt his word–you’ll get detention.)

Taking B’s program, A has discovered how to turn his expertise into a step-by-step system through which people that have X can achieve better physical and mental health. His consulting and speaking business is growing steadily. The feedback he is receiving as a result of working with individuals and speaking to groups allows him to develop his business to match the wants and needs of his target audience.

I wouldn’t be surprised if A actually had worthwhile expertise. I would be very surprised if A wrote that ebook (>250 pages) in less than 12 hours–and unless there are other editions hiding somewhere, A sure isn’t getting a big business based on ebook sales.

B has dozens of video testimonials of successful clients like A on his website and blog. He offers his case study driven H e-class, a $700 value, at no cost on his website F.com. B, a former Vice Principal with Two Post-Graduate Degrees, replaced his income and his wife’s income with a proven, breakthrough system he created. He now teaches his clients how to replicate his proprietary program. B is founder and President of G. B also provides keynotes, seminars, workshops, teleseminars, and [another trademarked term], as well as being known as an international speaker. In addition helping entrepreneurs with business authoring, he also teaches entrepreneurs and business owners how to successfully create a digital product and then build an online business that produces consistent, multiple streams of income. For additional media information about F or B please visit F.com.

Ah, more random capital letters–and a “$700 value” course offered “at no cost.” Would I be cynical if I suggested that there are costs, and big ones, somewhere down the road? Including, for example, the cost of thinking you’ve written a hot stuff book in less than 12 hours and that you’ll gain wealth and fame from the New York publisher you’ll be introduced to and the multistream income system that accompanies it.

B even throws in $300 worth of books or ebooks as part of the offer, speaking of setting sales records. Yes, B does have one book on Amazon; yes, it’s within the top 50,000 in sales. (Worldcat.org shows three copies in libraries.) People who buy it buy lots of other get-rich-quick books, particularly ones having to do with the fabulous wealth that can be yours from writing, even if you’re nearly illiterate.


I know. This is sour grapes. If I’d taken this free course, I’d be rolling in dough from multiple income streams from the book(s) I’d have written–each in less than 12 hours time!–and whatever it is I got from that New York Publisher. After all, it’s a proven, breakthrough system.Or maybe I could do PR for outfits like this. Given the attention to checking firm names and grammar and to normal (dull) English rules of capitalization, that press release sure as heck took less than 12 hours to write–maybe less than 12 minutes.Sigh. Back to my plodding old slow writing. If only I could learn Authoring instead.

Cites & Insights: The Centenary Issue is still available

Posted in C&I Books, Cites & Insights on March 7th, 2008

It’s possible that a few of you may have gone to the Cites & Insights home page and found it presenting the February 2008 issue as current.

I’m not sure what happened (whether I did something stupid–quite possible–or whether some other glitch was to blame), but the “current” home page wasn’t there this morning, replaced with a pre-February 15 version.

I’ve re-uploaded the current home page. Other statistics indicate that this couldn’t have affected very many people. Anyway, it’s fixed. Issue #100 is the current issue (and will be for at least a while longer).

Now, as to why there continue to be so many downloads of a two-year-old issue…


I notice that one fairly high-profile blogger, who also writes the occasional book, now inserts an ad for that book after every post. I’m tempted, but would hate to lose readers because of the annoyance factor. Still, Cites & Insights books has some worthwhile books–Balanced Libraries, Public Library Blogs, Academic Library Blogs and paperback versions of the two most recent C&I volumes–at reasonable prices ($29.50 each). For those who prefer e-reading, the first rhree even available as $20 PDF downloads. End of ad, and I promise I won’t do this on every post.

Connections and participation at PLN

Posted in PLN on March 6th, 2008

Here’s today’s PLN Highlights post–and a reminder that many of you really should join the PALINET Leadership Network, a free international network for current and future library leaders to learn and share.


This week, rather than focusing on new articles in the PALINET Leadership Network, I’d like to note some other aspects of PLN–and ask for your help.

  • You may have noted the quick headlines under “Latest items from Leader’s Digest” on the PLN home page. Those headlines change automatically as content is added to Leader’s Digest itself–and early in each month, the cumulated material from the previous month is combined into a monthly digest–e.g., this one for February 2008. (No, it doesn’t include items dated February 29; those will be in the March 2008 digest; we currently work by weekly groups.)
  • Most, but not all, of the items in a monthly digest also turn up elsewhere in PLN either as articles or additions to articles–such as this one with a dozen checklists and commentaries on toxicity, fear and problem people within an organization.
  • You’ve read an interesting article and want to follow the topic further. One good way (in addition to links within some articles) is to click on one of the Category links at the bottom of every article. Another is to look for related articles–links and brief descriptions to other PLN articles, just above “Your turn: Talk about it.” For example, the Toxicity, fear and problem people roundup links to Tyler Rousseau’s “Don’t be that boss” and a roundup on Speaking up and keeping quiet.
  • Similarly, Jamie LaRue’s piece “Can the latest ebook Kindle the market” links to a technology backgrounder and set of commentaries, “Kindle and ebook reader notes,” and the fine LLN Peer Panel on Mentoring links to PLN’s expanded set of mentoring resources.

Here’s where you can help. You’re likely to see natural relationships between articles that I’ve missed–or that I haven’t gotten around to pursuing. Article-to-article links are an excellent way to pursue interests, particularly in a platform like PLN that lacks an inherent dictionary or hierarchical topic structure.

When you see two articles or other resources that you think relate to one another, let me know (or add the links yourself, if you’re comfortable with MediaWiki markup). You can add a note on the Talk page of one of the articles–or just send me email (crawford@palinet.org or waltcrawford@gmail.com) noting the two articles or resources and how you think they’re related.

Some of the most interesting relationships aren’t obvious. You can do other current and future leaders a favor by pointing out those interesting relationships. Let me know; I’ll do the markup.

Oh, and don’t forget the forums–they’re wide open for discussion.

Cleaning up after yourselves: A suggestion for LIS faculty

Posted in Writing and blogging on March 5th, 2008

Here’s a quick suggestion for LIS faculty teaching social software courses–or for some other reason encouraging or requiring your students to create blogs.

Nothing wrong with doing that. And I see that more of them are creating subtitles instead of accepting the default (e.g., “Just another WordPress blog” for WordPress blogs).

Also nothing wrong with asking or telling them to take the next step: Add the blog to the LISWiki blog list. Gives them a little experience in wiki editing and makes the blog more visible. As with other important multilibrary wikis, LISWiki uses MediaWiki, with that wacky MediaWiki markup notation…which I’ve grown to know, but will probably never grow to love.

Here’s the suggestion:
Tell the people who decide to abandon the blog after the course that they should clean up after themselves: That is, remove the blog from the LISWiki blog list…or at least mark it “no longer being updated.”

Some of them will delete the blogs entirely. If they were purely experimental or created because they had no choice, that may be reasonable–but in that case they should particularly remove the LISWiki listing.

Right now, the LISWiki list of individual weblogs is the closest thing we have to a (reasonably) comprehensive live liblog list. (I think the LISZEN list is longer, but it’s really cluttered up with dead blogs.) It’s nice to keep it that way.