Walt at Random

Before I pack up to fly out tomorrow, I did a last-minute check on one of several things that concerns me about LITA (and it will be, to some extent, part of my agenda as incoming LITA Publications Committee chair–just as fair warning).

To wit, what are the LITA Interest Groups planning to discuss during ALA Annual?

As far as I can tell, there are 19 active LITA Interest Groups (and another 17 inactive).

I was able to get some information on 10 of the 19…but only by going to four different resources. I’m also being generous–in some cases, the only info was on formal programs, with nothing about business meeting or discussions.

• The LITA database, seemingly the most natural place to start, and the place you get to from ALA as the “key resource” if you search LITA: Zero. Not one IG had notes on Annual 2008 plans.
• The LITA blog: Two interest groups had posts that related to ALA 2008, and both were appropriately tagged.
• The LITA wiki–seemingly the second most natural place to go, as you’d assume there would be a nice neat page with links: Two interest groups (not the same two as in the blog) had notes relating to ALA 2008.
• LITA-L, the LITA list–seemingly the least likely place, especially if LITA’s trying to attract newbies to the fold, and especially since you have to do some work to find this stuff: Eight, but two of those were also in the blog. Six new.

In the division of ALA that should be most concerned with effective communication through technology, barely over half the interest groups provided any information. (Maybe they did on their own lists, but that really doesn’t count: IGs should not be closed circles.) And only four out of 19 provided such information in “contemporary” formats.

LITA doesn’t lack for the tools–hey, there’s a database, a blog, a wiki, a list! What more could you ask for?

What’s lacking is the content. I sometimes wonder whether unused or barely-used tools are worse than no tools at all…

Well, that’s my final pre-ALA grump. And for my frends in ERM, Internet Resources, NextGen Catalogs and Open Source Systems: Congratulations. You’re the few and the proud.

Now to pack and make ready for Anaheim, sun screen and all. See some of you at the LITA Happy Hour? (Not at the beginning, but eventually.)

Here’s this week’s post at PLN Highlights:

---

What’s happening at the PALINET Leadership Network?

As many of us see Anaheim looming in the middle distance, this may be a good time to focus on the Talk pages–where you can add your own comments on a piece if you’re not ready to add them to the piece itself.

Every article has a Talk page–usually the second tab at the top of the article. Even if the article is protected, registered users can add to the Talk page. There are many other ways to participate directly, to be sure, and we’ll continue to harvest liblogs and other sources for indirect participation, but here’s some of what’s already there:

• When I picked up Carl Grant’s challenging “Call for OpenLibrarianship” from his blog, I added some of my own comments. Carl responded with an excellent post expanding his original thesis–which I also imported, with permission.
• Every PLN Challenge begins with responses from some panelists and is intended to challenge some of you to add responses. Two people (so far) have responded to this month’s Challenge, including the person who inspired the Challenge. There’s also been a long, thoughtful response to the May 2008 Challenge, “Positioning the library for 2020,“
• Sometimes, the Talk page contains paraphrased comments picked up along with a post-turned-article. Here’s an unusual example well worth reading and maybe adding your own comment to–where the post (”Future catalogs: food for thought“) and comments came from a list rather than a blog.
• Nicole Engard added a useful list of blogs focusing on open source to “Open source notes and resources” to enhance the list already provided as part of the article.
• Steven Bell offered an interesting discussion of what’s special about organizational leaders in response to my own “Who’s a leader?”

Any time the Talk tab is blue rather than red, it means there is (or at some time was) content on the page. (The “Talk about it” link will also be blue rather than red.) Take a look–or add your own.

These examples of discussion and argumentation may only be visible if you have a PLN account, since they’re attached to protected articles–but it only takes a couple of minutes to start a free PLN user account and two quick email validations to gain write access. I’m just noting a couple of examples here; you’ll find others.

• Steven Bell, the Blended Librarian, also added significant commentary to the LLN Peer Panel for May/June 2008, “Leadership issues redux-May 2008” and–in the early days of PLN–added notes on great experiences to the very first PLN Challenge, “What keeps you up at night?“
• You’ll find three diverse comments added to Glen Holt’s “Too cheap to matter,” one of them mine. (As editor, it’s my responsibility not to change the meaning or slant of a contributed essay–but as part of the PLN and library communities, I feel free to add comments on Talk pages.)

You’ll find other new and modified pages since the last PLN Highlights post, to be sure, including new pages on multitasking notes (a page that will have lots more content in the future!) and time management, as well as substantial additional content in articles such as Problematic management, Leadership and succession, Change notes, Brands and Trends to consider.

So 21% of atheists believe in God?

That’s the way the San Francisco Chronicle reports it in a front-page story based on the new Pew Foundation on Religion and Public Life report, but that’s not what the study actually says.

See, the survey didn’t ask “Do you believe in God?” It asked a very different question: “Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?”

That boils down to “do you believe in something more than yourself,” basically. Believe in Gaia? You’d answer “Yes” even as a wholehearted atheist. Believe in human consciousness as something greater than the individual? Another “yes.”

Improbable Research reported on this in a post yesterday, “Social Science Lesson: What Americans Believe.” But IR quoted a story in the Boston Globe–and the Globe seems to have labeled its graphic sidebar correctly, even if the story turns “God or a universal spirit” into “God.” The Chronicle–and, I suspect, most media–just reduces it to the one word.

Ask everyone in my household, “Do you like apples or some other fruit?” You’ll get 100% “Yes.” Ask “Do you like apples?” and you’ll get 100% “No.” But if you ask the first question and rely on typical lazy journalism, you get headlines all over–”Everybody likes apples.”

Oh, Improbable Research updated the post–quoting a Pew Foundation researcher who essentially says atheists and agnostics are stupid:

Smith said some people may identify with the term atheist or agnostic without fully understanding the definition, or they have a negative view of organized religion, even though they believe in God.

Or maybe they answered the question that was actually asked.

I said previously:

It’s partly, to be honest, thinking about impact and reality–wondering whether the work is still worth it, and particularly whether any ambitious ideas are good ideas or just plain stupidity. This is a complicated area, one I might (or might not) write about between now and ALA.

The ambitious ideas? At the moment, the most obvious ones are two possible longitudinal studies of actual blogging behavior–one for liblogs (blogs by library-related people), one for library blogs (public and academic).

I wrote about the first of those possibilities here, and noted the second possibility here.

Of course, this whole situation didn’t help matters a lot–but did encourage me to think about the models that seem plausible today. (Hey, I shouldn’t complain–in addition to an essay in the current Cites & Insights, that bit of nonsense indirectly resulted in a forthcoming “disContent” column for EContent–and, of course, I do get paid for those columns.)

So here’s my thinking:

1. I know that I’d find either or both projects interesting to do–but also that each one would take a couple of hundred hours (where “couple” means anywhere from 1.5 to 5).
2. I believe I bring a certain rigor and objectivity to such studies, but I could be fooling myself.
3. Based on existing book sales and near-total lack of interest, I can’t really project any significant number of sales–and, if the “if it’s digital, it SHOULD be free” crapola is spreading, it could get even worse.
4. I could take two other courses:

• Do the shorter numbers-only portion of followup studies and publish the results as issues of Cites & Insights–or, if possible, base some submitted articles or paid columns on them.
• Say the hell with it and spend that time either writing freelance articles (where my past record suggests I’d sell at least half of the articles, which doesn’t yield Big Bucks but does yield some income) or just becoming more retired, reading, listening to music, telling kids to get offa my lawn…

This all raises, to some extent, the ways independent niche researcher/writers can get enough yield from their work so that they’re not literally better off greeting people at Wal-Mart. If Andersonomics (”Free!”) really is the wave of the future, I see three possibilities…

1. Advance sponsorship. If someone (some agency) wanted to sponsor either or both studies, or–retroactively–the work represented in the two library blog books–I’d be delighted. And, for the right sum, the downloadable results would indeed be free, and the print book could be priced at cost of production. The question is: Is there any group likely to sponsor that sort of thing? I think I know the answer…but I could be wrong.
2. The 1,000 True Fans model. This supposes that there’s a significant number of folks who find my stuff so valuable that they’d go out of their way to pay for it. I suppose the way to test that would be to do a $50 Lulu item that consists of nothing more than a full-color cover and the text “Thanks for being a fan.” Given sales of the Cites & Insights trade paperbacks, my rough estimate is that “1,000 true fans” in my case is off by at least two orders of magnitude…and it’s not worth annoying those ten (or fewer) folks.
3. “Freemium” models. The base line is free, but there are special super-duper options that come for a price. Well, again, that’s part of what the two Cites & Insights trade paperbacks are–and total sales there are four of one, two of the other (in both cases, more than expected). I already do something slightly along these lines, but not involving money: Namely, the My Back Pages section of most Cites & Insights is a premium for those who download the PDF (my preference) rather than HTML sections. Here again, I’m not sure what I would do for a “freemium” model.

At present, Cites & Insights is (modestly) sponsored. My two columns are paid. One of the three books has yielded enough revenue to be so-so. The two library blog books are both relatively recent; neither one has sold enough to justify the work on any plausible basis. Of course, both were interesting to do…

So, tossing this out into the void between the intertubes, I wonder:

• Whether I’m being ambitious–or just stupid?
• Whether there are compensation models I haven’t thought about?
• Whether I should leave the research stuff to people who either have appropriate institutional sponsorship or are working on theses?

Some time after ALA, I’ll have to make decisions. Thoughts welcome.

I had a great two-week vacation (discussed briefly here), sorely needed after two years without a real vacation. Didn’t do any writing (didn’t have a computer). Other than checking on work email every couple of days, didn’t do anything involving the web or computers. Read seven books–three nonfiction, four fiction–and three SF magazines. Saw lots of glorious scenery. And so on…

One off note maybe told me something: For the first week, every night I was having truly boring and irritating dreams–”procedural dreams” that went on and on, not nightmares–and they all involved the workplace (a composite of the few places I’ve worked full time). The second week, not so much.

Got back, refreshed in body–but still a little down, both in energy and (more important) in inspiration. Not so much as to be hopeless, but enough to be tired and to find it tiresome. The last two-three days, I could use the unseasonable heat as an excuse, but “excuse” is the right word. (Looks like the hot spell has subsided; we’re back to the mid- to high 70s from the mid to high 90s, and supposed to stay there for a week+..)

I think I know what’s going on. The dreams are a clue. I’m finally processing last year–what happened and what didn’t. I learned a lot about the worth of two careers, the library systems one and the writing one. ALA Annual 2007 was in some ways a defining moment, and that was probably unfortunate.

At the time, I was involved with enough different projects and enough ongoing ideas that momentum carried me for a long time. The challenges of a new editing gig helped as well (and the PALINET Leadership Network continues to be worth my time and your attention).

So it took a while for it all to sink in. I think–I hope–that’s happened. I hope–I believe–it will start getting better. For the moment, though, there’s sort of a lull. It’s partly timing. It’s partly inspiration. It’s partly, to be honest, thinking about impact and reality–wondering whether the work is still worth it, and particularly whether any ambitious ideas are good ideas or just plain stupidity. This is a complicated area, one I might (or might not) write about between now and ALA.

I’m hoping ALA Annual 2008 will mark a turning point, that I’ll emerge with more inspiration and recovered energy. Maybe just as a milestone; maybe because ALA can be inspiring in its own odd ways. Based on past experience, I assume that this, too, will pass. If not, of course, there’s plenty of time to think about what does make sense for the future. I’ve always said I’d keep writing (and, when invited, speaking) as long as people continued to be interested in what I have to say. Raw numbers suggest you still are, although there are fewer links and comments than in the past–but that formulation leaves out one other “as long as”: “and as long as I’m still inspired to write.”

See you in Anaheim? Say Hi. I’m terrible with names and still an introvert, but I’m almost always approachable and ready to chat. And if I seem to be in a hurry…that’s just the way I walk, and shouldn’t carry any deeper meaning.

And, given the heat and my lethargy, any serious post is out of the question.

Wordle, however…

That’s my vita (through December 2007, I think). With the default 150-word limit (200 words makes for a very crowded picture).

I have to say, I like Wordle’s output a lot better than most word clouds I’ve seen. As for deeper significance…

You can click on it for a larger image.

---

A little bit later: Thought about those months, did 12 global replaces in Word, and I like this result much better:

You may note a change in my ALA schedule–not in the events, but in one key location.

To wit, the OCLC Bloggers Salon (which is a salon for all bloggers, hosted by OCLC–no invitation required, no registration) is Sunday, June 29, 2008, 5:30 to 8 p.m., in the Hilton Anaheim–but in the Palisades room, not Avila.

That’s a change from the announcement at It’s All Good. I spotted it in Roy Tennant’s ALA schedule, and it’s now been confirmed by Roy Tennant, Alice Sneary and George Needham.

Remember: That’s Palisades, not Avila. (Probably not a big deal. They say they’re right around the corner from one another, OCLC also has events in Avila, and there will be signs…)

If you’re one of those going and you’re blogging about your schedule, you might spread the word. And I’ll see you there. (I’ll be one of the ones without mouse ears…and also without a computer. Maybe with an LSW ribbon, or a LITA Former President ribbon, or both, depending on what connections I manage to make…)

Cites & Insights 8:7, July 2008, is now available.

The 26-page issue is PDF as always, but most essays can also be downloaded at the Cites & Insights home page or from the links below.

This issue includes:

• Bibs & Blather - Why there isn’t a nine-year cumulation of Top Tech Trends–and wondering about “free” and the worth of creative work.
• Trends & Quick Takes - four trends (including ongoing notes on high-def discs) and four quicker takes.
• Perspective: One, Two, Some, Many: Search Results & Meaning - And that’s the short title! Notes on the apparent meaningless of large open web search engine result counts.
• Interesting & Peculiar Products - fourteen products and eleven group reviews and editors’ choices.
• Retrospective: Pointing with Pride, Part 3 - third in the series of centenary celebrations.
• My Back Pages - Exclusive to the PDF version, as always: eight mini-rants.

If you’re going to Anaheim and get an envelope from Experient–it’s almost certainly NOT junk mail.

It’s probably your ALA badge and exhibit card.

And you’ll notice that it has $0.59 postage, which junk mail would almost never have.

Yes, I know, I’m as likely as anyone else to discard junk mail unopened–but that gets a little tricky:

• You should probably open solicitations for credit cards and shred the actual application form–and those tend to show up as first-class mail.
• Similarly, other very individualized “junk” mail may included pages that you don’t want someone fishing out of your garbage.

One simple rule of thumb is that you should always open first-class mail. Sure, some of it’s still junk, but you’re only out a few seconds to open the envelope and scan the contents. Unless you get a lot more of it than we do, this won’t cost you more than an hour a year, and probably not that much.

Firefox 3 is now available. You should find it here.

Mozilla is apparently aiming for a record for first-day downloads. I didn’t blog about it earlier because I had no idea whether I’d try to download it today.

I did–successfully–about three hours after the official release time (10 a.m. PDT/1 p.m. EDT). The download was a little on the slow side (but not really bad); the install was very quick. And FF3 does seem to start and run faster than FF2.

Otherwise? The toolbar’s a little more Vista-y (on Vista), there are a bunch of little changes that I might or might not ever notice, it picked up my preferences and all but one add-on smoothly (and I wasn’t even aware I had the incompatible add-on; I certainly don’t need it).

Some day, I’ll get the acid test: Will it print Six Apart blog posts better than FF2 did, or will I still have to use IE for that form of printing? In any case, I’m happy, and will continue to use FF for almost all my web work.

The name: “Get the Word Out: How to Do It; Marketing for Small and Rural Libraries”

The time and place: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 1:30-3:30 p.m., Hilton, Pacific Ballroom B (but check the final schedule)

The sponsor: Public Library Association (PLA) Library Development Cluster (LDC)

The description:

No matter how small your library, effective marketing is the key to success. Hear how small libraries across the country are leveraging simple marketing techniques to make their libraries vital to their communities. Marketing basics and practical tips for developing a strategy, executing that strategy, and measuring effectiveness will be provided.

I’m speaking (based on the articles on “The Storied Library” I wrote last year for WebJunction), but there are also four experts on the program: Diana Bitting (PALINET), Edward James Elsner (Delton District Library), Beth Nicholson (Clarksburg-Harrison PL) and Annette Wetteland (State Library of iowa). I expect to learn something…

For reasons that escape me, the preliminary program (and, thus, Library Journal’s set of program picks) describes me as “Creator, Author, Publisher, OCLC.” I don’t know where “creator” came from, and I haven’t worked for OCLC since September 2007–but I’m certainly a publisher (Cites & Insights) and author. I should note that that odd word gave John Berry a chance for a shot. Quoting from “Shifting with the Paradigm,” Berry’s set of program choices:

[The speakers] will preach that effective marketing is the key to success and to your library’s future. They promise marketing basics and practical tips. When the “creator” preaches, who dares not to listen?

I certainly don’t plan to do any preaching and I don’t call myself the creator, but that’s OK. It should be a good program, and I expect to be the least interesting and informative speaker there–but I’ll do my best..

Here’s this week’s post at PLN Highlights:

---

What’s new at PALINET Leadership Network?

• The June 2008 PLN Challenge offers Advice for interim library directors–and we’d love to hear your advice, especially if you’ve been in such a position.
• Libraries in the new age summarizes Robert Darnton’s thoughtful article in the New York Review of Books and adds notes on JISC’s new Libraries of the Future program.
• You’ll find major additions to Innovation notes and smaller updates and changes to Ebook notes, Kindle and ebook reader notes, and Google Book Search, Open Content Alliance and Live Search Books notes among other updated articles.
• Fans of Jamie LaRue’s cogent views will find them all under a new category, LaRue’s Views–with a link to an archive containing much more of LaRue’s writing.

Getting ready for ALA Annual in Anaheim? If you go to a program concerned with leadership–or one you think library leaders should know about–we’d love to have your report. You can enter it directly in PLN, or you can send it to Walt Crawford (crawford@palinet.org or waltcrawford@gmail.com), marked as a PLN submission, and I’ll do the wiki markup and some light editing along the way.

Of course I’ll be at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim–and if you’d like to chat over a drink or whatever, let me know in advance. (I’ll have a cell phone, mostly for emergency use; if you want the number to text me with a possible several-hour delay for receipt, send me email before Friday, June 26.)

Here’s my schedule so far, with mandatory or nearly-mandatory items in boldface. Open times are, so far, open. (I’d love to attend a couple of LITA interest groups–but so far, as usual, it’s hard to find out what most of them are planning to talk about, although it’s always fun to de-spam the LITA Wiki while attempting to find out):

Friday, June 27, 2008

• American Eagle 3122, San Jose 10:05 a.m.-Orange County 11:30 a.m.
• Staying at the Hilton Anaheim
• 5-6ish?: WebJunction reception, Marriott Salon A-D
• 5:30-8 (some part): LITA Happy Hour, Mist Pool Bar, Hotel Menger

Saturday, June 28, 2008

• 8-9 a.m.: LITA IG and Committee Chair meeting, Crowne Plaza, Cabo San Lucas B
• 10:3-12: LITA Committee Chairs, Marriott 304
• 1:30-3: LITA Publications Committee, Hyatt Salon I
• 4-5:30: Science Fiction and Fantasy: IT and individual rights, Convention Center 304 A/B

Sunday, June 29, 2008

• Morning: Exhibits unless later appointments come into play.
• 1:30-3:30: Get the Word Out: How to Do It/Marketing for Small and Rural Libraries (speaking), Hilton, Pacific Ballroom B.
• 5:30-8 (some part): OCLC Bloggers’ Salon, Hilton, Avila Palisades - note change in room.

Monday, June 30, 2008

• 10:30-1: Private PLN-related meetings (includes lunch).

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

• American Eagle 3161, Orange County 1:15 p.m.-San Jose 2:30 p.m.

Best chances to run into me without prior arrangements: on Friday, the LITA Happy Hour (prob. 6:30-8ish); on Saturday, the LITA Publications Committee; on Sunday, the program I’m speaking at–and it should be an interesting program (since there are four other people who know what they’re talking about) and, to be sure, the OCLC Bloggers Salon.

If you’d like to get together for drinks, lunch, dinner, whatever, or if you know of a LITA IG that’s likely to suit my tastes, let me know in advance–as usual, I travel without technology and don’t expect to check email during the conference.

I thought I’d written up our (somewhat negative) experiences with Holland America Lines — HAL, “those dam ships” — back when I did a “cruising” series. Apparently not. In any case, the vacation we recently returned from was a third HAL cruise, and I think some notes are in order–especially because Holland America did a much better job this time than the first two times around.

The cruise was marketed as a 14-day Vancouver roundtrip, but was also clearly a combination of two seven-day Alaska cruises: Vancouver to Seward northbound and Seward to Vancouver southbound. We were surprised by the number of people who took the (presumably somewhat discounted) 14-day option; I didn’t count, but it must have been a couple of hundred out of the 1,400-passenger ship.

It was our fifth cruise in Alaska. We did it partly because we really needed a vacation (not having had a real vacation in two years or a cruise in three years), partly because a dear friend of ours agreed to our suggestion to see Alaska.

The last three Alaska cruises were 12-night round trips out of San Francisco on Crystal Harmony: A great itinerary for people living in the SF Bay Area who love Crystal. Well, that cruise no longer exists–NYK, Crystal’s parent company, renamed the Crystal Harmony and now uses it (as the Aoka II, I think) for luxury cruising in Japan. The two remaining Crystal ships summer in the Mediterranean. Our first Alaska cruise was southbound Whittier to Vancouver on the Regent Sea, a long time ago (15 or 20 years): The Regent Sea is at the bottom of the ocean and its parent company, Regency, long since disappeared.

I wouldn’t attempt to compare Crystal and Holland America Line (HAL) directly; that’s not really fair, since they’re in different market segments (Crystal is a luxury line, HAL is a premium line, which is a lower category than luxury) and have considerably different fares (if Crystal still did this cruise, I’d guess we’d pay about 50%-75% more than we did on HAL). On the other hand, the comparison isn’t as ludicrous as it would have been last time we were on HAL.

First, a quick note about the cruise itself: A great way to see southeast Alaska in a relaxed fashion. We stopped twice in Juneau and Ketchikan–with shore excursions one time, exploring on our own the other time–and cruised twice in Glacier Bay (spectacular both times, with a truly astonishing calving the second time) and College Fjord (somewhat disappointing: it seemed much more spectacular 15-20 years ago), plus one stop each in Seward, Skagway and Haines. Seward was new to us and easily explored on foot–and I will say that the last-minute $20 shuttle + SeaLife Center shore excursion was fairly priced, since tickets at the SeaLife Center were, um, $20 (the shuttle–Seward’s own little trolley-car–was free for the day for all HAL passengers, a $3 savings over their regular operation). The other ports–well, they’re all great, and we’ve been to all of them before, and enjoyed them again.

Now, as to HAL, or specifically the Zaandam (all HAL ships end in “dam,” and they use “those dam ships” on various shipboard merchandise):

• On previous cruises, we hated the way they handled shore excursions: Get in one line, get a sticker on your shirt, wait in a theater, get in another line… Now, they’ve adopted the same procedure as Crystal and Regent Seven Seas: “You’re adults. Here’s your ticket. There’s the time. Meet at the pier/bus/whatever.” No crowding, no superfluous lines, no extra 45 minutes to gather up everybody, no stickers. Bravo.
• On previous cruises, the beef had ranged from mediocre to too tough to eat. (I gave up on a prime rib end cut halfway through: the taste wasn’t worth the effort.) Much improved–the beef ranged from good to excellent.
• On previous cruises, the chicken had also been tough. Again, much improved–the chicken was generally quite good.
• On previous cruises, “plating” had been inflexible: You ordered a main dish and got the starch, vegetable and sauce that came with it–period. This time, we found considerable flexibility, at least with our waiter: You could substitute items from other choices, and one person at our table had rice with every entree, always with some sauce for one of the other entrees.
• On previous cruises, portions tended to be too large. This time, most portions were plausible–you could eat the full five-course dinner (appetizer, soup, salad, entree, dessert) and not be bloated or have to be rolled off the ship. Sometimes, still a bit large, but mostly reasonable. (After two weeks, I was up three pounds, which went away again after three or four days; my wife actually lost a pound or two. And we were both eating most courses at most meals.) After all, you could always order something extra (or, during the day, just pick up a slice of pizza or make your own taco or get another dessert or get a fresh burger any time from 11:30 a.m. to 5 or 6 p.m.)–but it always feels odd to leave a meal half-eaten.
• Boarding had been mildly cumbersome last time, although not horrendous: Actually fairly typical, with Crystal and Regent Seven Seas only slightly better. This time, with the ability to fill in immigration information online and print out boarding passes, boarding was as fast and smooth as I’ve ever seen it on a cruise ship. (We haven’t been on Crystal or RSS recently…)
• Smoking was a big problem in pretty much every space except the main restaurant last time around. This time, while still a problem (my wife’s asthmatic), it was considerably better: Even outdoor dining areas for the Lido restaurant are non-smoking except for one little back-of-the-ship area that’s fully isolated, there seemed to be less smoke in most lounges and, wonder of wonders, the casino was non-smoking on some days. Since the casino always seemed busier when it was nonsmoking (and since on smoking days you’d get one jackass puffing up a storm as he explored the entire casino, assuring that we all got plenty of second-hand smoke), a number of us suggested that they cut off smoking altogether. Actually, there’s another indication of progress: They held some focus groups (we weren’t invited but heard from someone who was) and asked about complete smoking bans, to pretty much total applause–including one smoker who said she’d rather be in a smoke-free environment on vacation and just do without for a week. And the end-of-cruise survey included an extra sheet asking three questions all related to a total ban on smoking on board. There may yet be hope…
• HAL hotel staff have always been good but seemed much better this time; we had people remembering our names after one encounter, we had dining crew joking with us, the whole scene felt even better. On at least one previous cruise, ship staff (the people who maintain and run the ship, as opposed to the cabin attendants and restaurant crew) seemed a little put out by having passengers on board. This time, they either weren’t around or seemed much better. No complaints here.
• Note that we weren’t getting special top-dollar treatment. We didn’t even have a balcony cabin; we were in 2nd-deck outside cabins, not that far up from the lowest categories. (The verandah cabins and mini-suites were all sold out when we booked, a mere seven months ahead, and we wouldn’t have paid for full suites anyway.)
• With one exception, any problems we had were handled quickly and well. The exception, a window that was half blocked by condensation trapped between the two layers, really couldn’t be handled while at sea, but HAL gave us a more than satisfactory accommodation for only having half a view.
• In general, the public spaces were nicer and the food and service were better than on previous HAL cruises. They claim that they’re improving their operation; although it’s been several years’ gap for us, I’m inclined to believe them.

Not perfect, to be sure, but what is? We could have done without the cruise director’s lengthy morning and lunchtime announcements of all the activities that are listed in the daily paper, although at least there weren’t loads of announcements during the day. The chair and sofa upholstery in our cabin could use cleaning and seem a little tired; even 8 years of cruising is hard on fabric. Some shore excursions seemed scheduled at needlessly difficult times. But, you know, none of those would rise to be particularly noteworthy.

The one real negative item happened at the end of the cruise, and I think it’s a good idea that hasn’t quite been worked out properly. To wit, debarkation–in our case, with a special twist. Debarkation is a problem on most cruise ships, with the tendency to force everyone to sit around in lounges after leaving their cabins too early, listening to dozens of announcements. Supposedly, Princess is fixing this; let’s hope their solution works and catches on. By today’s standard, the Zaandam is medium-sized to small (1,400 passengers–today’s BIG ships carry 2,600 to 3,000 or more). They said they were using a new streamlined procedure without announcements and that you could just stay in your cabin until it was your time to go.

But…they also offered, and promoted heavily, a special baggage-handling opportunity: For $16 a person, if we were flying directly to the U.S. from Vancouver on the day of debarkation (which we were), we could have our boarding passes in hand and our checked bags already airline-tagged on the ship. Thus, instead of the usual routine in these cases–get off the ship, identify our bags from the mass of bags for our group, watch as handlers put them on the bus to the airport, claim them again at the airport, wheel them to the airline, have baggage tags attached, deal with Canadian and U.S. immigration, then finally go through security–we’d just get off the ship, go on a special “locked” bus into a special area of the airport, and go through security. There were idle comments about it taking up to two hours to get through the process at Vancouver; I have no idea whether those comments were true.

Well, our flight was at 1 p.m. We signed up for the program, assuming it would mean we’d be able to stick around until at least 9 or 9:30 a.m. before leaving for the airport.

Wrong. Everyone who signed up for the program and was using HAL transportation to the airport ($25, and we’d already signed up for that) had to be in the big showroom at 7:15 a.m.

7:15 a.m. Ghastly. As bad as in the bad old days. That’s five hours and 45 minutes before our flight–and we knew that it was at worst about 30 minutes from the pier to the airport.

We weren’t even the worst cases: We were in Group 3 of 5; later groups included people with flights leaving 4 p.m. or later!

So instead of being able to get up a little early, have a reasonable breakfast, freshen up and roll down at 9 or 9:30–or even 8:30–we had the usual get up too early, have a rushed Lido breakfast, rush through preparation…

So there we were, all standing around and waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

The process didn’t start at all until 7:45 a.m. Our group wasn’t called until 8:15 or 8:30 a.m. And when we were called, we went off the ship…and got into a nice long line. I think we got on the bus at somewhere between 9 and 9:15. As I remember, we finally got through airport security around 10:15-10:30–three hours after we had to be in the showroom, but only two hours before boarding would begin.

The idea’s good, I think, but the execution was lousy. I surmise they called us all together so they’d make sure we got the instructions right–but that’s unacceptable. They should reasonably have known that Groups 3, 4, and 5 had no reason to be off the ship before (say) 8:30 or 9:30 or maybe 11 or 12 for group 5, and should have staged things so we weren’t sitting around interminably.

It’s interesting that cruise lines haven’t solved the debarkation problem: You can lose a lot of good will in that last process. In this case, I’ll charitably assume they just don’t have the bugs worked out yet, and a lot of it has to do with HAL’s old shore-excursion attitude. Assume that we’re adults, that we can handle written instructions, and arrange things accordingly: We’ll all be happier!

Debarkation aside, HAL did a good job. Oh, did I mention the string quartet? My wife and our friend were devoted to this group, the Azalea Strings, playing every evening in one of the lounges, with a wide repertoire and excellent ensemble. I heard enough to know they’re first-rate; I just wasn’t as much in the string-quartet mood. (It’s not all reggae and piano bar on board!)

[Will we take HAL again? Probably--but we didn't sign up for a British Isles 2009 cruise that looked good for an interesting reason HAL can't help with: The air fare would have been almost as much as the cruise.]

Yes, the post title is an overstatement–but the situation described below struck me as peculiar enough to deserve a little hyperbole. It relates to Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change and three posts (and related comments) on two liblogs. The posts and comments all happened in late May, while I was incommunicado (on vacation and only checking work-related email once every couple of days at fairly high shipboard internet prices).

Before getting to the posts and comments, I want to be very clear about one thing: This is not about rejecting negative criticism.

To drive that point home, I was doing some ego-Googling (which I rarely do, although not for lack of ego) and encountered a terse review of Balanced Libraries that I hadn’t seen earlier. The review appeared on Goodreads and was written by Jack (I think you have to join Goodreads to find out who Jack is). Here’s the review, in full:

“Generally just classic Crawford: long-winded, rambling, reactionary rhetoric. “

My comment? That’s an honest opinion stated clearly and presumably after reading the book. I have no problem with it.

But this other combination is something else–not a negative review of the book (which I’d link to or quote) but, well, something else.

---

It begins with “Where Are Blogs Bred? In the Heart Or In the Head?,” posted by Keith Kisser on May 27, 2008 at The Invisible Library (http://sanchezkisser.com/blog/). Kisser recently published a science fiction novel, The Machine of the World, on Lulu, and was searching Amazon to see whether it showed up yet. It hadn’t (and still hasn’t, which is odd); instead, he found Balanced Libraries,where I’d quoted from one of his blog posts. (The post favored Netflix-style library service and included a charming statement ending in “time to wait for the dinosaurs to die off.” You’ll find it in Kisser’s archive on December 8, 2006.)

Kisser doesn’t comment on the book itself or the context for the quotation, since he hadn’t read it. But he does have opinions about having a blog post show up in a book. Some of what he says:

But one thing I am, is uncertain about how I feel about being cited in this or any other book. At first go, it’s a little flattering to have my opinions taken into consideration, even if, as I gather from the few pages I’ve read online, …Walt Crawford is criticizing me. That’s fine. Healthy debate is great and I’m a big boy and can handle it. But what remains uncertain at this point (because again, I haven’t read the whole book yet) is the context…

The thing is, my blog is a rough draft of ideas that are constantly changing and evolving. Some library blogs are more academic (i.e. judiciously worded) and take topics at a more in-depth, analytical perspective. I do that sometimes but I’m not above tossing off a half baked idea, contradicting myself later, or criticizing reactionary librarians or critics of libraries with impertinent language. It’s my blog and I’ll rant if I want to. And anyone is free to read, link or cite my words as they see fit. It’s a wide and woolly Internet and I neither hide my identity nor suffer the delusion that a blog is somehow a private forum. If you can read it on the Internet, it isn’t private or secret.

But just how public and in what capacity a blog, any blog is, has yet to be defined…. [Notes that his blog ranges widely...] You see the problem here? In which context was my post cited? Is it Academic Librarian Keith being cited or Geek Keith? Maybe it’s Slightly Sleepy and a Little Cranky with a Side of Silly Keith?…

Blogs are still too new to have a defined space in the academic world…. How do you treat blogs? As Journals or diaries? Thy can be both and at the same time. It’s nutty. And confusing, And wonderful. But mostly confusing.

I’d challenge some of the last two paragraphs

• I think we’re long past the point where “how public…a blog is” has yet to be defined. An open blog–one anybody can reach (as opposed to some LiveJournal blogs and other protected blog) is a series of publications. It’s public. Each post is a publication. People have been quoting from blog posts in articles and books almost since there have been blogs. For that matter, it’s fair to assume that a lot more people will read Kisser’s post as quoted here or in Cites & Insights than will read it as quoted in Balanced Libraries, since it’s wildly unlikely that I’ll ever sell 1,500 to 2,500 copies of the book (roughly the average daily readership here and typical first-two-months readership for C&I).
• I provided date and address for the post, as I did for all quoted posts. That allows any reader to find the context–typically a lot more easily than they could find the context for a quotation from print, where the reader might or might not have access to the original. I quoted Keith Kisser talking about library services; it’s not up to me to guess “which Keith Kisser” was writing the post. I’m prone to changing opinions and issuing rough drafts here as well–but I know that, once posted, they’re published statements suitable for citation.
• “Academic world” is a red herring, since Balanced Libraries isn’t an academic work and I’m not an academic.

Actually, I was a little astonished that, in 2008, someone would be questioning the appropriateness of quoting from a blog post in more formal literature. That train left the station a long time ago, and I really don’t think there ever was a question. (People have been quoting elist posts in formal literature for many, many years, and that’s never been much of an issue either, as long as the elists are public.)

The first commenter, Jenny, thought it was great that Kisser was cited in a book. In part:

Does it really matter in what context you were cited? Someone took an idea you blogged about because it sparked an idea they had and ran with it. Isn’t that part of the point of a blog? To create wider discourse? And, even if Crawford did use your blog entry out of context at least you’ll always have something to rant about at dinner parties.

To which Kisser responded:

True. Though I’m less concerned about how he quoted me in particular and more interested in the idea of blogs being quoted in a scholarly paper as a general concept. I’ve also found out more about the circumstances of this citation in particular. I’ll have an update soon.

Somehow Balanced Libraries now shifted from being a book to being academic to being “a scholarly paper.” In any case, blog posts have showed up in formal refereed articles for years as well, so that general concept is also settled. Blog posts in non-pseudonymous blogs are signed publications.

I would have posted some of this as a comment–but, although comments do appear, Kisser later closed the post to comments, so that wasn’t possible. I might have left it at that, particularly since I really don’t think there’s any serious controversy about the public, citable, quotable status of public blog posts. (What part of “public” don’t you understand?)

But wait…there’s more!

---

On May 28, 2008 (the next day), Kisser posted “Not-So-Balanced Libraries.” He begins by noting that he’d wondered aloud “about the context of such citations and the weird gray area inhabited by blogs in the academic world.” (Again: My book isn’t academic and the area isn’t all that gray…but never mind.) He “did a little more research” leading to my website and a link to the book at Lulu.com. (The Amazon record he originally found isn’t for the Lulu edition, it’s for the CreateSpace edition–but, again, never mind.) And here’s where it gets interesting. Since this is all about me and I’m commenting on it, I do believe that fair use applies, so I’m quoting the rest of the post in full:

This in no way invalidates his book, or thesis, but neither does it really inspire much confidence. Let’s be honest–and this is coming from a fellow Lulu author–self published academic work tends to have a certain… charm, shall we say. It’s good to know others are getting their work out there independently and for all I know, Walt Crawford is the unsung, Tom Paine of the library world. But seriously, Walt, $29.50 for a paperback is bad enough but $20 for the download? Downloads are free. I could understand maybe asking for donations. Charging a buck or two is acceptable, if you want to be a dick. But $20 for a PDF is madness. Like, RIAA suing tween music downloaders for their parent’s retirement fund level of madness. Cory Doctorow explains why. Bad form, Walt.

The only thing worse than not making an ebook available (especially when self publishing the book on Lulu, where that option is free and as easy as clicking a single button) is charging such a ridiculous price for it. This is one of those really easy web 2.0 ideas that often get ignored by library administrators because they either can’t or won’t change their minds about access and distribution models. If charging people for ebooks is part of your idea of creating a balanced library, I’m not impressed. And neither am I willing to spend $30 bucks for some out-to-lunch academic’s pet project.

Well now. First he says that publishing through Lulu doesn’t inspire much confidence–and, frankly, I agree. If I didn’t already have a reputation (for good or for bad) through 12 traditionally-published books and a few hundred traditionally-published articles and columns, and through Cites & Insights, I would never have attempted the Lulu trick for a nonfiction book. “Walt Crawford” is the only real brand here, for better or worse.

I’m hardly the “unsung Tom Paine of the library world.” Kisser’s never heard of me. No reason he should have. But a few thousand others have–well, tens of thousands in the case of the Library 2.0 special.

“$29.50 for a paperback is bad enough but $20 for the download? Downloads are free.” Sez who? Cory Doctorow? I haven’t adopted Doctorow as a guru. The $29.50 price is, to put it bluntly, cheap for a 247-page trade paperback on current technological issues in the library field. Every similar work that I’m aware of costs at least $35, with one going for more than $100. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is whether an author is obliged to give away his or her work for free, as long as it’s in downloadable form.

Kisser seems to think that they are–”Downloads are free.” He even says that charging a buck or two is only acceptable “if you want to be a dick” and seems to equate my $20 price with RIAA’s infringement suits.

In the final paragraph, Kisser once again calls me an academic–this time an “out-to-lunch academic.” And somehow my belief that authors can request some compensation for their work (done on their own time) is “part of [my] idea of creating a balanced library.” I’ll cop to that: I don’t believe that balanced libraries set out to make authorship worthless, even though they can, do, and should provide free (prepaid via taxes or tuition) access to written materials. (I assume that the few dozen libraries that purchased Balanced Libraries circulate it, and would certainly hope so!)

This is, to put it mildly, bullshit. Writing a book is hard work. To assert that an author is at best clueless and at worst “a dick” or worse because the author doesn’t give that work away is insulting and offensive…and devalues creative effort. If an author wants to follow Doctorow’s approach, more power to them. That doesn’t make it the only correct or honorable approach. In fact, the whole “give it away so your true fans will buy other stuff” meme works badly for writers and even worse for niche writers.

Again, I would have protested directly on the blog–but again, although there are comments, comments are closed. So I would have commented in an essay on copyright balance about the dystopian notion that you’re obliged to give it away if it can be distributed digitally.

Except for the linked post and the comments on that post…

---

There’s really only one comment and a trackback, and the comment is from the person who wrote the blog post that’s tracked back: Aaron at SemiConscious Dot Org. (www.semiconscious.org). His May 29, 2008 post is entitled “Library 1.87” and is brief enough to quote in full: