Walt at Random

If your public library/library district has used Facebook, Twitter or both, and has stopped using one or both, I’d love to get some feedback, to help me prepare a book on public libraries’ use of social networks, to be published by ALA Editions in 2012. Please send responses to waltcrawford@gmail.com by September 14, 2011.

Basic Information

Library/district official name
State, province or country
Service area population
Your name, title and email address, if I need more info
Whether you’re willing to be quoted directly.

Comments on Twitter or Facebook (or both—indicate which):

Why you stopped using the social network and any other comments you wish to make.

Thanks!

I can’t guarantee your comments will be used—in all, I’d guess no more than 2,000 to 3,000 words in the book will come from direct librarian feedback. But I will list you in the acknowledgments and your comments will definitely help as I prepare the subjective portions of the book.

Note: I’m not assuming that there are any “failure stories.” It won’t surprise me at all if I don’t get any responses to this “negative” query. On the other hand, while I can see the Facebook and Twitter accounts in the six or eleven states I’m studying in depth, I have no way of knowing about former accounts that have closed—unless people tell me.

Thanks,

Walt Crawford

If your public library/library district currently uses Twitter, Facebook or both, I’d love to get some feedback to help me prepare a book on public library use of social networks, to be published by ALA Editions next year. Please send responses to waltcrawford@gmail.com, ideally by September 14, 2011.

Basic Information

Library/district official name
State, province or country
Service area population
Your name, title and email address
Whether you’re willing to have your comments used as direct quotations or only as background.

Comments on Twitter or Facebook (or both—indicate which):

Whatever you feel is worth saying about how your library uses the social network, how much time is spent preparing items and responding to items (if you do that), whether one person or many post, the feedback you’ve gotten from your patrons, whether it seems worthwhile—and whatever else you think is worth mentioning.

Comments on the relationship between the two (if you use both):

Do you use them for different purposes, or are Facebook statuses basically longer versions of tweets (or maybe the same)? Other comments on the differences and similarities as your library has used them?

Thanks!

I can’t guarantee your comments will be used—I’d expect that no more than 2,000-3,000 words of the book will be comments from these emails. I will list you in the acknowledgments (unless you ask me not to do so) and your comments will definitely help as I prepare the subjective portions of the book.

I’ll look up your library’s home page and go to your Twitter and Facebook pages, to pick up basic numbers (followers, following, tweets, likes, visits) and five recent items from each service as examples of trends and practices—unless you’re in one of the six or eleven states for which I’m doing full sweeps, in which case I’d do that anyway.

Thanks!

Walt Crawford

Clarification added August 2, 2011: While this message doesn’t name the “six or eleven states,” I did mention the six states (not the 11) in a FriendFeed note and may have mentioned them elsewhere.

The six states were chosen by population to give a good cross-section (that is, a very large state, a not-so-large state, a medium-sized state, a smaller state, a small state, and a very small state–all in terms of population, not physical size), since I can’t possibly study every single state.

While I’m retaining that principle, further investigation reveals the need to make slight adjustments for the sake of plausibility. In one case, a medium-sized state has hundreds and hundreds of libraries reporting, making it extremely cumbersome to evaluate; in another, a small state has only one public library with many branches. In both cases, I’ve taken an “adjacent” state instead–that is, the next higher-ranked or lower-ranked in population. If I go to 11 states or 16 states, I’ll use the same accommodation.

I can say for sure that California, New Jersey and Minnesota will be studied, since I’ve already done those, and Wyoming–the smallest state by population–will also be studied. It’s highly likely that the fifth and sixth states will be Mississippi and Idaho. That will mean I’ll have checked more than 800 library agencies…

In any case, all reports from public libraries, including those in Canada and outside North America, are welcome. They’ll be treated equally in terms of background comments, and I’ll do a special pass on all “non-studied” libraries come mid-September, treating them as a separate group.

…then nobody else does, or nobody else should, or nobody should pay extra for the difference. Or any of a number of similar arguments, expressed with comments like “why bother?” or “scientific” claims (such as results of surveys where a few hundred folks can’t reliably tell which of two wines, tasted blind, is more expensive).

Sometimes it’s a little stronger. Blake Carver, who in many ways I like and admire (otherwise, C&I wouldn’t be hosted at LISHost), gave this as his reason for posting a link that, at third hand, discussed such a survey—that is, 587 participants were only 50% successful in deciding which of two wines was more expensive—“oenophiles are all full of shit and it’s all just subjective and people waste a stupid amount of time and money on spoiled grape juice.”

OK, that’s hyperbole on Blake’s part—or at least I think it is.

For the rest of the story (and five other snarky little essays)… or read My Back Pages as part of Cites & Insights 11:6.

Yes, this My Back Pages is now in HTML, using the new template.

My wife, the wise person and actual librarian in our household, asked me the other day why I was doing this at all—since libraries surely aren’t buying new CD-ROM titles. I gave her a response similar to what I said back in July 2010 (Cites & Insights 10:8), and I think that’s still valid. Briefly, since libraries don’t automatically discard books from the late 1990s, and since many of these title CD-ROMs were “expanded books” in one way or another, I thought it would be worth seeing whether they still run on contemporary computers, whether they still seem worthwhile, what’s replaced them and so on—along with some notes from when I first reviewed them.

On the other hand…the first six CD-ROMs I tried out this month wouldn’t install at all. Period. In no case was this terribly surprising, but in some cases it was disappointing. After writing up earlier notes on three of them that had been quite interesting (if flawed) “virtual museums,” I realized I no longer had the heart to track down possible web alternatives and that, indeed, recounting how these titles used to work was mostly a history of things lost and a trifle depressing. Remembering when title CD-ROMs were touted as the Next Big Thing, possibly even replacing books, I will note this: Any book I purchased in 1995-1999 is still readable—but many title CD-ROMs purchased in that period are now entirely useless. [I was going to qualify “any book” with “except mass-market paperbacks”—but all the mass-market paperbacks I have from the mid-90s are entirely readable, as are ones that date back to 1965, cheap acid paper and all.]

For the rest of the story… or read The CD-ROM Project as part of Cites & Insights 11:6

The first couple of Google TV products emerged in early 2011—Logitech’s Revue set-top box and a Sony Blu-ray player with Google TV built in. A fairly long writeup in the February 2011 Home Theater is interesting—including an odd little slap at both devices for requiring wall-wart power supplies, which—for devices that are always plugged in—“always screams cheap, off-the-shelf design to me.” The main conclusions: Google TV isn’t there yet, partly because none of the three main networks will allow streaming of their shows, partly because in the process of passing your other TV signals through the Google box, you lose surround-sound capabilities. We do get a sideswipe from a writer who’s clearly an Apple fancier—as made clear in this passage: “If you’re one of those staunch opponents of all things Apple, you probably don’t know what I’m talking about, and you’ll forever be subjected to complex hierarchies and poorly integrated UIs…” Wow. Nobody but Apple is capable of producing good UIs!

For an amusing contrast, there’s “Kill Your Cable, If You Dare” by Jeff Bertolucci in the December 2010 PC World. Bertolucci was spending $85/month on his cable service, and of course the only solution was to get rid of cable entirely. (Since, you know, moving to limited-basic is clearly out of the question.) He concludes that “Google TV…is the best way to find content online.” He also discusses lots of other options…and admits that, well, “if you live in an area where the over-the-air broadcast channels are difficult to receive through antenna,” maybe you shouldn’t cut the cable. What I notice consistently throughout the article: There is never any discussion of video quality. None. (At the very end, he does mention limited-basic cable.) So on one hand, Google TV is the way to go; on the other, it’s not ready for prime time.

For the rest of the story (21 other products & ideas)… or read Interesting & Peculiar Products as part of Cites & Insights 11:6

10. Putting things together into a list seems to connect them. Surely you’ve seen lists where some elements don’t quite seem to fit—or where the organizing principle seems forced. Not a problem. It’s a list. The title connects individual elements, even if that connection is artificial. You can be philosophical about this: Bogus lists encourage people to think about possible connections. Or you can be realistic: A lazy writer spots 10, 15, 25 or 42 items that can fit under a title, no matter how ill the fit.

9. Lists are quotable, searchable, Tweetable. Honorable bloggers, Tweeters, Facebookers, and FriendFeeders will link back—but they’ll probably use one item at a time. Great! Just make sure topic phrases are less than 140 characters long and paragraphs run less than 140 words. You’re on your way to big-link love. A good 20-item 1,600-word list probably results in 10 times the links of a single discursive 1,600-word post or article and probably takes less than half as long to write.

For the rest of the story... or read disContent as part of Cites & Insights 11:6

Time for another Random Roundup, part of an ongoing effort to offer quick notes on interesting things. When I did a catch-up edition of T&QT in October 2009, I noted that—with my switch in March 2009 from printing leadsheets for interesting source material to tagging items in Delicious—I was up to 50 items in September 2009 tagged “tqt” (the tag for this section) out of 643 items altogether, far more items than I ever had “on hand” prior to Delicious.

If you’ve been keeping track, you’ll be aware that I gave up on Delicious after Yahoo! basically issued its death warrant and, after asking for advice and doing some exploring, switched to Diigo, taking my Delicious-tagged items with me (evaluating many of them along the way). I’m not thrilled with one specific aspect of Diigo (the alphabetic list of all tags is clumsy to use because it’s not a list), but otherwise it’s just fine—but boy, do I have a lot of stuff tagged, even after wiping out a hundred items in one recent essay.

The count as of April 21, 2011: 1,294 items in all. Take away GBS (Google Book Settlement, which I may scrap entirely) with 230, and you still have more than a thousand, including 106 tagged tqt. So, well, this roundup in an issue full of roundups is another attempt to do a little catching up, five thousand (or so) words at a time.

For the rest of the story… or read as part of Cites & Insights 11:6

On one hand, it’s one of the great songs from “Once More, with Feeling,” the great all-original musical episode of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. On the other, it’s an appropriate question for Cites & Insights, where “we” refers to you, the readers, me, the editor/writer/publisher—and unknown sponsors real or imaginary.

All of the issues published this year have been heavy on long essays, light on shorter features. (The January 2011 issue, which has seven relatively short sections, was actually published in December 2010.) In every case, I felt that the long essay was worthwhile, and for most issues, readership in the first two or three months seemed to be solid, indicating that I was reaching an audience. During that time, I was still discussing a possible sponsorship, one that would put C&I’s future on a more even keel.

Two things happened in April 2011. One is that the discussions moved in a different direction, one that apparently will not yield sponsorship for Cites & Insights. The other is that an essay I had high hopes for, and one that was much more timely than is typical for C&I, was downloaded less often than is usual—and was entirely ignored by the online community (that is, neither linked from nor mentioned by bloggers and others).

For the rest of the story… or read Bibs & Blather as part of Cites & Insights 11:6.

Sucker Money, 1933, b&w. Dorothy Davenport & Melville Shyer (dirs.), Mischa Auer, Phyllis Barrington, Earl McCarthy, Mona Lisa. 0:59.

The opening titles call this an exposé of phony psychics—but it’s really a remarkably slow-moving B movie. Newspaper editor sees an interesting help-wanted ad, tells reporter to go undercover on what might be a human-interest story. The job turns out to be one of the actors in a swami’s theatricals, as the swami works to con marks out of big money, then move on.

We get danger, hypnotism, lots of nonsense, a swami who’s fond of killing as many associates as possible and an eventual happy ending. In the process, we also get some absurd acting and one of the most lethargic suspense flicks I’ve ever seen. Very charitably, $0.75.

That’s the first movie on Disc 19 of the 60-disc Mystery Collection. Others are better…trust me.

For the rest of the story (Discs 19-24 of the collection)… or read it as part of Cites & Insights 11:7.

Ah, the public domain: Where creative work is supposed to wind up after a limited period during which the creator has exclusive control over distribution and copying. An ever-growing pool of literature, music, photography, video and art that we can use not only as inspiration but also as the direct basis for new works, annotating, deriving or just plain redistributing.

What a wonderful thing.

Too bad it’s basically been frozen for quite a few years now, with almost nothing new entering the pool (except government publications—which start in the public domain) and things tagged with the Creative Commons CC0 license. Oh, and probably a few cases where a creator’s been dead more than 70 years and has works produced since 1923.

Not only has it been frozen in the U.S., there are laws and treaties that would appear to shrink the public domain pool—which should, by any rational reading of the Constitution, be flatly unconstitutional.

For the rest of the story… or read it as part of Cites & Insights 11:7.

Yes, somebody purchased a copy of The Liblog Landscape 2007-2010. So…

Profiles 37-40

AbsTracked

“A blog listing useful links. (Since this blog is from the perspective of an off-duty law librarian, links will generally be related to the topics of law, libraries, reference, technology, and fun.) …” By Abbie Mulvihill. U.S. Blogger. Began February 2005. Lasted 62 months: Most recent post March 10, 2010. Group 2 (only one post March-May 2010).

Academic Evolution

“the order is changing…the change needs order” By Gideon Burton. U.S. TypePad. Began December 2008. Lasted 15 months : Most recent post February 23, 2010. Group 3 (no posts March-May 2010).

Academic Librarian

“On Libraries, Rhetoric, Poetry, History, & Moral Philosophy” By Wayne Bivens-Tatum. U.S. Movable Type. Began July 2007. Lasted 40 months through May 2010: most recent post July 7, 2011. Group 1.

Accidental Aussie

“A personal account of an information professional’s journey to the Sunburnt Country of Australia….” By Robyn. Australia. Blogger. Began April 2006. Lasted 40 months: most recent post August 1, 2009. Group 3 (no 2010 posts). Partial metrics.

The August 2011 Cites & Insights adds hyperlinks, for the first time.

And I’ve already been told by a reader that they don’t work.

That’s true, in one area: Hyperlinks in the PDF version of Cites & Insights do not work at this point. That’s a weakness in both Acrobat 9 as a PDF printer and in Office2010′s “Save as PDF” function: Neither one turns Word hyperlinks into PDF hyperlinks.

“So what’s the problem? Just use the PDF tab on the menu bar instead.”

Sure…except that Acrobat 9 will not install an operational PDF tab in the Word2010 menu bar.

I suspect that Acrobat X will do so.

But, of course, that requires upgrading to Acrobat X, which takes money.

Revenue received from Cites & Insights: $0, for all intents and purposes.

So, y’know, just not gonna happen at this point: since I don’t need hyperlinks in other PDF situations, there’s no justification for me spending a couple hundred bucks of my own money.

The hyperlinks do work in the HTML versions of the essays. I’ve tried them.

“Well, then, you should be maintaining two entirely separate versions of C&I: One with hyperlinks for HTML, one with plain-text URLs and without annoying blue underlines for PDF.”

Not. Going. To. Happen. I can’t justify the effort at this point, given the diminished reception and importance of C&I in the community.

One solution: Drop the hyperlinks altogether. If there’s enough uproar, I’ll do that. Maybe adding them was a bad idea…

If I’ve missed something–if there’s a handy-dandy trick for printing to PDF, or Saving as PDF, that maintains hyperlinks–I’d be delighted to hear it. If it involves upgrading Acrobat, I’d be less delighted.

Cites & Insights 11:7 (August 2011) is now available.

The 18-page issue, PDF as usual, includes three sections, each also available in HTML form (and, for two of them, with live links as appropriate):

Bibs & Blather  pp. 1-2

The state of the ejournal, such as it is.

Copyright Comments: Talking About the Public Domain   pp. 2-10

A mixed bag of notes on relatively recent items related to the growth (or non-growth) of the public domain.

Offtopic Perspective: Mystery Collection Part 4  pp. 10-18

Notes on movies (and early TV shows) on discs 18-24 of the 60-disc, 250-movie Mystery Collection.

I’m still basically a lurker on Twitter, but I’ve come to appreciate one particular hashtag, one that I also see used a lot on FriendFeed:

#firstworldproblem

It’s a nicely terse way of saying, “Yeah, I know that this thing I’m carping about is pretty much irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, and would be laughed at by anybody in countries that aren’t absurdly wealthy. But I’m going to carp about it anyway.”

I can appreciate the sentiment. At times–I think more so in the past–people can get a little holier-than-thou in dismissing complaints. “What? The fries on your $50 steak frites aren’t as crisp as they should be? Millions of children are starving in [name your favorite third-world nation]!”

On the other hand, I admit to getting a little tired lately of what seem to be more and more posts, tweets and status updates that strike me as

#entitlementblues

Which is to say: “The universe revolves around me, dammit, and I will bitch about anything that fails to take my exalted status into account.” And also: “If I was getting an absurd bargain and somebody wants to charge a rational price instead, they’re harshing my cool and should be pummelled mercilously.” And more along those lines.

#entitlementblues also means you can ignore facts and wildly misstate figures because, after all, you’re entitled. So, to use one example, an increase of 60% becomes “doubling.”

You bought an expensive toy that requires wifi, and some place you go to either doesn’t have wifi or doesn’t have free wifi? Bitch about it, long and loud: That’s the #entitlementblues.

You like paying $9.99 for an ebook that would be $20 in hardbound, and it goes up to $15–which is still more of a discount than the likely cost differential for the physical object (almost never more than 1/7th of the purchase price, so less than $3 in this case)? Bitch about it, long and loud: That’s the #entitlementblues.

Do I actually hope to see a reduction in #entitlementblues posts and tweets? Nah–and they’re fun to snark about. Heck, for that matter, “This freebie online service isn’t working precisely the way I think it should work” is a classic #entitlementblues…and just watch the furor if that free service goes away or starts charging!

(Do I post messages sometimes that may be #entitlementblues? Yeah, probably.)

False Pretenses, 1935, b&w. Charles Lamont (dir.), Irene Ware, Sidney Blackmer, Betty Compson, Russell Hopton, Edward Gargan, Ernest Wood, Lucy Beaumont. 1:08 [1:04]

A beautiful young waitress who’s unfortunately dating a brutish truck driver gets fired because of his abusive behavior and somehow manages to lose her final check, blown away in the wind—at a bridge where she sees a drunk gentleman who seems to be contemplating suicide. One thing leads to another; she finds that he’s a wealthy, well-known man who’s lost his money (but wasn’t really suicidal). She talks him into a scheme wherein he’ll find investors for an unknown venture, using the proceeds to put her up at a resort hotel where she’ll meet wealthy friends of his, get one of them to marry her, and repay the investors—and the gentleman, who incidentally is trying to avoid marrying a wealthy woman—with a premarital settlement.

Oddly enough, it’s all rather innocent. We also get a former bootlegger trying to become a socialite (and his butler, who just can’t stop being a burglar) and an oddly satisfying Happy Ending. The only one who winds up disappointed, presumably, is the truck driver—and that’s as it should be. Not falling-down funny but mildly amusing with a fine cast. Unfortunately, there are some missing frames leading to a little choppy dialog. Still, probably worth $1.25.

The Gang’s All Here, 1941, b&w. Jean Yarbrough (dir.), Frankie Darro, Marcia Mae Jones, Jackie Moran, Keye Luke, Mantan Moreland, Laurence Criner. 1:01.

The first problem is that this isn’t funny—unless you’re just wild about a particular brand of racist humor that was unfortunate in its day and just doesn’t work these days. That’s right—Mantan Moreland in full flower as a deliberately lazy bug-eyed stereotype—this time coupled with another black actor (Laurence Criner) with the name “Ham Shanks.” Other than that, it’s a plausible mystery plot of sorts: A trucking company’s trucks keep getting hijacked with the drivers killed, but insurance covers the losses; an out-of-work type (Darro) and his good-for-nothing sidekick (Moreland) sign up as drivers and wind up uncovering the complex situation, with the assistance of Keye Luke as a Chinese-American investigator for the insurance company.

To be honest, I found the whole thing faintly embarrassing. Decent print. If you’re fond of this sort of thing, it might be worth $0.50.

The Inspector General, 1949, color. Henry Koster (dir.), Danny Kaye, Walter Slezak, Barbar Bates, Elsa Lanchester, Gene Lockhart, Alan Hale, Walter Catlett, Rhys Williams. 1:42 [1:39].

Here’s what I said when I reviewed this as part of the Family Classics set: Wonderful, wonderful. Based on the play by Nikolai Gogol, this film is a delight—not only Danny Kaye’s character but also the rest of the cast. Very good to excellent print with a few tiny flaws; fine color and sound. Even if the print was damaged, this would be a wonderfully enjoyable movie.

I usually don’t rewatch movies I’ve already seen in another set, but for this one I made an exception. This time around, the only thing I would change is that the color is typical of aged Technicolor—that is, mostly washed out. Was I just being kind in 2005? I spotchecked that version. Turns out the movie in the Family Classics megapack and the one in this set are from different sources (which I’ve never seen before): The older one really is full color, but the print is sub-VHS quality, while the new one is extremely faded color but the print’s good enough that, even expanding it to fill my big HDTV (for this movie, the “just” function produces a wider picture without fat-faced actors), I was never aware of video issues. (The old one, on a large screen, has persistent problems.)

So: two different versions, each with its own flaws, but both wonderful—if you like Danny Kaye. It’s a great story (illiterate gypsy is mistaken for the Inspector General when he wanders into a corrupt town; just wants something to eat but winds up doing wonders) with some musical numbers and plenty of Kaye at his best. Given the washed-out color, I’ll only give this $2.25.

The Kid, 1921, b&w (silent). Charles Chaplin (dir., writer, star), Edna Purviance, Jackie Coogan, Carl Miller. 1:08.

This one was also part of the Family Classics set, and I’m not enough of a Charlie Chaplin fan to watch it again. Here’s what I had to say then, adjusted only for my different price limits in 2010—and I know it’s short, but I’m not sure there’s a lot more to say about Chaplin’s silent Little Tramp movies:

One of the classic “Little Tramp” movies, in a good-quality print. If you like Chaplin in his silent roles, this is a must-see. $1.75.

An interjection just for this post: I read the IMDB reviews for The Inspector General–including some very negative ones. I would say something about the difficulty of watching comedies with a stick stuck that far up your posterior, but others might say the same thing about my attitude toward the East Side Kids, so let’s just say that tastes differ. And if you think Danny Kaye is a talentless buffoon or that it’s a bad thing that he’s strong on physical comedy and facial expressions–well, then you probably won’t enjoy the movie.