Archive for December, 2013

Making Book S1. Balanced Libraries

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013

What the heck: Let’s look at some or all of the self-published books I’ve done, always using Lulu (and in some cases also using CreateSpace or Kindle Direct, both part of Amazon).

This book grew, indirectly, out of discussions surrounding and emanating from “Library 2.0″—the ideas, the movement (or set of initiatives) and the term itself.

I’m guessing that nearly all of you have read the first big essay coming out of my concerns about “Library 2.0″—through the end of 2012, it might have been downloaded or read more than 50,000 times. The big essay appeared as the Midwinter 2006 issue of Cites & Insights (I’m not linking to it because I’ve replaced the PDF and HTML with stubs suggesting that you buy Library 2.0: A Cites & Insights Reader
and providing the new URL for the issue; I find it interesting that of the thousands of downloads/opens of the stubs since I made that change in 2011, no more than a couple of hundred people have downloaded or opened the new URLs—and fewer than 20 have purchased the modestly-priced book). Later that year, I shifted my own focus from “Library 2.0” to balance. That shift eventually resulted in this book.

In some ways, this book is a sequel to Being Analog—but it wasn’t written as such. I viewed the book as an experiment in at least two ways:

  • Seeing whether self-published print-on-demand made sense in cases where I didn’t think the topic would ever reach close to 1,200 buyers (the level at which I believed professional library publishers would be interested)…that is, whether it would sell enough copies to make doing it worthwhile. (My initial target was 300 copies in two years as “success.”)
  • Responding to the claim that book publishing is too slow and cumbersome for books to be an effective part of the ongoing conversations about library change and social software. As I said at the time, “I’m not convinced that’s true.”

I tried to make the book conversational: I set up one post for each chapter, specifically to gather comments and feedback. That effort was pretty much a failure.

I was, of course, also experimenting with Lulu itself. Before trying this, I purchased a Lulu paperback (Atlanta Nights, a novel by “Travis Tea” that was put together by a bunch of science fiction authors as a test of PublishAmerica’s standards—while deliberately written to be unpublishable, I find it entertaining, and it certainly proved its point about vanity presses disguised as traditional publishers) to check out the production quality of Lulu books. It was excellent.

I either developed or refined a book template for Word, prepared the PDF, and chose one of my wife’s travel photos as the basis for a wraparound cover. I’ve been using her photos for many book covers ever since, most strikingly in the huge wraparound prints on Cites & Insights annual editions. I should have spent more time sharpening and cleaning up this particular photo, but it still works well.

The 247-page 6″ x 9″ paperback (also available as a PDF ebook) appeared in 2007. Later, I added a CreateSpace edition available on Amazon. It did not reach the 300-copy sales goal by the end of 2010. It did reach the 300-copy mark in late 2012. I’ve contemplated doing a second edition, but I haven’t contemplated it very much. It’s possibly worth noting that sales of that first book make up 45% of all sales of all of the self-published books I’ve done on Lulu, CreateSpace and Kindle Direct.

As with most C&I books (except those with ISBNs, where the publisher of legal record is either Lulu or CreateSpace), the nominal publisher is Cites & Insights Books, which does not exist. I haven’t included that in the bibliographic citations.

Crawford, Walt. Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change. 2007 (pbk).

Commenting: The new default is off

Monday, December 9th, 2013

As with many other blogs, this one has seen a lot fewer real comments in recent months and years than in the past.

As with–I’d guess–many other blogs, this one sees far too many spamments.

In the good old days (waves cane in the air), I would check the spam logs and restore comments that were mistakenly trapped as spam (which happens once in a while, usually because a person includes more than one link in comment).

But once I started getting more than 60 spam attempts a day, I just wasn’t willing to take the time to check each one.

More recently, I’ve sometimes remembered to go back and turn off commenting for those posts for which it’s clearly irrelevant (which seem to attract the most spam elements). That seemed to be helping: I was down to 20-60 spam attempts per day.

Then, last week, things went straight to hell and have stayed there: I’m getting some 200 spam attempts a day (most of them in non-Latin scripts).

Meanwhile, while there are a few actual comments, there are very few.

Giving up

So I’m giving up. WordPress’ interface doesn’t allow me to choose whether or not to allow comments as I’m preparing a post. I have to post it, then go into the dashboard, call up Posts, and do a quick edit from that list. I tend to forget to do that on the “no comments required” posts.

So I’m switching the default. From now on, new posts will not allow comments by default. If I remember and it’s appropriate, I’ll go in and turn on commenting (for 60 days) after publishing the post.

Sorry if this further discourages real comments, but there are so few of those compared to the flood of presumably autogenerated spamments (I particularly love the ones where the spammer doesn’t bother to run the generating software, so you get random-generation clauses rather than text)…

If you actually have a serious response and I’ve forgotten to turn on comments, you can always send me email. If it’s my goof, I’ll turn on comments and post your email as a comment (unless you tell me not to).

Open access, advocacy, extremism and attention: A casual note

Monday, December 9th, 2013

For a long time I viewed myself as an open access (henceforth OA, because that’s what I’m talking about) independent/observer: Not really involved in the “movement” but noting developments, commenting from time to time and–once in a while–indulging in a little “curse on both your houses” when it seemed necessary.

More recently, I found that I was gradually moving from independent to advocate–but I’m beginning to think that’s wrong, for a couple of reasons:

  • While I did write what’s still a key book on OA (Open Access: What You Need to Know Now), and while that book could be considered OA advocacy–it’s certainly not entirely neutral–I’m not in the trenches day-in and day-out responding to critics and espousing all forms of OA. I’m no Peter Suber or Michael Eisen. I’m also no (insert list of effective OA advocates here).
  • For whatever reasons–possibly lack of institutional affiliation, possibly lack of single-minded 100% support of any and all OA models and approaches, possibly not being either a scientist or an academic, possibly, I dunno, being a crappy writer–I find that I’m not really a significant part of the conversation. With relatively few exceptions (Peter Suber being a primary one), my contributions to the discussion are largely ignored, especially outside the library field. And even within the library field, I’d bet that J. Beall gets 10 times the attention and credibility that I do–and 10 times may be too conservative.

Maybe I’m overstating the second one. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

For various reasons, I don’t have readership numbers for Cites & Insights for most of 2013. My sense is that the three OA issues that year were not widely read, and they certainly haven’t been widely-referenced, at least from what I can see using Google searches.

It probably doesn’t help that one of the Great Men of OA labeled me an enemy of OA years ago, and as far as I know has never retracted that absurd charge. Yes, I’ve criticized that particular Great Man for what I consider an extremist view of OA and his frequent attempts to undermine forms of OA that differ from his own. I don’t apologize for that. (I’ve also criticized one of the would-be Great Women of OA for a form of extremism, for that matter, mostly having to do with appropriate CC licenses. I don’t apologize for that either.)

I had another jotted note toward a future post about escalating definitions of openness, another form of OA extremism that I find troubling (in that it makes it easier to oppose OA or ignore it entirely). I might yet write that…or maybe not.

So maybe I’m not really becoming an OA advocate. Of course I believe it’s important (and it’s fair to note that I was writing about it–and engaged in it–long before the term existed). Of course I’ll note it where it matters (e.g., in talking about possible solutions for the damage done by the big deal). And no, I’m not saying “screw it: I’m walking away from OA” again. That’s silly; while I may not have much of an audience or much credibility, I still have a little–and there continue to be some interesting aspects of OA to write about.

Still… My Soros funding still hasn’t come through (nor have I ever requested it); I don’t have a “cushy job” or any job at all to fall back on; I’m not sure I’m willing to plow through all the BS from extremists both opposed to OA and those favoring The One True Way; and, well, this is one area where:

  • There are some eloquent voices who do have some credibility
  • I sometimes feel as though writing in this area is mostly a waste of time.
  • It’s clear that I have no basis for direct OA advocacy.

So, back to being an observer–not really an independent, but not really an advocate. To attempt otherwise appears to be beating my head against a wall of gelatin: Not bloody-making but basically pointless.





Making Book 18. Successful Social Networking in Libraries

Monday, December 9th, 2013

This book has been a voyage of discovery—one that began with a loose agenda and ended with a greater appreciation for the sheer diversity of America’s public libraries and the extent to which small libraries are the centers of their communities.

The loose agenda was not a set of theses and prescriptions for what constitutes successful social networking and whether public libraries were doing it right. Instead, I set out to see what was happening: how prevalent library social networking actually is and whether it seems to be reaching an audience.

Thus begins the preface for this, the most recent of my professionally-published library books (as of now: #19 should, Gaia willing, the creeks don’t rise and a certain government agency gets the data out, appear sometime in 2014).

I proposed the project to ALA Editions in early 2011, with the assumption that librarians are intelligent and generally sensible people who know what they’re doing. Since social network activity would not be a long-established service that might be difficult to shut down, they wouldn’t be maintaining Facebook pages or tweeting unless those efforts were reasonably successful as that library defines success.

I also disbelieved assertions I’d seen, as early as late 2010, that all or almost all public libraries already had Facebook pages. That struck me as implausible—but also easy to investigate. If I checked 200 libraries and 180 or more of them were visible on Facebook, then I was wrong or the sample was biased.

I started out with a two-state project (which immediately convinced me that I was not wrong in doubting the universality of library Facebook involvement); it grew by stages until it eventually involved 38 states and nearly 6,000 libraries. (At the time, my choice of states was partly limited by the lack of an Excel version of IMLS’ public library datasets; I found out after the survey was complete that Excel could, in fact, open the Access version. Since then, IMLS has begun releasing the datasets in Excel and CSV forms, making it even easier. Still: 6,000 libraries was a lot of work; going from 38 states and 6,000 libraries to 51 states & DC and more than 9,000 libraries would be more work than I signed on for.)

I investigated social networking activity the hard way: I looked. And in 2011, you could find out quite a bit about Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, including information that’s no longer as readily available. I was able to document the number of followers or likes, the total number of tweets and, by examination, the typical rate of tweeting, Facebook updating, and comments for a given library.

I also got some great comments from a number of public librarians regarding aspects of social networking, and used some of those comments in the book.

The investigation was a lot of work—possibly more than I’ve done for any other book. I think it was worth it.

The book itself is a combination of commentary, tabular results, graphs, quoted tweets, updates and comments, and advice. For various reasons, there was some delay in the book’s final appearance, but it’s out now, and I believe it’s still relevant. I also continue to believe that each library needs to determine what constitutes success—that for an outsider to declare a library’s social networking activity to be useless is simply inappropriate. But that’s another discussion.

Crawford, Walt. Successful Social Networking in Public Libraries. Chicago: ALA Editions, 2014. ISBN 978-0-8389-1167-9 (pbk.)

So: That’s it. Unless I offer similar comments about the self-published books I’ve done…

Making Book 17. The Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing

Friday, December 6th, 2013

This book is especially close to my heart, and it’s also one that’s given me some difficulty.

The difficulty isn’t with the publisher: Information Today, Inc. has been great throughout the process, beginning with accepting the idea and including the process of working with ITI’s designer to come up with a mutually-agreeable professional-quality Word book template that we could use without modification for the book itself and also make available to anybody else to download for free.

The difficulty isn’t with the quality of the book. I believe it’s first-rate (and was improved by ITI’s three layers of editing—one of the rare cases where I’m acutely aware of editorial changes, because the way we did this, I had to approve each one: the proposed changes were sticky notes in the PDF of the book).

The difficulty isn’t with the need for the book. I am 99% certain that 99% of America’s public libraries serve patrons who want to put some story into book form, even though they know it can’t sell hundreds of copies—whether that story is family genealogy (which alone would probably account for millions of such stories), family history, local history or a specialized interest. Lulu (and CreateSpace) make it possible to do that with no upfront costs; this book provides the tools to do it well with no upfront costs. (I’ve heard people swear that certain books done using these tools and templates were done by professionals. In the particular cases, yes, they were done by a professional, but a retired professional librarian, not a publishing professional.)

Nope. The difficulty is that the book hasn’t done nearly as well as it should.

Just as I believe every academic library (other than the most specialized) should own a copy of Open Access: What You Need to Know Now (WorldCat currently lsits 914 libraries owning it, so that’s a start), I believe every public library (and many academic libraries) should own a copy of this book to serve their patrons and community…but, so far, WorldCat only shows 433 copies.

ITI did a fine job of promoting the book, as far as I can tell.

Why have so few libraries picked it up? Well, it’s not dirt-cheap, but I wonder whether there’s also a fair amount of “we don’t want any part of this self-publishing crapola” going on? After all, if a library provides the tools to produce attractive, well-laid-out print-on-demand books, won’t there be some requests for them to have some of those books?

Maybe that’s not it. Maybe the penetration will grow over time. I hope so—not so much for the royalties as because I think this is a tool that really and truly will make a library more central to its community, and help to see the community’s stories told in durable form. Both of which I think are very good things.

In case you didn’t already know: although this book has a professionally-designed cover and the paperback version was offset-printed and bound by ITI, the contents (except for the title pages, provided as a PDF by ITI) were entirely generated using the tools and templates described in the book: Microsoft Word 2010, output to PDF. In fact, the casewrap hardcover version is fulfilled by Lulu, using the production methods described in the book.

Crawford, Walt. The Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing: Helping Patrons and Communities Use Free and Low-Cost Publishing Tools to Tell Their Stories. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 2012. ISBN 978-1-57387-430-4 (pbk.), 978-1-57387-451-9 (casewrap)

30% off Cites & Insights Books–through 12/9

Friday, December 6th, 2013

NOTE: It now appears that the #decktheshelf 30% off sale runs through Tuesday, December 9.


Lulu’s announced a site-wide 30%-off sale–apparently through Tuesday, December 9, 2013

Use coupon code


A thirty-percent discount is extraordinary–it’s the biggest discount I’ve seen.

If you’ve thought about any of my books–the C&I annuals, The Big Deal, etc.–or, for that matter, have yet to get Laura Crossett’s Night Sweats (from Lulu)–this is the day to act.

My store’s here, or you can just go to and search for what you want. (You can reach any other books beginning at my store, of course.)

Come to think of it: If you or your library doesn’t yet own The Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing, or wants it as a casewrap hardcover, today is your day: the 30% sale applies to that as well (via Lulu–the only way you can get the hardcover version).

[Note: If you’re concerned about Laura’s share, or mine, or ITI’s on TLGTM: don’t be. These sales don’t affect net revenue. I love love love it when Lulu does sales like this.]

Mystery Collection Disc 40

Thursday, December 5th, 2013

Death Collector (aka Family Enforcer), 1976, color. Ralph De Vito (dir. & writer), Joe Cortese, Lou Criscuolo, Joe Pesci, Bobby Alto, Frank Vincent, Anne Johns. 1:25 [1:29]

What to say about this? I guess it’s about a small-time Jersey (New, that is) crook involved with the local crime families, who tries to act as a collector but never actually recovers any money. Eventually, he gets killed.

There’s lots’o’plot in between, but the movie failed a personal test: There was nobody—nobody—who I found worth caring about. At all. I’m not sure why I even watched the whole thing, except maybe that Joe Pesci (a costar who gets killed partway through) is at least interesting to watch.

The flick establishes its R rating in the first five minutes and seems to glory in showing as much blood as possible. (The picture on the IMDB page, with an alternate title, seems to suggest that Pesci was the primary star. He wasn’t.) If you’re a big fan of sleazy lowlife crime flicks, it might be worth $0.75. Personally, I wouldn’t give it a dime.

The Master Touch (orig. Un uomo da rispettare or “A man to be respected”), 1972, color. Michele Lupo (dir.), Kirk Douglas, Giuliano Gemma, Florinda Bolkan, Wolfgang Preiss, Reinhard Kolldehoff. 1:52 [1:32]

Here’s another widescreen movie—filmed very widescreen, panned & scanned to 16:9. It’s not enhanced for DVD—zooming it out loses a little clarity—but it’s a pretty good widescreen picture anyway. And, you know, Kirk Douglas, also a Morricone score. And one impressive and long car chase with loads of bumper-car action, with one car pretty much demolished at the end and the other only drivable thanks to suspension of disbelief. Also, apparently everybody in West Germany drives like a maniac with lead-footed starts and hasty stops, and police cars travel in huge flocks.

The plot has to do with Kirk Douglas, safecracker who relies more on explosives than finesse, getting out of prison after a three-year term and the crime lord who’d gotten him into the failed job wanting him to rob a safe in an insurance company that’s protected by incredibly high technology alarm systems. He rejects the idea—but only (apparently) because the only time he ever got caught was when he was working for somebody else. Instead, he recruits a circus trapeze artist who’s made an enemy of the crime lord’s henchman (there’s a lot of fighting in this movie as well, but the henchman ultimately disappears for no good reason). He has this great notion of giving himself a perfect alibi for the 1.5 million-dollar high-tech safe robbery (hey, $1.5 million was a lot of money in 1972—equivalent to $8.4 million in 2013): he gets caught cracking a pawnshop’s safe at the same time the other alarm goes off. Easy-peasey: Serve 18 months for attempted burglary, get out to retire with the money (after the trapeze artist who actually cracks the safe gets his cut). Except that the trapeze artist kills a guard—changing the 18 months to a life sentence. It seems as though the trapeze artist and Douglas’ wife…oh, never mind.

Sorry if these are spoilers, but the plot doesn’t make a lot of sense anyway. Defeating the high-tech security system is way too easy; the henchman turns out to be a sideshow that takes up close to a third of the movie; and the situation with Douglas’ wife suggests that Douglas has all the emotional sensitivity and listening capabilities of a fencepost. The missing 20 minutes might help. It’s an Italian production set in Germany, and it’s at least stylishly done at times. One IMDB review does point up one thing: None of the characters is really likable, although Douglas comes close enough that I watched the whole thing. All things considered, I’ll give it $1.25.

Code Name: Zebra (aka The Zebra Force), 1976, color. Joe Tornatore (dir.), Mike Lane, Richard X. Slattery, Glenn R. Wilder, Anthony Caruso. 1:40 [1:20]

We start with seven black guys robbing a (presumably illegal?) casino (I guess in LA), shooting quite a few folks in the process—but it turns out they’re not black guys, they’re whites wearing uncannily good black masks. The honcho of the group is The Lieutenant, a one-armed Vietnam veteran with half his face badly disfigured: the rest of the group were his squad from Vietnam (where he got blown up by a land mine). He’s worked out a plan to rob the Mob (it was a Mob casino) four different ways, then split the money among the eight so they’ll be set for life. Hey, why not? They’re taking from the crooks (the second heist involves a big load of heroin, which he insists they flush down the toilet: they only keep the money) and keeping for themselves—not quite Robin Hood, but close.

Meanwhile, the local mob’s brought in a Detroit enforcer because the Detroit capo’s son was one of those killed in the casino heist. Naturally, they assume that their black subordinate in East LA is either behind it or leaking info (the robbers always know just where the security is and how to deal with it). In one plot, they decide to set up the black subordinate using the crooked cop (in a tiny little police station that seems a bit odd for LA) and, in the process, take out the cop as well. That happens…but the Vietnam vets also make their fourth and final stop, robbing the local capo’s house on delivery day. Unfortunately, one of the vets gets captured.

This all leads to a big gun battle involving the mob, the vets and the police. If I count right, either three or four of the eight (including the leader) survive and escape. There’s one final plot twist, but I won’t give that one away.

An interesting plot, albeit wildly implausible (there’s no explanation for the amount of info the vets have, the mob seems underarmed and generally sloppy, etc., etc.). Unfortunately, once again, there’s nobody that’s worth cheering for—not even close. More unfortunately, the print’s really bad in parts, with serious digitization artifacts. How bad? It’s literally impossible to read the closing credits and about half of the opening ones. I relied on IMDB for credits—as, apparently, did the people doing the sleeve copy, as both their “star” and their plot are for another movie, eight years later, with the same director but an entirely different plot. It’s also not, shall we say, a paragon of acting or screenwriting—but there’s loads of action. Maybe the extra 20 minutes would help, but I’m guessing not. At best, I’d give it $0.75.

The Cape Town Affair, 1967, color. Robert D. Webb (dir.), James Brolin, Jacqueline Bisset, Claire Trevor, Bob Courtney, John Whiteley. 1:40.

This is more like it. James Brolin plays an expert pickpocket in Cape Town, who lifts a wallet from a young woman on a bus (Bisset, lovely as ever)—a wallet, as it turns out, that was carrying something she was supposed to deliver to somebody. Who, although she didn’t know it, is a Red or Commie (used more or less interchangeably in this of-its-time movie); the delivery is a strip of Highly Important Film (not microfilm). And although Brolin’s an expert pickpocket, he’s identified immediately—because two agents on the bus (trying to find who the wallet’s intended for) were watching her, not him, and could figure out when the wallet disappeared. A tie-selling woman (Trevor), Sam, knows all the crooks and, when the cops provide a 50 Rand inducement, gives them four names (based on the guy’s methodology), allowing the agents to select his photo.

Thus begins a reasonably fast-moving number with a modest number of complications. I won’t even attempt to describe all the plot twists, although—with one huge exception—none of them seems especially outrageous. The huge exception: The villain (not Brolin) is at large, the cops have an all-out bulletin for him (with photos), they know Brolin’s address and that the villain’s likely to head his way…but when that happens, the cops are nowhere to be found, leaving Brolin to take care of the matter on his own.

That glaring improbability near the end weakens what’s otherwise a pretty good flick. The print’s good, the cast is good, the acting’s good enough, the script is…well, you can’t have everything. You get to see a lot of Cape Town at the peak of apartheid (the movie’s a South African production) and even with the slightly-weakened ending, I’ll give it $1.25.

Making Book 16: Open Access

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

For many years, I wrote about open access—even before such a term existed—but as an observer and participant, not really an advocate. Peter Suber called me an OA independent, and that was as good a term as any.

For some years, I more-or-less gave up on OA: too many people were writing about it, too many folks were taking extreme stances and blathering interminably if you didn’t agree with them 100%, it just got tiresome. And, as a non-scientist, I didn’t think I was doing much good. (As a library person—not a librarian—I also recognized that librarians have been discussing and promoting OA for years, generally being ignored by scientists and dissed by some self-appointed OA Leaders, Suber definitely not one of those dissing librarians.) Indeed, I self-published a collection of all the pieces I’d written through 2009 because I didn’t expect to write much more. (That collection is still available—free in PDF form, $17.50 for the 513-page paperback.)

In fact, I wrote almost nothing about Open Access in Cites & Insights in 2010, 2011 or the first 10 months of 2012. (2013 was an entirely different story: I could produce a reasonably fat paperback with OA-related material from December 2012 through 2013.)

But it also became clearer and clearer that many librarians (and others) didn’t understand OA—not surprisingly, given the sheer amount of disinformation produced by some publishers and one or two absurd blogs and the steeply variant views of some supporters.

So I worked to remedy that—and found ALA Editions amenable to the idea, as one in their occasional “Special Reports” series. These fairly brief books are written fairly quickly and edited fairly quickly: the book was available three months after completion. I believe Open Access: What You Need to Know Now continues to serve as a fine introduction to OA in plain language with a library orientation.

Since then, Peter Suber—who, along with Charles W. Bailey, Jr. and Dorothea Salo, was kind enough to read the draft and provide an excellent blurb for—has published Open Access through MIT Press (now available as an OA ebook). I regard the two books as complementary, as do some reviewers.

I’m proud of this book. I won’t comment here on my feelings about some Amazon “reviewers.” The book hasn’t been a best-seller, but it has earned out its advance (I’m getting small royalties from it), so it’s also not a failure.

Crawford, Walt. Open Access: What You Need to Know Now. Chicago: ALA Editions, 2011. ISBN 978-0-8389-1106-8 (pbk.)

Making Book 15: Policy and Library Technology

Monday, December 2nd, 2013

Technically, this one isn’t a book (and it doesn’t appear in the book section of my vita)—but in terms of effort, reward and readership, it should probably count as a book. Instead, it’s an issue of Library Technology Reports, a periodical (also sold as single editions) from ALA TechSource.

I believe this is the last book (or booklike thing) I wrote while still at RLG. I believe this came about after some conversations with Patrick Hogan.

Library Technology Reports are relatively short and have a fairly standard format. Each one (I believe) has a single topic and a single author.

The issue has seven chapters of roughly equal length:

  • Thinking in Policy Terms
  • The Copyright Spectrum
  • Technology, Privacy, Confidentiality and Security
  • Policy Prerequisites and Technology Limitations
  • Policy, Technology, and the Digital Corpus
  • Library Policies and Social Policy Issues
  • Sources and Resourcs

I was pretty happy with this one, and it was the last traditionally-published monograph I had for six years.

Crawford, Walt. “Policy and Library Technology.” Library Technology Reports 41:2 (March/April 2005), pp. 1-63. ISSN 0024-2586.

Cites & Insights 14.1 (January 2014) available

Sunday, December 1st, 2013

Now entering its fourteenth (!) year, the January 2014 Cites & Insights is now available at

The issue is 32 pages long. The single-column “online version” is 62 pages long.

This issue includes:

The Front  (p. 1)

A few notes on reaching the fourteenth year.

Words: Books, E and P  (pp. 1-25)

Books and the media in which they appear–and note the “E and P” rather than “E vs. P,” although some of the items are distinctly “versus.”

Media: 50 Movie Gunslinger Classics, Part 1

“Gunslingers” doesn’t mean Westerns, although some of these are. It appears to mean that somebody in the movie has a gun. It’s an…odd…set.