Several big blog changes

Just a quick post to mention several changes I’ve made to this blog overnight. I’ve added a link to a tag cloud in the sidebar. I’ve also added new custom icons in the sidebar for “RSS Subscribe” and “Email Subscribe.” The “Email Subscribe” button’s link replaces the link to an external service, Bloglet, with a way for you to get updates on new posts via email directly. It’s a much nicer service, I think. You can register as a subscriber to Family Man Librarian and with that capability comes several options, e.g. to choose to receive email updates in plain text or HTML. Then I added a new custom icon in the sidebar for “Email Me” so that if you want to contact me directly, you can click on this icon and fill out a web form to send me an email.

Let’s see…What else? Well, I’ve also added a link to my tag cloud in the sidebar, and also added a new section in the sidebar for “Most Popular Posts.” You will also see changes in the content of each post. I’ve added a “Related Posts” portion to the bottom. I’ve also stripped out the categories that used to appear at the top of each post, as well as the list of technorati tags at the bottom of each post, mainly for aesthetic reasons (they just made things too cluttered.)

I think the tag cloud link is particularly cool, as is the ability now to see the most popular posts.

Ex Libris adds social web features

I was glad to see an announcement that Ex Libris has added social web features into its latest release for Aleph 500, its integrated library system. (Seen via Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog.) I wish that this was something Endeavor Information Systems and other library systems vendors in the research and academic library marketplace were more proactive about including in their systems instead of leaving it to savvy users to create this stuff on their own. Or at least actively encourage user development of stuff like RSS feeds, tagging, etc.

coComment, a nifty new service

Thanks to a comment from Jay Datema (newly appointed Technology Editor for Library Journal who oversees the LJ Techblog) on my post regarding the marginalization of comments in the blogosphere, I found a nifty new service (well, new to me, anyway) called coComment. coComment provides the ability for you to track and view your comments on any other person’s blog in a single place. Registration is free. I’ve already added a new section in my sidebar that shows or tracks comments I’ve made elsewhere.

This service addresses a couple of my complaints about the marginalization of comments in general. I’ve already mentioned that it enables you to keep track of your own comments. It also allows you to insert tags into all of your comments. Pretty cool! And coComment’s development team is working on addressing a third complaint of mine, by developing a way to crawl comments in the blogosphere so that they can be readily indexed and searchable.

I’ll play around with it some more and see about making changes but for now, I think this is a worthwhile service and I recommend it to others to try.

Library online catalogs and relevancy ranking [Updated]

Karen Schneider’s post on the ALA Techsource blog, “How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It),” is a rant by a librarian who either presents a foregone conclusion due to incomplete research, or one who reaches a conclusion out of misunderstanding. Unfortunately such rants are fairly common. Karen complains about the lack of relevancy ranking in most online catalogs, something that most search engines routinely employ. She sums up the result of her research with the following statement:

“Relevance ranking is just one of many basic search-engine functionalities missing from online catalogs.”

Be sure to read the post as well as all of the comments (28 so far).

So why do I find this post problematic? Well, first of all, Karen makes a blanket statement like the one quoted above, without qualification. The fact is that library online catalogs do include relevancy ranking, and they have for years. The online catalog for Endeavor, for example, called WebVoyage, has had relevancy ranking for just about all of its existence (about nine years). It has never been “perfect” but it has been there. No, it doesn’t work in the same manner as, say, Google’s Pagerank algorithm. (It predates that technology, anyway.) And I don’t think it should be expected to, either. I agree that the ease of use and the transparency of the results for library online catalogs should be close or very similar to Google’s but comparing library online catalogs to Google in this way is like comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, the underlying data and databases for library online catalogs is almost entirely different than the data and database(s) underlying a major search engine. See screen shots here that illustrate this capability in WebVoyage.

Another problem I have with this post is that it blames vendors of library online catalogs for the fact that relevancy ranking isn’t apparently present in many instances. There is no consideration given by Karen to the possibility that relevancy ranking may not appear to be available because libraries themselves have chosen not to implement it or make it readily available to their users. The perspective here is very one-sided. Let’s all blame the vendors for inhibiting us librarians from properly serving our users and meeting their expectations. Vendors are by no means blameless, but neither are librarians. Just once, I’d like to see Karen and others of her ilk acknowledge that situations like these are not as black and white as they may like to believe. Sometimes I think it’s a matter of convenience because many librarians have long since cast “the vendor” as the bogeyman (“how dare they actually care about making money?!”). I say, look at both sides of the issue and especially do not be so quick to lay blame without truly understanding the reality of what vendors provide and what vendors do. Here is another quote from Karen’s post:

“But the interesting questions are: Why don’t online catalog vendors offer true search in the first place? and Why we don’t demand it? Save the time of the reader!”

OK, so what is “true search,” Karen?! (I don’t believe that is defined anywhere in the post.) What you define as “true search” isn’t necessarily how another person might define it. This is just common sense. If “true search” is meant as relevancy ranking, as I’ve already pointed out, vendors HAVE offered and DO offer “true search.”

But I’m beginning to see that that kind of answer doesn’t fit the simplistic, librarians-as-hapless-victims paradigm Karen has preconstructed so it wouldn’t count. It wouldn’t be relevant.

P.S. In one of her comments responding to another person’s comment, Karen talks about how vendors don’t offer field-weighted searching in online catalogs, either. I can’t wait to read “the facts” she will present. [Updated 3/20/2006: Especially since Endeavor's WebVoyage does already provide field-weighted searching.]

COinS anyone?

I’ve been following the development of a new technology called COinS with a lot of interest. Lorcan Dempsey wrote about it last week on his blog and used that post to announce the availability of COinS functionality in Open WorldCat. Great news! If you use the Firefox web browser and have installed the OpenURL Referrer extension, you should see your local OpenURL site’s logo or text appear next to citation information in this post, thanks to COinS. This is highly useful stuff. To go even further, if you use WordPress as your blogging software, you can use a COinS plugin for WordPress developed by Peter Binkley that helps to create the COinS information. Or create your COinS information using a freely available COinS generator.

Elsevier’s response to depositing articles in E-LIS

Recently I decided to explore E-LIS, an independent, international, open access repository of information (articles, papers, presentations, syllabi, etc.) relating to library and information science, with the goal of depositing some of my material there. One of the first things I wished to deposit was articles I had written for the journal, Serials Review, published by Elsevier. My sense was that Elsevier’s recent policy change for author copyrights allowed this but upon reviewing the terms again, I began to have doubts. Below is an email I sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, who forwarded it on to Elsevier for comment and a response:

“Recently I thought about the possibility of self-archiving articles I’ve published in SR in an OA repository such as E-LIS. I thought that this was specifically permissible under terms of copyright agreed to by Elsevier sometime back in 2004. However when I went over the conditions and terms it seems to me that this permission is institution-specific. In other words, if I worked at [XYZ University] and [XYZ University] had an IR then I could deposit any articles I’ve written for SR there with no problem. Can you tell me specifically if depositing them in a third party repository such as E-LIS is in violation of Elsevier’s terms?”

Today I received Elsevier’s formal reply:

“…Elsevier policy permits authors to post a personal version of the final paper on a personal site or their institute’s website. You are correct in assuming that we do not permit posting of the papers in a third party repository.”

I am not a happy camper. This is an arbitrary distinction, in my view, particularly since I no longer have a direct institutional affiliation. (An email conversation on this issue with Peter Suber, author of the Open Access News blog as well as the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, confirmed this.) At the very least such contractual language as exists should be enhanced to make this distinction clear. It certainly isn’t clear now. Just fyi, below is the specific language from Elsevier regarding an author’s right to deposit a personal copy of his or her article in an institutional repository (taken directly from Elsevier’s Author Gateway website > Getting Published > Copyright Information section) with the relevant passage highlighted:

“As an author, you retain rights for large number of author uses, including use by your employing institute or company. These rights are retained and permitted without the need to obtain specific permission from Elsevier.
the right to make copies of the article for their own personal use, including for their own classroom teaching use;
the right to make copies and distribute copies (including through e-mail) of the article to research colleagues, for the personal use by such colleagues (but not commercially or systematically, e.g. via an e-mail list or list serve);
the right to post a pre-print version of the article on Internet web sites including electronic pre-print servers, and to retain indefinitely such version on such servers or sites – see also our information on electronic preprints for a more detailed discussion on these points.
the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final article (to reflect changes made in the peer review and editing process) on the author’s personal or institutional web site or server, with a link to the journal home page (on elsevier.com);
the right to present the article at a meeting or conference and to distribute copies of such paper or article to the delegates attending the meeting;
for the author’s employer, if the article is a ‘work for hire’, made within the scope of the author’s employment, the right to use all or part of the information in (any version of) the article for other intra-company use (e.g. training);
patent and trademark rights and rights to any process or procedure described in the article;
the right to include the article in full or in part in a thesis or dissertation (provided that this is not to be published commercially);
the right to use the article or any part thereof in a printed compilation of works of the author, such as collected writings or lecture notes (subsequent to publication of the article in the journal); and
the right to prepare other derivative works, to extend the article into book-length form, or to otherwise re-use portions or excerpts in other works, with full acknowledgement of its original publication in the journal.
Other uses by authors should be authorized by Elsevier through the Global Rights Department, and authors are encouraged to let Elsevier know of any particular needs or requirements.”

Brinley’s broken foot

Last night on the way home from work, I got a call from Michele telling me that when she was leaving the grocery store with the kids, Brinley hurt her foot. Turns out that Keegan accidentally ran over her foot with the full grocery cart when she suddenly stopped in front of him on the way out of the store. When I got home we decided that I needed to take her to the emergency room because of the fact that she was not willing or able to stand on the foot and she was very fussy. So that’s what I did. And I am glad I did because it turns out that her foot is broken in two different places. She handled things very well until late last night, when she woke up and began many long hours of crying, fussing, and general crabbiness that kept me awake all night long. Most of the time she was inconsolable and she was in a lot of pain, poor thing. We had been given tylenol with codeine to give her to relieve the pain but it didn’t seem to be effective after a few hours. This morning I took her to an orthopedic surgeon to review the x-rays and he confirmed the fractures and said that she would probably heal within a few weeks. In the meantime, she isn’t allowed to walk, and there aren’t crutches small enough for her, so that means that Michele and I need to carry her around. We’re pretty tired out. Hopefully tonight will be better than last night. I don’t know if I can take another night like that.

Yet another bungled ALA initiative

This is the last post of the evening, I swear. I have made clear my problems with the American Library Association (ALA) in the past, and these problems stem from what I have seen from the inside, having actively participated in ALA and attended many, many ALA conferences over the years. Recently ALA began publishing a somewhat glitzy, heavily graphics oriented email newsletter called American Libraries Direct. I’ve read that some other librarian bloggers have trashed it but my initial thought was something like, “Hm, not bad. At least they are making some attempt at technological relevance.”

However when I perused today’s edition, in the ALA News section, my eyes were drawn to a blurb stating something about “ALA Recruitment Assembly launches recruitment website.” I then read more about the new site, www.librarycareers.org, and how it is focused initially on providing information on why and how to become a librarian and will soon be expanded to provide links to available jobs in librarianship. This really bothered me. Why? Because there are at least three excellent, well known, and widely used websites already out there that cover most if not all of the same territory as this ALA creation! These include Rachel Singer Gordon’s LISJobs.com, Priscilla Shontz’s LIScareer.com, and www.libraryjobpostings.org, maintained by Sarah Johnson and Rachel Singer Gordon. To be fair, some of these are mentioned in the www.librarycareers.org site. But still, my perspective is, why should ALA waste their efforts (and money) on reinventing the wheel? Why didn’t they or couldn’t they reach out to these well known, librarian operated sites and offer to partner in some way with them?

With the money they could have saved by doing this, maybe they could have put more effort into improving their horrible website.

It’s late, I’m probably overly grumpy, and I need to go to sleep.

Comments are marginalized in the blogosphere

Something that I’ve noticed for quite a while, and given some thought to, is that blog comments seem to be the most marginalized element of the blogosphere. This, in spite of the fact that in many cases, a comment may be even more useful or valuable than the original posting on which it is based. Of course most up to date blogging software platforms not only provide commenting capability but also allow you to present a separate RSS feed for the comments. Some blogs, such as the LITA Blog, take this a step further and combine postings and associated comments into a single, integrated RSS feed. I wish I could figure out how to do that with this blog because I like that approach. Why then do I think comments are marginalized? Well, because I suspect most people, like me, either do not subscribe to a separate comment feed or don’t know that one exists for a particular blog, so a lot of the discussion on an interesting topic is missed. Some blogs offer the ability to subscribe to a feed just for comments on one particular posting. But let’s be honest, how many of us are willing to add umpteen RSS feed subscriptions to our news aggregator in the hopes of keeping up with what might be an interesting conversation? Even worse, comments do not seem to be readily accessible via search engines, including blog search engines such as Google’s Blog Search or technorati. Furthermore, while blog posts tend to have several choices for tagging as ways to help navigate or find related postings, comments simply muddle along with the vast majority of them having no such capability. (I think I have seen the ability to tag comments on one or two sites, but I could just be imagining it.)

What can or should be done? Well, blog comments need to stand up for their rights, for one thing. They need to advertise their existence more (be readily searchable in or exposed to search engines). They need to organize (implement tagging or related technologies to enhance findability and navigation). They need to find new and easier ways to get their message across without the clutter of trackbacks.

The last paragraph in particular is written a bit tongue in cheek. However…Is this a non issue? Has it already been addressed? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill (as my mother often said)? Please comment.