Tag Archives: karen schneider

Revisiting the soundbite issue

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post I ranted a bit about soundbites in our library profession and how I fear that such soundbites are too easily digested without question. Karen Schneider encouraged me to listen to the MP3 recording of the live panel discussion at ALA from which I derived my original criticism. So this is what I did late yesterday.

First, kudos to LITA (one of the only areas of ALA that I have any respect or use for) for making the recording of that session readily available. Second, I realize now that I should indeed have listened to that session first because it provides a much more well-rounded picture of the entire discussion than what I had initially derived from Roy Tennant’s shorter writeup. Just to be clear, I’m not then criticizing Roy for his short writeup. That’s usually the way information is reported from conference sessions. Instead this incident reminds me that basing one’s judgment on one short writeup isn’t a good idea at all. I should have known better by now.

So let me admit that I was too hasty to rush to judgment. Sorry.

But let me also state that I still have a problem with the growing prevalence of soundbites and the lack, at times, of more in-depth reflection and questioning about important issues like the role or future of the library catalog. Stephen Abram just commented on my previous post and in his comment mentioned the fact that all of the panelists in fact do provide deeper insights in terms of their writing in various forums or in books and articles. That’s a valid point.

I also still have issues with some of what was said in that particular panel discussion. (One example is the brief mention of use of sentence case in cataloging, which I truly think is a strawman argument, even as I concur that the average person can be confused by it, and agree that we need to be aware of how broadly cataloging data is being used in ways far beyond our small library universe.) But as Stephen reminded me, in a way, this discussion was purposefully about soundbites to stimulate debate and further discourse.

In sum, I’ll be more careful about getting as full a picture as possible about a discussion blogged or reported by someone before commenting on it. And maybe I need to spend more time and effort articulating my own views and possible counterpoints to some of the neo-dogma that I see out there.

The soundbite phenomenon

Posted on by
30

I have enjoyed reading about presentations at the recent ALA annual conference. Of particular note for me are Owen Stephens’ extensive notes, available here. The ability for those who aren’t present at conferences to quickly catch up on essentials of what was discussed is, to me, hugely important and beneficial. I’m thankful for the efforts of others to record their impressions for someone like me to read.

The discussions that are written about often raise important issues in my mind and at times I feel strongly enough about an issue to respond to what was written, usually via commenting on a particular blog post. Such is the case with a recent blog post by Roy Tennant, called “Shoot the Dogma.” In this post Roy talks about a presentation in which one of the panelists uttered the statement, “Shoot the dogma,” as part of a larger narrative about why we should question many of our longstanding beliefs and practices. In this case she was referring to cataloging in particular. Roy picked that as the title of his post and said that this was one statement in the discussion that really stood out to him.

After thinking about that statement for a little bit, I decided to respond. See the link above to the post and the following comments for a complete picture of what was said and by whom. I guess what bothered me (and still does) about that statement is that it represents, to me, the latest in what I would call “the soundbite phenomenon.” Someone else who is regularly quoted with provocative or interesting soundbites is Stephen Abram. No personal affront intended, but I get tired of soundbites like this. Why? Well, there are many reasons. One is that many things are easier said than done. Another reason is that in my observation over many years in the profession, there is a tendency for us to grab ahold of a soundbite like this and shake our heads in affirmation, without really exploring its meaning and implications to see if the point made is actually credible or defensible.

In this case, as Karen Schneider pointed out in responding to my comment in Roy’s post, I need to understand and be aware of the larger context of the discussion. I plan to listen to the audio archive linked from that post so that I can be better informed. This is a reminder, as many others have found in the past, that responding to what someone has chosen to filter or write about in a conference session on a blog somewhere, especially if that response is critical, can be tricky.

One final observation. I find it weird that my criticism of something someone said should be met with the response that, basically, questions my criticism because “This is a domain in which [that other person] has a lot of knowledge.” Oh, please. Let’s just set aside the implication that I lack experience in these areas for now. My criticism, or anyone else’s for that matter, should stand or fall on its own merits. Maybe my criticism, such as it is, will turn out to be invalid. If so I will be the first to admit it.

Additional thoughts and comments from NASIG 2007

Posted on by
2

Below is a smattering of additional thoughts and comments from NASIG 2007:

Karen Schneider‘s paranoia and negativity about things like Google, EPA library closings, survival of small press publishers. Her purpose as a vision speaker was to stimulate debate and thought and I think she succeeded in that. I may not agree with her overall philosophy or approach to these issues but I think it is very healthy to step back and question some of the broader trends in librarianship and ask the hard questions about where they are leading us.

Brainstorming session intended to provide a forum for discussing the problem of reluctance on the part of members to run for office. I wish more people other than “old timers” had spoken up and that there had been more focus on concrete answers to the questions raised by the moderator (Katy Ginanni) and less on generalizations about “trust me, it is really, really good to serve on the Board.”

Dan Chudnov‘s emphasis on the need for simplicity in resource access and discovery. His reliance on iTunes as the standard for judging simplicity has many some flaws even if his general point is well taken. I especially liked his point about trying something out and tweaking it a little. That little tweak may pay off in huge dividends in terms of successful adoption of a new technology. I also think he has a great idea by proposing that libraries insert themselves into the realm of what he terms “service links.” These are available in just about every major media outlet on the web and commonly include links to Technorati, del.icio.us, and other social networking services.

Yet more assumptions about fellow librarians having or sharing the same — liberal — political approach and philosophy. E.g. several negative references to the current (Bush) administration, wearing t-shirt supporting a Democrat’s presidential candidacy, etc. Noticed Dan Chudnov’s reference in his speech to “liberal” vs. “right wing” — perhaps an unconscious but notable inflection of wording.

Importance of networking. I am not a social butterfly at all. In fact, lots of social interaction leaves me exhausted. (By contrast, others like my friend Beverley Geer get their energy from social interaction.) In spite of my natural shyness — some people tell me I come across as aloof — I keep trying to hone my skills and break down the barriers that hold me back from meeting new people. At NASIG this is easier for me to do than in some other situations. I enjoyed sitting next to people at the dine-arounds who were total strangers to me, conversing with them about their work, their interests, and issues of mutual concern. In this way I found out some really interesting details, such as the fact that one longtime NASIG member is an accomplished piano (and flute) player, with two Steinway grands. I learned a lot of interesting facts about the city of Houston from someone else, such as the fact that it had no zoning laws of any kind until relatively recently. Yet another conversation filled me in on what it is like as a foreign national to live in Johannesburg, South Africa (like living in a prison).

Discussion with a librarian from a university in the Southwest about what it’s like to have a non-librarian as library director and the drastic — good — changes brought about so that the library is once more popular with students as a destination.

Several mentions of “work / life balance.”

General recognition (I think) that ERMS are not working out well for many, at least not yet. I likened them to a solution in search of a problem in one open mic comment at a session and described my library’s very recent decision to get out of the vendor-supplied ERMS game altogether. There was some interest in open source solutions.

Attending NASIG

Posted on by
Reply

Soon I will be among friends at the 22nd annual NASIG conference held this year in Louisville, Kentucky. Mark Lindner will be along for the ride as well, which is great. The theme of this year’s conference is “Place Your Bet in Kentucky: The Serials Gamble.”

I will be joining several others in a panel presentation focusing on alternative careers in librarianship to be held on Saturday afternoon. The abstract for our presentation is “Regeneration,” “diversification” and “redesign” are buzzwords tossed around constantly in today’s job market. Those with M.L.S. degrees are facing a sea change of options in their career paths. While these new opportunities can be exhilarating and exciting, they can be somewhat daunting as well. This panel of librarians will discuss the unique twists and turns of their very divergent careers and offer suggestions on how to market your M.L.S. degree for nontraditional jobs. We anticipate and encourage a high level of discussion between the panel and the audience.

Bloggers whom I anticipate will be there — that is, aside from Mark (Off the Mark) and myself — include Karen Schneider (Free Range Librarian), Anna Creech (Eclectic Librarian), Dan Chudnov (One Big Library), Diane Hillmann (contributor to LITAblog), and maybe others I don’t know about yet.

I may or may not be blogging about NASIG experiences and sessions during the next several days. Stay tuned.

Library online catalogs and relevancy ranking [Updated]

Posted on by
2

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.]