Please update your links and feeds.

Rational: My exploration of using the free hosted version of WordPress for my blog ended up being somewhat of a disappointment. The inability to modify or specify any of my own CSS was a major pain, especially given that the default templates all has some minor layout issues that required polishing. I was prepared to live with that, but I finally got fed up when I was trying to format my last post and was running in to no end of grief in how the editor tried to interpret the simple paragraphs I pasted into it. Blogger/blogspot is free, and it just works. They also have some new features that are still in beta that will make it even more compelling as a blogging platform. I’ll also be able to use Google Analytics with it, which is far superior to the rudimentary system that comes with the WordPress free hosted version. yes, Blogger/Blogspot has its limitation, but they are not limitation that I am likely to find myself bumping into on a regular basis, which makes it a better choice for me.

Note: I was able to migrate my posts from WordPress to Blogger in less then 5 minutes using this WordPress2Blogger online service. Seemed legit and it worked like a charm.

(Note: Google isn’t pitching this as a replacement UI for Google Reader, just a poorly implemented alternative.)

The default view is “All items” which generates an error message that i don’t have any recommended items. Problem 1: “all items” is not supposed to show recommended items, but rather items from *MY* feeds. In the old Google Reader UI, I have 23 new items, but I can’t access these in the new UI no matter what I try. That makes it useless as a news reader.

Also, grey text on a black background does not make for a better reading experience, which should be a top priority, given the name of the product. Note to Google Reader team: please see Readability bookmarklet for ideas on how to improve reading experience.

Given that the only thing it seems to do well is display pictures and videos that I have no control over, maybe they should rename this Google TV.

I came across an article this morning (via the always useful ResourceShelf) that describes some of the metrics that the Boston Public Library will be using to determine which branches will be closed. A few excerpts:

Library administrators will rank the 26 neighborhood branches by foot traffic, computer use, and how many Web surfers use laptops to log on to Wi-Fi networks. They will count how many programs are offered at each location and tally the number of people who attend storytime and English classes.

The library will quantify details about each of its buildings, noting energy efficiency, handicapped accessibility, and whether the wiring could support more computers. Administrators will examine how close each location is to another neighborhood branch and the distance to one of the system’s nine lead libraries, such as the 20,000-plus square-foot facilities in Dudley Square and on Centre Street in West Roxbury. They will scrutinize proximity to buses and subways and take into account other resources in the neighborhood, such as community centers, schools, or Boys and Girls Clubs.

It isn’t clear whether these metrics are long-established measures of success, or if they were adopted recently in order to assist the decision-making process around the branch closures. In an ideal world, the metrics are known to branch managers and staff, allowing them to work towards achieving what target-levels are set for them.

One might (and should) question the quality of service that would result from, for example, trying to maximize the number of people making use of the library’s wi-fi. If the metrics are well chosen, however, all facets of the library experience would be represented, preventing staff from trying to optimize one metric at the cost of another. Sure you can fill the library with people using laptops, but if it creates an environment that no longer feels welcoming to children or seniors and their visits drop off, you won’t be any further ahead.

What is unfortunate about the approach being taken by the Boston Public Library is that it appears that they have already decided to close a number of branches, and now they are using a system of metrics to determine which will go. It isn’t enough for a library to offer good or great service: they have to be better than the other libraries in order to survive the cuts. As mentioned in the article, this can only pitch branch against branch in a competition for survival. I wouldn’t blame anyone who makes it through this mess (or anyone reading about it) to take the lesson to heart and operate in full competition with the other branches.

This is not the kind of environment library students might envision when they think about working in a library, but it is the reality for most libraries, and not only in the public space. Academic libraries and specialized libraries deal with the same pressures and work in similar organizational contexts, ones that see them having to quantify their performance and compete for resources. Library students approach the field with a passion (ok, maybe passion is a bit too strong a word to use here… let’s say they believe in the value of libraries and librarians) for the work, which is important. But they cannot take it for granted that everyone shares their innate sense of the value and importance of libraries, and they will need to work tirelessly at justifying their existence to both their funding agencies as well as their patrons.

Hoaxes of this sort seems to be occurring with greater frequency. In a race to get our attention, news media have decided to cut corners on fact-checking to get the story in front of us. Ad revenue is what counts here, not the truth of what they are reporting.

What this means is that we shouldn’t be trusting *any* breaking news coming out of the major media outlets. We probably shouldn’t trust any breaking news whatsoever. In today’s networked world, most stories take a day or so to be validated by the network of blogs, twitter posts, comments, etc, so maybe we need to give all breaking news a day or so to cool off, to gel into something resembling accurate information.

For example, if this is the first you heard of the Lightfoot story, after a day or so the only news item you could find would be focused on the hoax. If you searched, you’d probably come across blog posts like Faguy’s setting the reocrd straight.

This may seem trivial to those of us who spend a large part of each day sifting through posts, feeds, and news. We have learned, probably the hard way, to be skeptical of most information. We have developed trust networks based on our experiences, people and organizations that we trust to provide us with accurate information. I know that my network still contains several newspapers and major media sources.

So this is if anything a note to myself: take what you read on the major media sites with a grain of salt. Research the stories of interest and give the news some time to cool in order to get a more accurate version of the story.

Let me start by saying that I think the iPad is a very good design for what it was intended to do/be, and that it seems that most of the complaints around the iPad stem from a mismatch of certain people’s wants/needs with Apple’s intentions for the device. Such are the risks of using secrecy and leveraging people’s hope and dreams, of stirring their unmet desired to sell your hardware. But I digress…

While I don’t see myself purchasing an iPad, I do hope that it succeeds in creating a market for panels, because I really could use one.

My needs, though, are different from the one’s Apple is trying to meet. They are, roughly:

• The panel should display my files, specifically files related to my work. It needs to be simple like Dropbox, automatically and effortlessly syncing with file store(s) of my choosing. It needs to be able to handle text, MS Office documents, PDF documents, images, video, etc, and handle them all well.
• The panel should allow me to load ebooks from a variety of sources, using standard, open, DRM-free formats.
• The panel should allow me to browse the web.
• The panel should allow me to handle my email (multiple accounts, including Exchange email and gmail).
• I’d much prefer handwriting recognition over an on-screen keyboard.
• The panel should have a headphone jack.
• I don’t need a built in camera or phone.
• Dreaming: the panel would have a video-out (to standard VGA via an adapter if necessary) so that I could use it to drive any of the projectors on campus.

Essentially, I need a work-oriented panel to bring with me around campus to meetings and to class, and to read on the train during my daily commute.

My guess is that that panel will be based either on Android or Windows, since I don’t think this is the game Apple is trying to get into. Of course, it could be that such a device will never materialize (I’m still looking for an inexpensive mobile phone that is only a good phone). But if the iPad takes off, even modestly, we should see a few vendors coming up with offerings in this space.

This clearly isn’t the end of the world. I knew when setting this blog up on WordPress.com that going with the free option meant running the risk of occasional ads showing up on my site. Rewriting links, though, seems more underhanded, a more direct use of my content to enhance Automattic‘s data mining efforts.

To get rid of the problem, I can pay $30 USD/year to get rid of all ads on the site. I’m not sure it is worth it: probably not, at least at this point.

What I do know, however, is that I feel a little less happy about having moved by blog to WordPress.com. For whatever that’s worth.

I find that Leslie M-B’s post on the subject gives a balanced summary of the issue, so I’ll point you there if you want to get the gist of what is going on.

From what I can tell, the only place where I can see clickers being of use is in very large classes where any kind of interpersonal interaction is impossible. I’m referring to classes of 100+ students. According to the Globe, the average number of students in a first-year class at McGill is 243, which is above the average across Canadian universities (194).

243, 194… it’s all insane.

The adoptions of clickers is a symptom of overcrowded classrooms.

Overcrowded classrooms are a symptom of problems with the economics of the university.

Universities are not allocating sufficient physical (classrooms, etc) and human (teachers) resources (i.e. classrooms and teachers, esp teachers) to teach the volume of students attending university. Why? I’ll simplify (if only because I don’t have time to investigate the details) and suggest that universities don’t have the money to provide these resources.

Universities, at least here in Quebec, receive funding in part based on the number of students attending. They should be able to acquire additional resources to meet the demand, at least on paper. Why not? Possible explanations:

• Funds recieved are sufficenct to cover incremental costs (ex hiring teachers), but do not allow for larger investments (i.e. new buildings, etc).
• Funds recieved are insufficient to meet need
• Funds recieved are not allocated to support teaching

I suspect that reality is some combination of these three factors.

This is what I think of every time I hear someone talking about clickers. In my opinion, trying to come up with ways to use clickers in the classroom is akin to rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. We should instead be focusing on the fundamental problem, rather then accepting the cramming of a few hundred students into a classroom as the norm, and coming up with ways to make it tolerable.

Abraham rejects this analysis, as do it. It reminds me of one a similar dynamic that exists in software companies that charge for support: what incentive does a software company have to produce software that works well, that has few defects, and is easy to use when they make money off of training and support?

I encourage you to read Abraham’s response to this challenge, and I would add that in addition to the personal interests and motivations of the people involved, these kinds of practices (i.e. working inefficiently to generate billable hours) will in the end only damage the organization’s brand, their customer relationships, and their overall reputation.

Software companies at least have the benefit of a certain degree of lock-in, making it difficult for customers to switch to another provider. I don’t know much about how law firms operate, but my guess is that a customer who grew tired of paying high bills for lawers looking up information would have an easier time switching to another firm.

A law librarian can therefore become a key strategic asset to a firm, enabling them to provide excellent, fairly-priced service to its clients. Efficient staff will be able to handle more work from more clients, allowing the law firm to grow and establish itself as a top-tier firm. The end result is not only a more stable customer base, but, you guessed it, more billable hours.

Few of the [Association of Research Libraries'] members hold out much hope that the outlook will improve anytime soon. “There’s already an expectation expressed that there will be more cuts during the current fiscal year, and a high expectation that they’ll continue into 2010-11. That’s scary,” says Mr. Lowry. “Maybe things will turn around, but right now the outlook is extremely pessimistic.”

Frankly, despite the headline, I don’t as see much innovation going on as librarians making do with less. Most of the article is along the same lines as the quote above, describing a rather dark situation for research libraries. Budgets are being cut, librarian positions being cut, empty positions left unfilled, with less money for collection development.

To deal with the collection development problem, libraries are shifting their perspective from individual collections to consortium collections. In other words, as long as one of the libraries in your consortium has a copy of the book, and you can get that book through ILL in a reasonable time frame, you don’t need to purchase the book for your library.

I think this renewed focus on collection development is a good thing. The problem is that you need librarians for it to work, and probably more then libraries have now.

Libraries can no longer rely on standing orders to fill their orders. Instead, they need to be much more thoughtful about how they spend their money. They need to think about what goes into the collection, what should be taken out, what can be called from other libraries on a just-in-time basis. You need librarians to be working closely with faculty to determine collection development policies and to purchase materials accordingly.

However, staffing budgets are being frozen and more likely cut during the very time when these librarians are needed. As a result, I believe that research library collections and services across the board are going to suffer. People will point to ‘the current economic climate’ as an excuse, but that won’t stop the damage being done. The greater risk is that people will take this new level of ‘service’ as being good enough, and budgets will never be readjusted to meet actual needs.

I commend all librarians who are working in reasearch libraries and libraries everywhere during this tough time. But to label what is happening as ‘innovating’ is to put a positive spin on an untenable situation. These librarians are not innovating: they are simply doing the best they can to continue deliver some level of service to their communities.