Thanks Gary, and thanks Phil.
These are important points: the key measurement should be of the
effectiveness of the communications or delivery
strategies/programmes/projects and not of the individual tools employed,
especially when the tools themselves interact in complex and
unpredictable ways (the video you post on YouTube could appear on
someone's blog, and/or prompt somebody to share on Facebook, which could
provoke a Tweet from someone else...etc., etc.)
(Just my two penn'orth, not necessarily that of my employer)
Steven
Steven Heywood
Wheatsheaf Library
Baillie Street
Rochdale
OL16 1JZ
Tel: 01706 924967
http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/libraries
http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk <http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk/>
________________________________
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary Green
Sent: 02 March 2010 16:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: Evaluating use of Web 2.0 in Libraries
This is a reply that was posted by Phil Bradley on the
[log in to unmask] list.
Thanks - Gary Green
Technical Librarian
Virtual Content Team
Surrey County Council
Tel. 01306-881499
Fax. 01306-743240
Surrey Libraries blog: www.surreylibraries.wordpress.com
Website: www.surreycc.gov.uk/libraries
An outstanding council making Surrey a better place
Forward thinking - responsive and reliable - working with others - value
for money
-----Forwarded by Gary Green/COM/SCC on 02/03/2010 04:12PM -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Phil Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Web 2.0 use in libraries" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 02/03/2010 03:18PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Evaluating use of Web 2.0 in Libraries
You've asked a sensible question - from a Web 1.0 perspective. Let me
try and explain what I mean. When using tools in the past they were
going to cost a lot of money, so you had to make sure that you got the
right tool for the right job - not only did the thing have to work,
you'd then need to train staff on how to use the thing. If you got it
wrong, it was a really big deal and bad error. Moreover, the
expectation was that not only would you get things right, you'd get
them right the first time around.
Web 2.0 resources are generally free or so cheap as to be free, and
they're designed to be simple to use. Very importantly these tools are
designed to fit together in a variety of different ways. Consequently
it's possible to look at these resources in a rather different way. In
my experience (having written about and used Web 2.0 tools for the
last eight years) the best thing to do is to actually just try them
out. No-one expects you to get things right first time; part of the
Web 2.0 'experience' is exploring what's out there.
Don't focus on the tools. The tools are in fact the least important
element - unlike the Web 1.0 world. There are multiple tools, all of
can be expected to do pretty much the same job. What I'd suggest that
you want to do is look at the question from another angle. What do you
want to achieve with your library service that you're not currently
doing? What are you doing poorly, and want to do better? For example,
if you want to reach out to people that don't currently use the
services you offer, you need to seek them out, and this means
exploring Facebook, finding if there's a local group, introducing
yourselves, adding to the conversations and so on. If you offer a
printed newsletter, you may feel that it's really not as current or
responsive as you'd like, in which case you want to consider if
something like a blog would work. Maybe you want to update your
website more quickly and effectively, in which case I'd suggest using
a microblogging service like Twitter.
Measurement is of course important; but in many respects measurement
will only work within the confines of the resource you're looking at.
How many people read your blog? How many more people look at a page on
your website by following a link from Twitter? How many people join
your fan page on Facebook? Think of it in promotional terms - if
you're a company selling a product you can't simply view the success
of an advert in terms of the increased number of cans you sell, you
have to also take into account people becoming familiar with the brand
over time.
You're only going to get the answers to a lot of these questions by
trial and error, and this is where I would say that evaluation (rather
more than measurement) is certainly worth doing. Which home/start page
works best for you, your staff and clients? Is it Pageflakes or is it
Netvibes for example. You'll only get the answer by using both and
seeing which works best in your circumstances. If a tool doesn't do
what you want - throw it away. The activity is important, the tool -
not so much. Now, for this to work you're going to expend time and
energy playing around with these things and seeing how you can use
them in combination with each other - your Twitter 'tweets' can get
posted to your blog and to your webpage. Your blog entries can get
posted to your Twitter feed and your site. You'll need to play around
- there's no right or wrong answers here.
People are probably sick of it by now, but Web 2.0 is not tools, it's
a state of mind - looking at information flows differently,
considering different ways of interacting with your public. If you
need examples of Web 2.0 tools that work well within a library setting
I'd encourage you to take a look at my categorised and annotated
listing of over 1,100 at http://www.philb.com/iwantto.htmand there's
also a link there to my Web 2.0 applications weblog as well. Finally,
at the risk of self promotion (but I'm a consultant, it's a necessary
part of the job), I also run training courses on Web 2.0 tools and can
advise further if necessary.
Marieke has already listed some really good tools and examples which
are worth spending time with, but nothing beats having a go at it
yourself! :)
Phil.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Alison Barlow
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> -----Forwarded by Alison Barlow/cs/nottscc on 02/03/2010 02:21PM -----
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> From: "Sinar, Glyn" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: "lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries"
<[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 02/03/2010 12:54PM
> Subject: Evaluating use of Web 2.0 in Libraries
>
> Like many public library authorities, we in Lancashire have for some
time
> been considering the development of library services using social
networking
> and Web 2.0. There are many arguments and much circumstantial
evidence to
> support this usage (why do the BBC put such store in blogs and RSS
feeds,
> for instance?) but the difficulty for us remains in establishing
links,
> other than anecdotal ones, between the levels of activity, time and
effort
> put into maintaining the Library 2.0 presence, and practical effects
on
> resultant service take-up.
>
>
>
> I would be very interested to know if any public libraries have
carried out
> actual formal (or informal research) into the effectiveness of using
> Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, blogs and other similar vehicles by the
library
> service? Is this something that we can really measure, or is the
> overwhelming evidence of its status in society and communications now
so
> extensive that the need for such quantitative measurement can be
> overlooked?
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
>
> Glyn Sinar
>
> Applications and Systems Senior Manager
>
> Lancashire County Library and Information Service
>
> Lancashire County Council
>
> Adult and Community Services
>
> East Cliff
>
> PO Box 162
>
> PRESTON
>
> PR1 3EA
>
>
>
> Tel: 01772 534006
>
> Fax: 01772 534880
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> ********************
>
> This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
>
> It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or
professional
> privilege.
>
> If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to disseminate,
> distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it
>
> The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and unless
> specifically stated or followed up in writing, the content cannot be
taken
> to form a contract or to be an expression of the County Council's
position.
>
> Lancashire County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming
and
> outgoing email
>
> Lancashire County Council has taken reasonable steps to ensure that
outgoing
> communications do not contain malicious software and it is your
> responsibility to carry out any checks on this email before accepting
the
> email and opening attachments.
>
> ********************
>
> Lancashire, a place where everyone matters
>
> ********************
>
> Emails and any attachments from Nottinghamshire County Council are
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately by replying to the email, and then delete it
without
> making copies or using it in any other way. Senders and recipients of
email
> should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the
Freedom of
> Information Act 2000, the contents may have to be disclosed in
response to a
> request.
>
> Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for
viruses
> before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check
before
> opening attachments, since the County Council accepts no
responsibility for
> loss or damage caused by software viruses.
>
> Nottinghamshire County Council Legal Disclaimer
>
--
Phil Bradley: Internet Consultant, Trainer, Web designer and Author.
Visit http://www.philb.com <http://www.philb.com/> for free
information on Internet introductions,
search engine articles, web design tips and a host of other free
information.
Weblogs: http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/
http://philbradley.typepad.com/i_want_to/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email and any attachments with it are intended for the
addressee only. It may be confidential and may be the subject of
legal and/or professional privilege.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender or [log in to unmask]
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and
cannot be taken as an expression of the County Council's position.
Surrey County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming
and outgoing mail. Whilst every care has been taken to check this
e-mail for viruses, it is your responsibility to carry out any
checks upon receipt.
Visit the Surrey County Council website -
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also
be legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended
addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to
the sender and then immediately, permanently delete it. Do not
read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-
mail may be monitored by Rochdale Council in accordance with
current regulations. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail
message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses
currently known to the Council. However, the recipient is
responsible for virus-checking before opening this message and
any
attachment. Unless otherwise stated, any views expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender and may not
necessarily
reflect the views of Rochdale Council.
As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email and/or any response under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 unless the information in the email and/or any response is
covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
