Too much information combined with complicated search engines

Image from nostuff.org

All has been quiet on the blogging front. I started my second job a fortnight ago, which means working 8:30-7, and Saturday mornings. Sadly, university work became a priority over blogging.

University is actually going well. I emerged from the mathematical lecture understanding what had been explained and able to go home and relax, rather than tear hair out for hours attempting to fathom nonsense. The first two assessments are progressing well, which is nice to know. What isn't nice to know is there's another two assessments that haven't yet been started on.

One of my assessments is on improving awareness and use of web 2.0 tools in the library I work in and results of the survey I distributed shows that, just because these sites are available for libraries to promote their collections and services, without promotion they will never get consulted. Many of the people who completed the survey commented that using web 2.0 tools complicates things - what is wrong with using the main library page for all sources of information? Can there not be a list of new books on the library page, rather than navigating to another website such as LibraryThing or Twitter? Others commented that they just use Google because it's an easier database to search, despite the amount of information the library provides for them. As well as making these services available, libraries need to make sure they market them, otherwise people will not know they are there to use. Once people know they are there to use, they are unlikely to do so if it is too complicated, which means libraries then need to educate readers in how to benefit from the service. This still sounds like quite a lot of faff though when all people want is a basic and easy to use search engine/database. The sheer wealth of information makes finding your way through it complicated, and libraries aren't providing simple search engines to help, which makes you realise exactly why they don't use our services and opt for easy-to-use alternatives.

Libraries in the Modern World

Image from blog.northstarmanifesto.com

I actually had a very good couple of days at uni this week. In the Working with Information module we were taught binary codes (which we were apparently taught at school once upon a time but it completely escapes my memory), set theory, and efficient and compact coding. This wasn't actually explained in relation to libraries but I imagine (in layman's terms) it might have something to do with managing and representing information in an efficient manner. Correct me if I'm wrong because I have an exam to do on this.

I mentioned reading Libraries in the Modern World by Brophy in a previous post which created a stimulating discussion in the lecture because of the author's blatant opinion that libraries are coming to an end because librarians are not capable of adapting to the changes in the modern world, ie. technology, and as a result, will perish. Admittedly, he states that the points he makes are "deliberately presented as threats and deliberately couched in provocative terms" (17). Still, it's enough to rile anybody up who knows the effort librarians put into changing.

His fundamental purpose is to make people aware that change is occurring right now and that libraries need to change to keep up. He assumes, however, that there will be no counter-revolution and that technology is definitely the future (understandably). He also generalises libraries, making no distinction between the different types (academic, public, government) and, therefore, assumes that all libraries are equally at risk from the exact same threats.

He bases his assumptions that libraries will wither on the fact that "past experience would suggest that [libraries] are more likely to allow another market player to capture the market" (17) and that at the moment, although libraries are trying to change, they're not doing it quickly enough to keep up with the changes in technology. I think the main point from this, as an argument against Brophy, is that libraries do have the ability to adapt to those changes going on around them and they are going to adapt as they have done in the past, for example, from card catalogues to OPAC. He states that "libraries can seem to be falling victim to these [web 2.0] changes, unintended casualties of the information revolution" (8), which insinuates libraries neither want to or have put any effort into using web 2.0 to help promote themselves, their collections and keep in contact with their readers. Libraries could have ignored this new interactive information sharing facility deciding to maintain their traditions but they have embraced it because they know the difference it will make, and that is what libraries will continue to do.

And this is just the beginning

Image from pamil-visions.net

So the first week of uni is complete. It wasn't as bad I thought it was going to be, although I was imagining hell itself. Things were pretty easy going with discussions about learning skills and studying skills, the history of libraries and key issues. 

The most interesting lecture, for me, was Working with Information (WWI),and yet it was also the most daunting as I was confronted with binary codes, HTML, document formats, digitisation and so on. All quite foreign to someone who studied English. 

For two of the modules (which are not WWI) we have already been set our assessments and it is the WWI module that has given me inspiration ... for one of the assessments, at least. Something along the lines of how once upon a time (not sure when exactly that is) information was quite sparse and hard to get hold of. Now, we have an abundance of information, so much so we're not entirely sure how to go about accessing it and what to do with it, which affects librarians as information changes format, ie. print to e-resources. As an example, I have been creating hyperlinks in Word for the DPhil reading list at work. A number of the items are only available as an e-journal but for the entire of today the server was down so I couldn't create these hyperlinks. Neither could any of the PGCE students access their set reading. Print copies seem the favourable option in this scenario but, as another example, three copies of one book that had their status as 'available' were all missing and have not yet been found either. In this case, an online version is best. It seems that either method of making resources more widely available has its faults, which may be a fault of our own in that, perhaps, we have become too used to having things, whatever they may be, readily available and information won't ever be constantly accessible to everyone, no matter how hard we try.