Saturday, June 28, 2008
Web 2.0 "awards"
The very first award I looked at was the one under the "books" category (what did you expect??) and I was very surprised and disappointed to see it was a website for self-publishing. I know it is gaining in popularity, and maybe the site is fantastic, but to have a site like that beat out Worldcat (which got an honorable mention!) told me a lot about these awards. To me, they lost all credibility with that one award. It led me to wonder if these awards are bought and paid for. I have no way of knowing that, but I can't help but be suspicious.
Friday, June 20, 2008
ZOHO-HO-HO
ZOHO-HO-HO
Never heard of this before 23 things but I'm very happy I know about it now. I've been working on a cookbook for my kids of all their favorite recipes. My son lives in Tampa and I've got a Word file on my computer that I tried to share out with him via Google Docs - but Google Docs severely limits the size of Word documents that you can upload, and the document I want to share is over 200 pages long. I had no trouble uploading an experimental document of 199 pages to Zoho Writer, although I haven't figured out yet how to delete it! But at least I now have a way to share my son's favorite recipes with him via Zoho Writer. And my daughter will be going off to college in a couple of years...
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Wiki-bandwagon
I like wikis. Libraries should definitely be jumping on the wiki-bandwagon. User friendly, easy to maintain and change and grow, all the good stuff.
Here at SWC our readers' advisory group is working on a wiki we hope to share with the library eventually....we are only at the very early, planning stage right now. Will share when ready.
Here at SWC our readers' advisory group is working on a wiki we hope to share with the library eventually....we are only at the very early, planning stage right now. Will share when ready.
Wiki wikki wachee
So I checked out the PBCLS wiki and immediately found the "favorite books" page. I added a few of my favorites...okay, a dozen or so of my favorites. Very easy to do and oh yeah, I added the author to someone else's favorite, Gone with the Wind.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Folksonomies
I had to look this word up. This what Google found for me, in case anyone else wasn't familiar with that word either:
Definitions of Folksonomies on the Web:
Are collaboratively generated, open-ended labeling systems that enables Internet users to categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs ...www.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/metadata/glossary.html
The tagging of content with metadata or information by users and community members based on their personal preferences. Folksonomies allow any user to add comments or information that other users can take advantage of when looking for or organizing their own information. ...plc.fis.utoronto.ca/tgdemo/Glossary.asp
Definitions of Folksonomies on the Web:
Are collaboratively generated, open-ended labeling systems that enables Internet users to categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs ...www.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/metadata/glossary.html
The tagging of content with metadata or information by users and community members based on their personal preferences. Folksonomies allow any user to add comments or information that other users can take advantage of when looking for or organizing their own information. ...plc.fis.utoronto.ca/tgdemo/Glossary.asp
You say technorati, I say okay
Interesting. I learned that the BookBitchBlog has an authority of 20. Or 19, depends on which computer I use, oddly enough. I also enjoyed reading some of the comments. I didn't enjoy learning that someone is using the BookBitch name, however, as it is protected under copyright law. Will have to pursue that in my spare time...
It's del.ight.ful, it's del.icio.us, it's de.love.ly
Several years ago I tried to Digg my way to saving articles but ran into an annoying download, spamware-type problem. So I avoided the sharing networks and just greedily held on to my bookmarks in my Yahoo account.
Enter 23 Things, lucky #13. Reluctantly, I mosied around del.icio.us and decided to give it a try while I was at work. That way if there was any download, spam, spyware type issues, IT could take care of it. (you're welcome, Peter) But there wasn't. It worked like it should work, easily, simply, with a minimum of fuss and bother. So go check out my del.icio.us bookmarks on articles about a new blog that is a dream for Readers' Advisory & Collection Development, the Encyclopaedia Britannica going wiki, and Johnny Depp's brother writing a book.
Enter 23 Things, lucky #13. Reluctantly, I mosied around del.icio.us and decided to give it a try while I was at work. That way if there was any download, spam, spyware type issues, IT could take care of it. (you're welcome, Peter) But there wasn't. It worked like it should work, easily, simply, with a minimum of fuss and bother. So go check out my del.icio.us bookmarks on articles about a new blog that is a dream for Readers' Advisory & Collection Development, the Encyclopaedia Britannica going wiki, and Johnny Depp's brother writing a book.
Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0
An interesting, very informative article by Graham Cormode & Balachander Krishnamurthy, a couple of AT&T Labs employees. Not librarians, as far as I can tell yet they put together this very well researched, well written article. According to their abstract, web 2.0 started to be commonly used in around 2003-2004. That leads me to believe that the PBCLS has a 4-5 year lag on new technology. Which isn't as bad as the lag on Readers' Advisory, so I'm not complaining. Go forth and read:
Abstract:
Web 2.0 is a buzzword introduced in 2003–04 which is commonly used to encompass various novel phenomena on the World Wide Web. Although largely a marketing term, some of the key attributes associated with Web 2.0 include the growth of social networks, bi–directional communication, various ‘glue’ technologies, and significant diversity in content types. We are not aware of a technical comparison between Web 1.0 and 2.0. While most of Web 2.0 runs on the same substrate as 1.0, there are some key differences. We capture those differences and their implications for technical work in this paper. Our goal is to identify the primary differences leading to the properties of interest in 2.0 to be characterized. We identify novel challenges due to the different structures of Web 2.0 sites, richer methods of user interaction, new technologies, and fundamentally different philosophy. Although a significant amount of past work can be reapplied, some critical thinking is needed for the networking community to analyze the challenges of this new and rapidly evolving environment.
First Monday: Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0
About the authors:
Graham Cormode is a Principal Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Shannon Laboratories in New Jersey. Previously, he was a researcher at Bell Labs, after postdoctoral study at the DIMACS center in Rutgers University from 2002–2004. His PhD was granted by the University of Warwick in 2002. He works on social network analysis, large–scale data mining, and applied algorithms, with applications to databases, networks, and fundamentals of communications and computation.Web: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/~graham/E–mail: graham [at] research [dot] att [dot] com
Balachander Krishnamurthy of AT&T Labs — Research has focused his research of late in the areas of online social networks, unwanted traffic, and Internet measurements. He has authored and edited ten books, published over 70 papers, and holds twenty patents. He has collaborated with over 75 researchers worldwide. His most recent book — Internet measurements: Infrastructure, traffic and applications (525 pp, John Wiley, with M. Crovella) — was published in July 2006. His earlier book — Web protocols and practice (672 pp, Addison–Wesley, with J. Rexford) — has been translated into Portuguese, Japanese, Russian, and Chinese. Bala is homepage–less but many of his papers can be found at http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers. E–mail: bala [at] research [dot] att [dot] com
Abstract:
Web 2.0 is a buzzword introduced in 2003–04 which is commonly used to encompass various novel phenomena on the World Wide Web. Although largely a marketing term, some of the key attributes associated with Web 2.0 include the growth of social networks, bi–directional communication, various ‘glue’ technologies, and significant diversity in content types. We are not aware of a technical comparison between Web 1.0 and 2.0. While most of Web 2.0 runs on the same substrate as 1.0, there are some key differences. We capture those differences and their implications for technical work in this paper. Our goal is to identify the primary differences leading to the properties of interest in 2.0 to be characterized. We identify novel challenges due to the different structures of Web 2.0 sites, richer methods of user interaction, new technologies, and fundamentally different philosophy. Although a significant amount of past work can be reapplied, some critical thinking is needed for the networking community to analyze the challenges of this new and rapidly evolving environment.
First Monday: Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0
About the authors:
Graham Cormode is a Principal Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Shannon Laboratories in New Jersey. Previously, he was a researcher at Bell Labs, after postdoctoral study at the DIMACS center in Rutgers University from 2002–2004. His PhD was granted by the University of Warwick in 2002. He works on social network analysis, large–scale data mining, and applied algorithms, with applications to databases, networks, and fundamentals of communications and computation.Web: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/~graham/E–mail: graham [at] research [dot] att [dot] com
Balachander Krishnamurthy of AT&T Labs — Research has focused his research of late in the areas of online social networks, unwanted traffic, and Internet measurements. He has authored and edited ten books, published over 70 papers, and holds twenty patents. He has collaborated with over 75 researchers worldwide. His most recent book — Internet measurements: Infrastructure, traffic and applications (525 pp, John Wiley, with M. Crovella) — was published in July 2006. His earlier book — Web protocols and practice (672 pp, Addison–Wesley, with J. Rexford) — has been translated into Portuguese, Japanese, Russian, and Chinese. Bala is homepage–less but many of his papers can be found at http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers. E–mail: bala [at] research [dot] att [dot] com
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model
In a bid to wed the comprehensive, grassroots information factory of Wikipedia with the authority of the traditional encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica is opening the floodgates for online user submissions into its 240-year-old publication -- a move it long resisted and sniffed was akin to intellectual pollution.
What Britannica wants to do, on the other hand, is create "a welcoming community for scholars, experts, and lay contributors," it said in an announcement last week.
Read the full story here: Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model
What Britannica wants to do, on the other hand, is create "a welcoming community for scholars, experts, and lay contributors," it said in an announcement last week.
Read the full story here: Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Library Thing
I've been on Library Thing almost since its inception, but I confess to not keeping up with it as well as I would like. Here is a link to my library.
So today, in honor of my committment to 23 Things, I posted five new books and included reviews, which I pulled from my reviews in Library Journal. I found that LJ had posted my review of The Dirty Secrets Club by Meg Gardiner. Sort of. It may have started out as my review, but several editors later it had been tweaked beyond my recognition, not to mention they ***starred*** the book.
Now, normally when they feel the review is strong enough to warrant a star, my editor will shoot me an email and say should we star this. Usually I'll say yes. Once, I remember, I said no - it was for The Big Bad Wolf by James Patterson. I liked the book, and thought it was one of his stronger books in a number of years, but it was very good for a James Patterson book, not very good (nor star worthy) as compared to other books in the genre. So they didn't star it.
But they starred the Gardiner book, which was good, but if they had asked - and I'm not sure why they didn't - I would have said no star. She's getting a lot of press because she's an American who's been living in London for a number of years, and has been writing and being published in England for quite a while. It took Stephen King writing about how fabulous she is in his Entertainment Weekly column to get her published here, not to mention the blurb from King on the cover, and all the ensuing publicity. It's a good book, but not any better than say the first novel from David Levien, which I also "highly recommended" but was never even asked if it should be starred. It's been my experience that first time authors rarely get starred reviews unless there is some sort of big buzz going on in the publishing community. There wasn't for Levien, but there was - and is - for Gardiner. And there you have it.
So today, in honor of my committment to 23 Things, I posted five new books and included reviews, which I pulled from my reviews in Library Journal. I found that LJ had posted my review of The Dirty Secrets Club by Meg Gardiner. Sort of. It may have started out as my review, but several editors later it had been tweaked beyond my recognition, not to mention they ***starred*** the book.
Now, normally when they feel the review is strong enough to warrant a star, my editor will shoot me an email and say should we star this. Usually I'll say yes. Once, I remember, I said no - it was for The Big Bad Wolf by James Patterson. I liked the book, and thought it was one of his stronger books in a number of years, but it was very good for a James Patterson book, not very good (nor star worthy) as compared to other books in the genre. So they didn't star it.
But they starred the Gardiner book, which was good, but if they had asked - and I'm not sure why they didn't - I would have said no star. She's getting a lot of press because she's an American who's been living in London for a number of years, and has been writing and being published in England for quite a while. It took Stephen King writing about how fabulous she is in his Entertainment Weekly column to get her published here, not to mention the blurb from King on the cover, and all the ensuing publicity. It's a good book, but not any better than say the first novel from David Levien, which I also "highly recommended" but was never even asked if it should be starred. It's been my experience that first time authors rarely get starred reviews unless there is some sort of big buzz going on in the publishing community. There wasn't for Levien, but there was - and is - for Gardiner. And there you have it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
