i discovered overdrive a few years ago and love it. as you may have noticed from my last post, i can listen to music, podcasts or audiobooks while i work in the back room so i go through a number of audiobooks. i also have a handheld (pda) that i enjoy reading from so i keep it stocked with e-books as well. as for MyLibraryDV, i saw that this past fall and have watched a few things using that. unfortunately, i have a slow computer at home so i haven't used that nearly as much as overdrive.
this time i decided to try Tumblebooks. i think like it most because you don't have to download software for it - something that takes patience and a computer you have administrative access to. the fact the books were interactive was also interesting. between puzzles, comprehensive questions, games and coloring i could see how kids could really enjoy all the different activities they have available. there was also a nice selection in both english and spanish. it was a very easily accessible resource that i'll recommend when parents come looking for thing for the children to do on the internet.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
thing #21 - Podcasts
this is where things are a little different for me. i've spent the past year at my other job (i work at Creighton's law library as the cataloging assistant as my full time job and at Metro Community College's South library in the evenings. because Metro and OPL now have a shared facility, i therefore work with OPL patrons which is how/why i'm doing this program.) trying to make some of our in-house videos and audio recordings available online to make them more convenient for our students to access (we have a limited number of copies of the videos and limited number of VCRs available in the library). for this, i spent quite a bit of time working with podcasts and streaming media. both of these are great areas for libraries to look into as it's another way for us to reach our patrons. from offering book talks to lectures to public appearances of guest speakers, there are a number of things for libraries to offer, be them academic, special or public.
but for the sake of this program, i did a search of podcasts. i found it's kind of like blogs - for me to find a podcast (or blog) i like, it's probably going to be a recommendation or link from another site. but i did do a earch for a podcast using podcastdirectory.com. I browsed through their categories and looked at a number of listings. some of the book ones looked interesting, but i could really have done with a synopsis before i start listening to them. they did have a handful of old time radio podcasts that i enjoy, but these are something that i wouldn't listen to every one of them, i'd listen only to a couple of the ones from series i like so subscribing would be inefficient.
just surfing, i downloaded a couple of podcasts and listened to the beginning of them, but didn't listen to them all - sorry, short attention-span and short on time. i do regularly download a local radio program (Todd & Tyler) and was really glad when they started providing the podcasts as i'm not always able to listen to it while they're on the air. not exactly library oriented but as i can listen to them while doing tech services work or shelving (non public service aspects of my job) it keeps me sane, so i consider them valuable for libraries, if not for them to create them, then to at least know about them to help patrons who want to use them but need help.
but for the sake of this program, i did a search of podcasts. i found it's kind of like blogs - for me to find a podcast (or blog) i like, it's probably going to be a recommendation or link from another site. but i did do a earch for a podcast using podcastdirectory.com. I browsed through their categories and looked at a number of listings. some of the book ones looked interesting, but i could really have done with a synopsis before i start listening to them. they did have a handful of old time radio podcasts that i enjoy, but these are something that i wouldn't listen to every one of them, i'd listen only to a couple of the ones from series i like so subscribing would be inefficient.
just surfing, i downloaded a couple of podcasts and listened to the beginning of them, but didn't listen to them all - sorry, short attention-span and short on time. i do regularly download a local radio program (Todd & Tyler) and was really glad when they started providing the podcasts as i'm not always able to listen to it while they're on the air. not exactly library oriented but as i can listen to them while doing tech services work or shelving (non public service aspects of my job) it keeps me sane, so i consider them valuable for libraries, if not for them to create them, then to at least know about them to help patrons who want to use them but need help.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
thing #20 - youtube
ah, youtube. a place to watch perfect strangers make fools of themselves on video. or watch a cat riding a Roomba around the house. (frankly, i prefer the second option - i like cats)
i have two options. i can talk about the cat riding the Roomba or i could talk about the actual educational videos they have on youtube. hmmm.... cat or documentaries... cat or documentaries... oh well, i'll go for the documentaries cause what more can i say about a cat riding a Roomba other than it's rather amusing? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ-jv8g1YVI)
as interesting as it is seeing all the video clips someone has put together of their 1990 family reunion set to one of the Monkee's songs, i've found some other things on youtube i find much more interesting. documentaries. i know it sounds boring, but i like documentaries. History and Discovery channels are two of my favorite stations and if absolutely nothing else is on - i can always find something on one of these sorts of channels that catches my eye. almost always.
somewhere along the line i got interested in nuclear explosions. for the life of me, i can't remember how or why, but i did. actually, it might have been something about Chernobyl and how Russia (or USSR) handled the incident and how it's currently treated - the government supplying a small medical stipend to people living within a certain radius and all the medical problems locals have. i was also fascinated by an entire city having to be abandoned (another topic i find interesting: pictures or stories about abandoned buildings and cities) and how the radiation doesn't seem to be affecting the wildlife in the area as much as it does to humans. (Chernobyl before and after - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNR0U_kB6k&feature=related) but moving on, if you go to youtube, there are some fascinating things about Chernobyl on their site - from videos from people visiting Chernobyl now to videos taken at the time to videos of when the town was created. and a couple of documentaries on the subject have been made and posted on the site. i know that this is probably against copyright, but since i didn't post it and i'm not downloading it, just watching it, i don't see a problem with this.
i really like how they recommend similar videos as well. i could and have spend hours on this site. often watching cats riding Roomdas.
i have two options. i can talk about the cat riding the Roomba or i could talk about the actual educational videos they have on youtube. hmmm.... cat or documentaries... cat or documentaries... oh well, i'll go for the documentaries cause what more can i say about a cat riding a Roomba other than it's rather amusing? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ-jv8g1YVI)
as interesting as it is seeing all the video clips someone has put together of their 1990 family reunion set to one of the Monkee's songs, i've found some other things on youtube i find much more interesting. documentaries. i know it sounds boring, but i like documentaries. History and Discovery channels are two of my favorite stations and if absolutely nothing else is on - i can always find something on one of these sorts of channels that catches my eye. almost always.
somewhere along the line i got interested in nuclear explosions. for the life of me, i can't remember how or why, but i did. actually, it might have been something about Chernobyl and how Russia (or USSR) handled the incident and how it's currently treated - the government supplying a small medical stipend to people living within a certain radius and all the medical problems locals have. i was also fascinated by an entire city having to be abandoned (another topic i find interesting: pictures or stories about abandoned buildings and cities) and how the radiation doesn't seem to be affecting the wildlife in the area as much as it does to humans. (Chernobyl before and after - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNR0U_kB6k&feature=related) but moving on, if you go to youtube, there are some fascinating things about Chernobyl on their site - from videos from people visiting Chernobyl now to videos taken at the time to videos of when the town was created. and a couple of documentaries on the subject have been made and posted on the site. i know that this is probably against copyright, but since i didn't post it and i'm not downloading it, just watching it, i don't see a problem with this.
i really like how they recommend similar videos as well. i could and have spend hours on this site. often watching cats riding Roomdas.
Thing #19 - Web 2.0 tools
website choice: Zoomii (http://zoomii.com/#home)
interesting. this is a bookstore website that shows the images of the books they have, sorted into categories where you can scan 20 or 30 book covers at once. i rather like how it's set up so you can browse like a bookstore (i guess that's their main feature, so duh, that's what makes it special). i am apparently guilty of judging a book by its cover or at least if a good cover draws my eye and i'll then pick it up and look at the description. i must be more of a visual person than i thought i am. i was pleased to find their prices are comparable to amazon, at least for the half-dozen i checked. it really is a neat website if you aren't searching for a specific title or author and are just browsing for something new that looks good.
as for using this in a library setting, it might be a browsing tool we recommend to browsers that really like to see the covers of books. with all of our books on the shelves, it's hard to see the covers. i've noticed books we put on display with their covers showing tend to be checked out more often than items just on the new book shelves. overall, quite a neat website.
interesting. this is a bookstore website that shows the images of the books they have, sorted into categories where you can scan 20 or 30 book covers at once. i rather like how it's set up so you can browse like a bookstore (i guess that's their main feature, so duh, that's what makes it special). i am apparently guilty of judging a book by its cover or at least if a good cover draws my eye and i'll then pick it up and look at the description. i must be more of a visual person than i thought i am. i was pleased to find their prices are comparable to amazon, at least for the half-dozen i checked. it really is a neat website if you aren't searching for a specific title or author and are just browsing for something new that looks good.
as for using this in a library setting, it might be a browsing tool we recommend to browsers that really like to see the covers of books. with all of our books on the shelves, it's hard to see the covers. i've noticed books we put on display with their covers showing tend to be checked out more often than items just on the new book shelves. overall, quite a neat website.
Friday, November 28, 2008
thing 18 - web based apps
well, i'm writing this using the Google Docs program. it is an interesting program and works quite well, especially for something that's free. it has nowhere near the level of something like Microsoft Word, but most users don't use 3/4ths of the features Word offers, so in general, this program would be suitable for most people. i'm sure there are some special features in word that are also available in Google Docs - i just haven't found them yet - because the layout is pretty straight forward. the part i really like is that you can save your documents and access them elsewhere without needing to save them on flash drives or floppy disks (if any computer uses floppy discs anymore).
for a free app. i'm quite impressed and i can see myself using it at times i don't have my flash or access to it (something that happens entirely too often). i've noticed it's still listed as a beta product and hope this is something a number of people learn about and use if only to keep it available for those who don't have access to expensive word processing programs.
for a free app. i'm quite impressed and i can see myself using it at times i don't have my flash or access to it (something that happens entirely too often). i've noticed it's still listed as a beta product and hope this is something a number of people learn about and use if only to keep it available for those who don't have access to expensive word processing programs.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thing 17 - Wiki sand box
It is rather interesting to play around with our own wiki pages and this has given us a chance to look at the other side of what wikis entail. I have to say, if you restrict the users who are able to change entries into a wiki, this makes them a valuable resource with a number of applications over a broad span of areas. As nice as it sounds to allow access to everyone, not everyone is serious about a topic and way too many people think it’s funny to sabotage publically accessible sites. Allowing anyone to view but only certain people to change looks like it would be the best option as far as accuracy is concerned. (another pet peeve of mine)
It also depends on who is using the wiki and its topic. At one point we were considering a wiki for our tech services manual at my main job at Creighton’s Law Library. We eventually decided not to because we couldn’t get enough space for some of our files for things such as labels and we had a great number of screenshot images for our documented procedures. We decided to go with our Angel system for the university, but if we were able to have enough space, a wiki would have been ideal.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thing 16 - Wikis
Just for the hell of it, I decided to look up elephants (if you don’t get the reference, continue to read and I’ll explain later) on SJCPLSubject Guides located here:
http://www.libraryforlife.org/subjectguides/index.php/Main_Page
I immediately find this to be somewhere out of their subject range and can’t decide whether elephants fall under History-related Mysteries or Pets. They could fall under entertainment if you are thinking of the circus variety. Or maybe family history, depending on your family.
It wasn’t under history-related mysteries which turns out to be a classification of fictional mystery books. I then checked pets and that page tends to go toward the more traditional pets – cats, dogs, birds, lizards, whatever – but no elephants. I’ve then looked under crafts, gardening, publishing family history, travel, tax information, legal information and classes and none of them have anything about elephants.
I guess this is more of a browsing sort of Subject Guides and not meant for specific searching. Or they have something against elephants. Perhaps I just think of wikis as a source of information similar to an encyclopedia, seeing as those are the only ones I’ve encountered.
Moving on, I check out the BookLoversWiki from Princeton Public Library (http://booklovers.pbwiki.com/Princeton%20Public%20Library). This one seems to be more of an index to book reviews broken down by book types – autobiographies, poetry, science fiction, horror, chic lit, contemporary fiction, you get the point.
Browsing through the contemporary fiction, I did find a book titled Water for Elephants which is oddly closer to the first wiki that I tried to do a search of. Go fig. I guess I found the elephants when and where I least expected it. No, strike that. The least expected place would be under my desk or in my shower. (I need help, don’t I?)
Back to the elephant reference. In the spring or summer of 2006, The Cobert Show on Comedy Central, a satire of right wing pundit shows, stated about wikipedia that "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true." Seeing as on the show, Colbert has a problem with endangered species advocates, he then suggests that if enough people go into Wikipedia and change then entries for elephants to say their population had tripled in the past six months it will become the “Truth”. Instead of reality this becomes wikiality or something like that. I just like the phrase wikiality. The problem was, a number of Colbert followers proceeded to do this. While a great number of people found this humorous, Wikipedia did not and once they realized what was happening, they corrected and locked the entry for elephants and only certain members (or maybe it’s anyone who’s an official member) can change the elephant entries. 2 ½ yrs later, the entry is still locked.
This demonstrates one of the greatest flaws with encyclopedic wikis, specifically Wikipedia. Ideally, everyone lends their own expertise to the entries, but a lot of people have less expertise than they might think. Kinda like cousin Bob adding to the entry on a type of brain surgery while he’s still convinced the brain is somewhere around his left knee. (actually, we’re not sure Bob has a brain, so the left knee is as good as anywhere else to start looking. The man’s head whistles in a crosswind.)
This is why I say Wikipedia is a good place to get a general idea about something, but double check your facts and check out their references if you intend to use it as a research source. I also don’t think anyone should cite it in a paper, but that’s my personal opinion and I’m a research snob.
Colbert show and Wikipedia’s elephants article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6100754-7.html
http://www.libraryforlife.org/subjectguides/index.php/Main_Page
I immediately find this to be somewhere out of their subject range and can’t decide whether elephants fall under History-related Mysteries or Pets. They could fall under entertainment if you are thinking of the circus variety. Or maybe family history, depending on your family.
It wasn’t under history-related mysteries which turns out to be a classification of fictional mystery books. I then checked pets and that page tends to go toward the more traditional pets – cats, dogs, birds, lizards, whatever – but no elephants. I’ve then looked under crafts, gardening, publishing family history, travel, tax information, legal information and classes and none of them have anything about elephants.
I guess this is more of a browsing sort of Subject Guides and not meant for specific searching. Or they have something against elephants. Perhaps I just think of wikis as a source of information similar to an encyclopedia, seeing as those are the only ones I’ve encountered.
Moving on, I check out the BookLoversWiki from Princeton Public Library (http://booklovers.pbwiki.com/Princeton%20Public%20Library). This one seems to be more of an index to book reviews broken down by book types – autobiographies, poetry, science fiction, horror, chic lit, contemporary fiction, you get the point.
Browsing through the contemporary fiction, I did find a book titled Water for Elephants which is oddly closer to the first wiki that I tried to do a search of. Go fig. I guess I found the elephants when and where I least expected it. No, strike that. The least expected place would be under my desk or in my shower. (I need help, don’t I?)
Back to the elephant reference. In the spring or summer of 2006, The Cobert Show on Comedy Central, a satire of right wing pundit shows, stated about wikipedia that "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true." Seeing as on the show, Colbert has a problem with endangered species advocates, he then suggests that if enough people go into Wikipedia and change then entries for elephants to say their population had tripled in the past six months it will become the “Truth”. Instead of reality this becomes wikiality or something like that. I just like the phrase wikiality. The problem was, a number of Colbert followers proceeded to do this. While a great number of people found this humorous, Wikipedia did not and once they realized what was happening, they corrected and locked the entry for elephants and only certain members (or maybe it’s anyone who’s an official member) can change the elephant entries. 2 ½ yrs later, the entry is still locked.
This demonstrates one of the greatest flaws with encyclopedic wikis, specifically Wikipedia. Ideally, everyone lends their own expertise to the entries, but a lot of people have less expertise than they might think. Kinda like cousin Bob adding to the entry on a type of brain surgery while he’s still convinced the brain is somewhere around his left knee. (actually, we’re not sure Bob has a brain, so the left knee is as good as anywhere else to start looking. The man’s head whistles in a crosswind.)
This is why I say Wikipedia is a good place to get a general idea about something, but double check your facts and check out their references if you intend to use it as a research source. I also don’t think anyone should cite it in a paper, but that’s my personal opinion and I’m a research snob.
Colbert show and Wikipedia’s elephants article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6100754-7.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)