Caveat from Jenny: Beth is hesitant to publish her data yet because she still needs to validate it, so please take the numbers in here with a grain of salt until she is able to do that. At the meeting, we all pounced on the numbers because they're pretty amazing if they're right, and Beth knows that's exactly what everyone else will do. She has graciously agreed to let me post my notes anyway, so please make sure you check with her before using these numbers anywhere else.

Also, what Beth is doing is fascinating (see BiblioCommons for just a tad more, and if you ever have the chance to hear her speak, I highly recommend you go. She's got some very powerful ideas about inserting social tools into the "my account" section of the catalog. I think she's on the right track, and any funders out there should definitely talk to her. As someone else said at the meeting, Beth was clearly the dark horse, surprising all of us with a really great presentation. These notes represent a fraction of what she said, as she talked even faster than Siva!

I was a respondent on the panel afterwards, which is why there are no notes for that. I didn't say everything I should have during the panel, so I'll try to write up what I should have said in a future post. If Beth lets us post her slides (maybe without the statistics?), I'll definitely point to it. All of the presentations were interesting, but I don't think it takes away from the others to say that this one was the clear favorite, and as David Lankes (a fellow respondent) said afterwards, it was nice to be on a panel where everyone was so passionately in agreement. :)

Libraries & the Social
----------------------

Here as a practitioner, not an academic
a framework for product development, not a manifesto
Reframe the question – shift risks to possibilities and what web 2.0 allows

3 categories:
---------------
- communication
- collaboration
- collective intelligence (where we learn from others)

All of which has been on the periphery of the catalog
Social search and social discovery is at the heart of rethinking the information landscape
harnessing the collective intelligence – O’Reilly
“the social network as filter” – currency of judgments
A new divide between the interacting and the interacted
computers will soon be as ubiquitous as television
the people who have voice, and the people who listen
As libraries have focused on providing access to bridge the digital divde for the first decade, can now bridge the empowerment divide

1. Participation inequality
- could be at the heart of social search
studies from Pew and Forrester (“Social Technographics”)
there is a growing participation of users who are using these new tools, but the interesting thing is the flip – who *isn’t* using them, including the way they use them

Forrester says 52% are inactive and don’t use any of the tools
contributors vs. inactives
technology optimism, whether they say they are a natural leader is related to whether a person is a contributor or inactive
small portion of overall users, though
1 creator, 10 synthesizers, 100 consumers
the 2% actively contributing frequently are having a big impact on the rest, and yet we know that they aren’t representative so we’ve got a big disconnect there
forrester says boomers and seniors need more relevant content and services

So what’s the unique role for libraries in all of this?
when you ask people what they are more comfortable sharing, the stuff they talk about are ratings, favorite books/movies, discussion forums, all things that the library does
likelihood of contributing content – library versus online bookstore
almost 50% of their respondents said they would be more likely to contribute to a library than n online bookstore, more balanced in age responses
libraries can be a safe gateway to participation in the social web

Expectations of quality of content were higher for the library than an online bookstore in their survey
lots of untapped energy and willingness to engage

How we build that architecture of participation
from the beginning, think about the pathway to participation
architecting participation – reward f(effort, risk)
- cognitive load
- time

Lower threshold for point of entry
be in activity streams

Showed a power law of participation
Enabling “critics” and “collectors”
writing a review sounds easy, but it’s actually daunting for participants
ratings are much easier, they tag, they create lists, which have lower thresholds

Found a phenomenal amount of time users are spending logging into the catalog to view their records
gives us opportunities to insert into their workflow
40% of online users report checking account several times a week or more!
collectively, we’re getting 1/3 of MySpace’s hits! Have to think of ourselves collectively
have to put ourselves where the user is and make them quick and easy to use
2 billion items circulated annually, 10x what Amazon sells in a year

Risk:
------
OCLC report found that users don’t want to share what they’ve checked out
ratings and reviews were given as most likely place users said they’d contribute
“I might share it if….” What?
- if I trusted the service provider
- if I saw benefits
- if I could have control
Saw photos as more personal than ratings/reviews

Expectations for care taken to safeguard privacy of data for library vs. online bookstore is again an opportunity for libraries – they trust us
other piece is making sure users have control – want to give you permission but want to be asked
give sharing options at a granular level
desire to opt-in
need to let them share that in other places on the web

Motivations to contribute:
- make sure my voice is heard: they laughed at this idea
- connect with users who share my interests
- top reviewer status
3 clusters of motivation:
- personal utility, benefits
- opportunity to help build a better catalog (about 1/3 of users expressed this)
- earn community credits toward fine reductions, special borrowing privileges
don’t need to give them much, but they would like something (even if it’s earning 1,000 points which gets them $1 off fines)
could be important for a certain number of users

2. Attention inequality
“hits,” like it or not are here to stay – chris Anderson, which was different than what he first proposed in the article
“the rich are getting richer and the poor – there are more of them”
the midlist is where authors earn a living

How do we develop mechanisms to distribute attention because this is inevitable unless we redesign the algorithms (and the algorithms are not objective)
microstructures within the long tail – not just other customers who bought this item, but other customers *like you* who bought this item
gets away from the “tyranny of the average user”
want to be able to add trusted sources like me who then feed me recommendations, inform my search and discovery process

The return cart is one of the most popular social tools in the library!

Compared a statement from NetFlix’s founder with Ranganathan!

It’s not a false dichotomy – we just need to give them tools to find something else

3. Connections inequality
What kinds of connections are these tools enabling?
nodes around college, work networks of people you know and you invite friends
end up with similar communities – are we going deeper into our own communities or broader into other types?

Instead of content organizing community, community can organize content
library can help you broaden your connections on shared interests

4. Inequality on filtering capacity
Focus has to be on enabling users to connect with each other
Web 1.0 => using computers to assemble clues
Web 2.0 => enabling people to share meaning
Content – Communities – Conversations

Take these tools and bring them into the core of the library, not the periphery

The heart of the library is “my account” – that is where we can have a real impact

Our users are here, but we’re pushing them away. We tell them to come back when you know the title you’re looking for
75+ million active library users, far more than Flickr, etc.
need to systematically address theses four inequalities

Technorati Tags: ftl2007, ftl07, technology, libraries