Microblogging

Twitter:

I’ve had a twitter account for some time now, about two years. I was very slow to start actually using the account. First I found some friends to follow, then I looked through who they followed and followed celebrities, organizations, associations, etc. that I was also interested in. In a few months I made my first tweet. I’ve only made about twenty tweets in two years! Furthermore, I have never used the mentions (@) or hashtag (#) feature.

I am much more of a “lurker” type of user. Ridings, Gefen, and Arinze (2006) define lurkers “as virtual community members who visit and use the community but who do not post messages” (330). When I first heard about this type of user I thought that they must be a bad type of user. The work “lurker” doesn’t have good connotations. However, Ridings, Gefen, and Arinze (2006) assert that “Lurking is usually not a negative behavior” (331). Ridings, Gefen, and Arinze (2006) go on to explain:

“Lurking is certainly desirable. Virtual communities often report their membership to be as high as the hundreds of thousands. Information overload would occur if all the members posted daily or even weekly, so some level of lurking is essential. Conversely, some proportion of members must post for the community to survive and continue. A balance between posting and lurking must exist” (331).

This makes a lot of sense to me. In my experiences with twitter “information overload” is definitely a descriptive term I would use for explaining twitter. I follow over 100 accounts. As a result let’s say I check twitter and then re-check twitter in a hour. Typically there will be anywhere from 20-100 new tweets! There is no way I could keep up with that volume of traffic. Alternatively, let’s say I check my Facebook once every day, I probably miss 20-30 new items on my newsfeed. So if I were to become a regular poster on Twitter, it would just be a drop in the bucket. I prefer to post on Facebook because I actually experience a type of cultural engagement with users. However, in Twitter’s social networking atmosphere, being a lurker or a non-participating observer is actually helpful in that it reduces the amount of information overload.

This week I experimented using the ‘@’ and ‘#’ phrases in Twitter. It was a lot of fun to actually engage with the twitter community.

Microblogging and Libraries:

A lot of the articles this week focused on microblogging and libraries and they contained a lot of useful insights. I particularly found’s Young’s (2011) article about a reference librarian attending a college course via Twitter “…to be on hand to suggest books, online links, or other resources based on class discussion…” (para. 1) to be really interesting. The degree of embedment of this librarian is inspiring. Basically the librarian was available online via Twitter during one college class. During this time the students could ask the librarian questions based on the professor’s lecture and the librarians would reply with answers and further information. This librarian (Ellen Hampton Filgo) called this service “library jazz” (Young, 2011, para. 2), which is such a great term for it! Others would even call it magic! To top it off, one day she tweeted that she had a resource for the class and then physically appeared soon after with the resource (Young, 2011, para. 7). MAGIC!

Ms. Filgo did discuss the unfortunate realities including the difficulties that would be involved in expanding it to more classes, namely, that of time constraints, as she claimed it took up “three hours of my workweek” (Young, 2011, para. 9). That is a lot of time for an extra responsibility! Unless a librarian is embedded full time, I can’t imagine how a librarian could be such a integral part of the classroom. It is really too bad because the embedded librarian has the potential to really enhance the learning process. If only there were a way to make it work!

Tips from David Allen Kelly:

Kelly’s (2009) article was also really interesting. Kelly talked about the lessons his library learned regarding Twitter implementation. Kelly (2009) offered some excellent tips that are relevant for both libraries with a social media programs and libraries thinking about implementing a social media program. For instance, Kelly (2009) provides an example of one of their tweets that was used to promote materials:

Kelly (2009) explains this tweet:

“When people are talking a lot about something they often like to learn more about it. Who better to turn to than a library for learning more about something? Were killing three birds with one tweet here (apologies for the pun). (1) We are staying relevant in quickly changing world where news is immediate and constant. (2) We are promoting a book that gas been relatively overlooked in our system. (3) We’re promoting a current DVD and many people still don’t realize how good our DVD selection is. All in 140 characters. We’re even making it easy with a direct catalog link where a patron can place a hold on materials” (para. 8).

First off, I enjoyed his pun. Secondly, I had been thinking about this idea a bit in last week’s blog. I think libraries should be more open to discussing topical issues, such as the one showcased in this tweet. I like how the news article is linked, as well as, the library’s catalog. I think this shows a lot of value added. Value that libraries need to add to remain relevant.

This also relates to another one of Kelly’s (2009) tips: “It doesn’t have to require a library-visit” (para. 14). Kelly (2009) explains his love of “finding quirky and odd links…that might bring a smile to someone’s day, and they might even check out a … book while they’re thinking about it” (para. 14). Here is a screenshot of Kelly’s (2009) example:

Kelly (2009) explains this tweet:

“When we post tweets like that we’re solidifying our image as a hip, entertaining, vibrant, and fun place. It isn’t just about selling your materials and services, but creating your image as well!” (para. 15).

I think this is an excellent idea! Why not have some fun? That is what social media is designed for! So far the actual library uses of social media I have seen are primarily not like these two tweets. These kinds of tweets, in my opinion, are the exact kind of tweets that will get users to visit the library. Furthermore, these are the kinds of tweets that will get re-tweeted and will spark and grab the attention of non-users and may even get them to visit the library.

New Media is Still Media:

Another tip that Kelly (2009) posits is to “promote things as they happen” (para. 11). Kelly (2009) explains:

“Authors enjoy coming to libraries but they like the promotion too! If authors see your library will go the extra mile, and see they are not only being promoted to your own customers but across the entire Internet, they appreciate it. They come back. They tell their peers and their publishers.” (para. 11).

This is a good tip for libraries to take notice of because authors might not come right out and tell you they want to be promoted via Twitter. But they do. Celebrity mentions via microblogging social networks will soon become part of the common library practice. Just as libraries would use traditional media to promote authors who are visiting the library, social media or new media tools are just as important.

Value Added With Twitter:

Kelly (2009) also talked about the importance of interacting (para. 17). Kelly (2009) reveals the usefulness of Twitter Search:

“So get this: if someone within 25 miles uses the word “library” in a tweet, it is in my RSS feed! It’s not as much as you might think, anywhere from 15-30 a day usually. Some may be talking about their “iTunes library” or one of the city libraries (our county system is separate), but it is very easy to skip past the irrelevant results…I see someone mention the library and if it is something I can help with, <zing> I arrive and interact. Sometimes I can help and sometimes I can’t. Often the person in question didn’t even know we had a Twitter account but will follow us. They also know they can reach us if need be.” (para. 18-19).

This part blew my mind! It’s so simple and so effective! Find the conversations regarding your library, or even a general library issue, and talk to that person or organization directly! Talk about value added service!

As I am sure you can tell Kelly’s (2009) article really struck a chord with me. I thought it was wonderfully written and insightful.

Technical Capabilities of Twitter:

As for technical specifics, Cuddy, Graham, and Morton-Owens (2010) offer some helpful tips they learned from implementing Twitter in their health sciences library. I often hear the social media programs suffer when they are too loose in their posting schedule, e.g. everyone should post whenever they have time, because employees don’t have enough time, or posts are too infrequent, or too many posts occur at the same time. While I think that a schedule is the way to go, it is almost impossible to keep to the schedule all the time.

Cuddy, Graham, and Morton-Owens (2010) use the tool CoTweet which is designed to solve problems that occur when many users share one Twitter account:

“CoTweet allows one person to be the account owner…CoTweet accounts give the other team members access to the Twitter account without having to share the actual password. Each team member can post to the Twitter account through the CoTweet interface. CoTweet allows team members to see who posted each tweet to the account, which is not possible on the Twitter Web site” (321).

CoTweet has specific functions for dealing with plausible scheduling conflicts:

“The tool [CoTweet] makes it possible to schedule a tweet to be posted at a specific time in the future…It is possible to create the tweet at the moment an idea comes to mind and schedule it to post later, rather than having to remember to do it” (Cuddy, Graham, and Morton-Owens, 2010, 321).

Thus, if an employee is scheduled to tweet on Thursdays but is going on vacation, they can type up all the tweets and schedule to be posted at a later date and time.

Evaluation of Twitter:

In terms of the evaluation of a Twitter program in a library, Cuddy, Graham, and Morton-Owens (2010) suggest

“…assessing not only the number of followers the library has but also the types of followers. Knowing who the followers are is instrumental in developing targeted marketing and making sure that tweets are relevant…[and]…at how the followers are interacting with the library. The idiosyncratic nature of interactions on Twitter will likely be far more telling than traditional statistics” (327).

This is why Twitter and social media is such an interesting marketing tool. You can easily see who your followers are and you can glean a surprising amount of personal information about them. This can really help libraries target tweets to specific types of users (e.g. “students” or use #) or even to specific users (use @).

The Culture of Different Social Media Tools:

Cuddy, Graham, and Morton-Owens (2010) linked their blog to Twitter, and their Twitter to Facebook, so that the new items posted on the blog would filter through to Twitter, which would filter through to Facebook. This is a common approach adopted by social media users as it is good way to save time. However, it is a risky move if libraries fail to grasp the differences between tools. For instance, if no one adds unique material tailored for the culture of Twitter, the tweets will fail to get noticed. Same goes for all social media sites. For instance, if a library never posted tailored messages on Facebook, rather they only re-posted the messages from Twitter that were comprised mainly of announcements regarding the library, the engagement potential inherent within Facebook would be lost.

Facebook is better for asking questions and getting feedback because users are allowed more characters for their posts. Twitter is better for announcements because they don’t require lengthy posts or responses. Whether or not you agree on my brief summation of what the culture of Facebook is versus Twitter (I’m not entirely convinced I have it right), the fact remains that each tool is different and has a different culture with different norms. Deciphering the specifics, ramifications, and codes of each tool will help libraries utilize the various sites to their advantage.

That’s all she wrote!

References:

Cuddy, Colleen, Graham, Jamie, & Morton-Owens, Emily G. (2010). Implementing Twitter in a health sciences library. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 29: 320-330.

Kelly, David Allen. (2009, July 29). How your library may not be using Twitter but should. David Allen Kelly: Web Design, Literature, Production, Remixing, Philosophy. Retrieved from http://kellyd.com/2009/07/29/how-your-library-may-not-be-using-twitter-but-should/

Ridings, Catherine; Gefen, David; and Arinze, Bay. (2006) Psychological Barriers: Lurker and Poster Motivation and Behavior in Online Communities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(16). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol18/iss1/16

Young, Jeffrey R. (2011, February 25). ‘Embedded librarian’ on Twitter served as information concierge for class. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/embedded-librarian-on-twitter-served-as-information-concierge-for-class/30000

Flickr and Social Networking

Our mission this week was to experiment with a social network that we’ve never tried in the past. I enjoy photography and so I picked Flickr as my new social network.

Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/) boasts that they are “almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world” and posits two goals:

1. We want to help people make their photos available to the people who matter to them.
2. We want to enable new ways of organizing photos and video. (http://www.flickr.com/about/)

First I uploaded a ‘buddy icon’, created a profile, and imported contacts via Facebook. I was given the option to add people as Contacts, Friends, and/or Family.

Secondly, I uploaded a few photos. I added titles, descriptions, and tags. Then I grouped the photos into ‘sets’, which is similar to a photo album on Facebook. Maybe it’s the librarian in me, but I enjoyed organizing my photos. Especially with digital photos, without a service like Flickr, its hard to share organized photos. I think people are more likely to email photos to family and friends or post a few on Facebook or Twitter; i.e. avenues that are not solely for photos. You also get to choose your privacy settings, i.e. sharing with anyone, contacts, friends, and/or family.

Then I just bumbled around seeing what else I could do. There is a feature called ‘Galleries’, which

“For whatever you find interesting, fascinating, or mind-blowing on Flickr, galleries are a way to curate up to 18 public photos or videos of your fellow members into one place. It’s an opportunity to celebrate the creativity of your fellow members in a truly unique way around a theme, an idea or just because” (http://www.flickr.com/help/galleries/)

This really reminded me of Pinterest, however, with a significantly smaller limit (18 photos/videos). I created a gallery and searched public photos for material to put in said gallery…it was about books if you are interested. If you see a photo you like you go to the actions drop-down menu and select ‘add to gallery’. You can also write a description of why you selected a particular photo for your gallery. I actually like this feature better than Pinterest because with two clicks you are redirected to the original user’s page. There you can see all the background information pertaining to the photo. Whereas on Pinterest, you often have no idea where the photo/video came from, because users don’t bother providing good metadata.

There is another feature called ‘Tags’, which shows 150 of your most popular tags in a word-cloud type display.

If you click on a tag it will take you to a page containing all the photos with that particular tag. Then you can also edit photos in a particular batch and/or change the tag entirely.

You can also see your tags alphabetically in a table format. You can also see how many photos belong to each tag. You are also given the opportunity to easily edit or delete each tag.

You can also search for multiple tags at once, by clicking search and selecting as many tags as you like.

You can also mark people who are in your photos, which is similar to tagging in Facebook. Interestingly, there is a map feature where you can show where each photo was taken. Flickr also archives every photo you upload. I was surprised that Flickr read through my computer to figure out when I first uploaded each picture onto my computer, even though it was before I started an account! Talk about invasion of privacy. It has two columns: ‘taken on’ and ‘posted to Flickr’. Posted to Flickr made sense, I had just posted 5 photos to Flickr. But taken on…I was shocked to see January and February up there. Here I’ll show you a screenshot of how detailed Flickr archives are! 

You can also mark you ‘favourite’ photos by selecting the star favourite button in the toolbar atop each photo you see that isn’t your own. This feature is akin to the Facebook ‘like’ feature that allows you to support your friends’ posts. Then you can go to your favourites area and see all your favourite photos. You can also subscribe to your favourite contacts, so you will see their photos as soon as their is a new one. That to me is a bit overkill, but some prefer RSS.

Flickr and Social Networking:

While I really enjoyed learning how to use Flickr, I found the actual social aspect of it a bit anticlimactic. Even though I went through all of my ‘friends’ on Facebook, only 8 have Flickr accounts. Out of those, the latest activity on Flickr was 9 months ago! Additionally, two of the eight didn’t have any public photos up for me to see. So it seems Flickr may have past its heyday!

However, I imagine I would like this social networking because it is so specialized, or I would like to think so. I’ll keep with it and see it is actually any fun!

Libraries and the Larger Conversation Online:

This week we were also asked to comment on “how can libraries effectively hold their place in the larger conversation that we’re having with each other online”

I guess for me personally, I use Facebook the most. On there I “like” a few libraries that are or were important to me. For instance, I ‘like’ the Graduate Resource Centre at UWO since I am a student and use this library’s resources. It is excellent for keeping me up-to-date on library closures, new materials, upcoming talks etc. I love that I don’t have to go ALL the WAY to their website for this information. The GRC knows its clientele well. Students are usually already on Facebook, and if the GRC updates aren’t on Facebook, students might not receive the updates at all! Of course that is a generalization, but I know for me it is very useful, since I don’t physically go to the campus and can’t easily keep track of the GRC updates.

The “conversation” is mainly about services, to which patrons either applaud or complain about said services. The libraries tend to shy away from talking about current issues, etc. That is they provide the information but don’t discuss the information itself. The same goes for patrons. I have yet to see patrons discuss current issues or materials they got from the library.

It would be interesting to see libraries begin to use social media to discuss and add to the discourse on various subjects, as applicable to the particular library. Engaging with the library patrons in this way could lead to a fruitful dialogue, that helps spread knowledge, awareness, as well as promote the library.

Social Media Policy

I found the readings for this week really interesting. I’ve been looking forward to the subject of social media policy and planning, as I feel it is currently one of the most important issues for social media. It seems that more and more companies, organizations, and institutions are adopting social media tools into their everyday operations. However, I have the impression that this is done haphazardly without a solid foundation or infrastructure in place. I feel that without a plan or policy the implementation of social media runs a high risk of failure and/or a lack of buy-in. That is why I was so excited for this week; so I could find out some tips and strategies for designing a good social media policy.

Social Media and Privacy versus transparency:

Lauby (2009) in referring to Eric B. Meyer emphasizes transparency within a social media policy:

“Employers need to be upfront with employees that they have no right to privacy with respect to social networking. “Employers reserve the right to monitor employee use of social media regardless of location (i.e. at work on a company computer or on personal time with a home computer).”” (para. 6).

I have mixed opinions about this argument. On the one hand, I have heard countless times that one should approach social media with caution in regards to online etiquette and decorum. That is one should act online is as if your are in public. The reason for this is that current and potential employers and colleagues can often easily look at your social media activities online, and that many professional colleagues do indeed look.

In class we have had many discussions related to this. For instance many Facebook users clean-up their accounts after completing a undergraduate degree in order to eliminate any juvenile and embarrassing content that they would not want a potential employer to see.

On the other hand, I know many users view social media as a personal leisurely activity that is separate from work. I think it significantly depends on the line of work. Nonetheless, I find Meyer’s (in Lauby, 2009) argument that “Employers reserve the right to monitor employee use of social media regardless of location (i.e. at work on a company computer or on personal time with a home computer).”[bold emphasis added here]” (para. 6) extreme and unnecessary for a social media policy. It robs employees of independence, and forces them to always be on the clock.

However, my fear is that this is becoming the norm and accepted practice. Many young professionals increasingly treat social media as a professional career advancement tool. Thus, the persona projected through social media is a professional one rather than a personal one. If this trend continues, it won’t be a big leap for employers to control employee’s online behaviour around the clock. This is especially apparent as users are already voluntarily censoring themselves through a professional filter.

Social Media as a tool for Employee Recruitment and Evaluation:

Armano (2009) provides tips on how employers can analyze their employee’s or potential employee’s social media network. Armano (2009) suggests some questions employers should keep in mind including what they use social media for, e.g. “…promotion, work, play, etc.” (para. 2). Additionally, Armano asks “Also, how consistent are the threads? Do they come off the same in each network? Are they effective in each?” (para. 2). More specifically Armano states that: “Blogs are great for evaluating writing skills—and looking over things like comments or re-tweets may give you an idea if the candidate’s writings are getting traction in the community” (para. 3).

I found these questions were really helpful for those potential employees as well, as it will help them control their social media networks. Within social media policy, addressing these issues would be of benefit for organizations. In regards to the purpose of social media use, organizations should draft their policy according to their mission, vision, and values statements, as they will help determine the plausible purposes and functions of social media. Armano’s (2009) discussion of consistency is really important. I never gave the consistency throughout my network much thought, but I can see that it could really improve an outsider’s opinion of a social media network. Consistency shows that an organization has a strategy in place and it appears more professional. Lastly, your reach as seen in your entire network is very telling in terms of your popularity and influence. The great thing about social media is they are easily to monitor and evaluate. Armano (2009) suggests using Twitter Friends to determine the reach of your twitter account. I did mine for fun, but unfortunately and unsurprisingly I have practically no reach!

Social Media Policy and Online Etiquette:

Lauby (2009) and Meyer’s second assertion is excellent and reminds me of good old common sense and manners:

“Employees “should be made aware that company policies on anti-harassment, ethics and company loyalty extend to all forms of communication (including social media) both inside and outside the workplace.” People need to remember that bashing your organization/boss/co-workers online can lead to consequences at work.” (para. 7)

This refers to the online etiquette I mentioned earlier. Basically, it is never good to bash your organization, etc. in public! This is especially crucial for the world-wide arena of social media.

Social Media Policy–Ban it or Embrace it?:

In the beginning of Web 2.0, many companies saw social media as solely a personal leisurely distraction and chose to ban its use in the workplace altogether. For instance, many workplaces block Facebook to prevent employees accessing while at work. I think this practice is largely due to the newness of social media and society’s general lack of knowledge on the potential uses of social media within the workplace.

Lauby (2009) makes a great point:

“You wouldn’t take the phone or email from your employees, so why take social media away from them” (para. 9).”

I totally agree with this; employees should be mature and professional enough to limit their own use of social media in the workplace. If social media use negatively impacts an employee’s performance, then they should be reprimanded. Employees have the phone and email and yet still seem to get their work done. Thus, elimination of social media is not the answer. Rather an improved communication policy is the answer, in my opinion.

Lauby (2009) suggests that existing communications policy should be extended to include social media. I agree with Lauby’s logic in positioning social media on the same level of other communication media in respect to etiquette. Therefore, the social etiquette and decorum guidelines outlined in existing communication’s policies should be similarly extended to social media.

However, I believe that social media requires a unique policy or strategy due to its conversational and wide reach nature. Social media and Web 2.0 are new concepts and operate in significantly different ways than previous communications media. They instantly create networks with other networks. The immensity and rapidity of that growth requires its own individual planning and development in order to optimally serve an organization.

Social Media Policy– Library Examples and Tips:

Kroski (2009) provides numerous useful tips on what elements should be included in a social media policy, including:

• using a disclaimer (for personal social media accounts),
• not sharing secrets,
• being transparent about your identity in regards to professional social media accounts,
• respecting copyright,
• respecting colleagues,
• avoiding online fights,
• posting accurate information,
• consulting the employee manual,
• using good judgement,
• providing value,
• accepting responsibility about your online actions (para. 10-20).

An example provided for the UT Southwestern Library Social Media Policy follows Kroski’s (2009) direction, but focuses on the following elements:

• being transparent
• writing what you know
• taking responsibility,
• and respecting the law (UT Southwestern Library, 2009).

In another example from the Washoe County Library System, Haskell (2007) emphasizes the importance of specifically stating the library’s position on online content. For instance the Washoe County Library System  will remove:

• Obscene or racist content
• Personal attacks, insults, or threatening language
• Potentially libelous statements
• Plagiarized material
• Private, personal information published without consent
• Comments totally unrelated to the content of the forum
• Hyperlinks to material that is not directly related to the discussion
• Commercial promotions or spam (Haskell, 2007, para. 7).

It is important to put these specific stipulations into the policy to avoid future grey areas of acceptable content. These elements all seem apt for removal from a library social media site, except for “Comments totally unrelated to the content of the forum” and “Hyperlinks to material that is not directly related to the discussion” (Haskell, 2007, para. 7). My aversion relates to a larger issue for social media: the dialogue versus the monologue approach of communication. Social media allows for a dialogue between the library and the user. As the library assists with learning and increasing knowledge, if a user feels inspired and wants to take the discussion in a different direction, the library might benefit from allowing and encouraging that type of social media behaviour. If the library removes any posts by users that are not directly related to the original content, then the users may feel rejected and might become upset. This is not to say discriminatory material shouldn’t be removed, but it is to say that the specific wording of these two elements are too vague and thus might hinder the potential of this social media program. That said these policy elements appear in most of the examples that the Haskell (2007) lists, including the Newton Free Library Blog Policy and the LITA Blog Policy.

I hope this is just the early fad for social media policy and future policies will provide for a more open dialogue between library and user.

Social Media Adoption:

In regards to getting employees to embrace social media Clarke (2011) offers a three prong guide:

1. “Find a social-media “point person” and cultivate that person’s reach and influence so it extends to both the marketing and public-relations teams” (Clarke, 2011, para. 2). Clarke (2011) suggests using an insider because they already know the ins and outs of the business.
2. “Use analytics data to help tell a cohesive story about return on investment that’s driven by joint marketing and public-relations efforts” (para. 6). I briefly talked about this during the discussion about Twitter Friends and evaluating the reach of a social media network.
3. “Infuse social media into every facet of the business, starting with public relations” (Clarke, 2011, para. 9).

It is interesting that Clarke (2011) states that you need to make social media integral to all parts of a business, yet he also states that the implementation must be at the hands of one point person. That seems like an immense responsibility for one person! I wonder how and if that can realistically be accomplished.

References:

Armano, David. (2009, July 13). How to evaluate social media street cred. Logic + Emotion. Retrieved from http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2009/07/smstreet.html

Clarke, David. (2011, September 27). Three ways to maximize return on your investment in social media: most important, get the public relations and marketing teams on the same page. AdvertisingAge. Retrieved from http://www.nextmedia-source.com/frame.php?id=9066569

Haskell, Jami. (2007, November 5). Create a social software policy for your library. Retrieved from http://www.webjunction.org/computer-policies/articles/content/452821

Kroski, Ellyssa. (2009, October 1). Should your library have a social media policy? School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6699104.html

Lauby, Sharlyn. (2009, April 27). Should your company have a social media policy? Mashable. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2009/04/27/social-media-policy/

UT Southwestern Library. (2009, July 15). UT Southwestern Library social media policy. Retrieved from http://units.sla.org/chapter/ctx/UTSouthwesternLibrarySocialMediaPolicy_LLT_Final.pdf