1 / 45

Rose Holley rholley@nla.au Karen Smith-Yoshimura smithyok@oclc

Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums. Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group. Rose Holley rholley@nla.gov.au Karen Smith-Yoshimura smithyok@oclc.org. Libraries Australia Forum Canberra October 20, 2010.

jkrebs
Download Presentation

Rose Holley rholley@nla.au Karen Smith-Yoshimura smithyok@oclc

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums.Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group. Rose Holley rholley@nla.gov.au Karen Smith-Yoshimura smithyok@oclc.org Libraries Australia Forum Canberra October 20, 2010 http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/aggregating/

  2. Terminology: What are we talking about? Social media/networking Ways for people to communicate online with each other e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs. User Generated Content (UGC) Things produced by users rather than owners of the site e.g. image, video, text AND metadata – tags, comments, notes. Social Metadata Additional information about a resource given by online users e.g. tags, comments. Social Media Features Interactive features added to a site that enable virtual groups to build and communicate with each other and social metadata to be added. Social Engagement User interaction online e.g. communication between users, from users to site owners, from users with objects/resources. Web 2.0 Online applications that facilitate interactive rather than passive experiences.

  3. Social Metadata Working Group Focus • User contributions that can enrich the descriptive metadata created by libraries, archives, and museums. • Issues that need to be resolved to communicate and share user contributions on the network level.

  4. Woohoo! I have a job!!! http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)

  5. I’m a man of few words… Tweet! Dudes, we are ON THIS!!! Let’s start engagin’!!! I call dibs on the Library blog. http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)

  6. Crickey! I don’t know what I’m doing!!! All systems engage! Engage, full throttle. Mission commence. We have liftoff! We have liftoff! http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)

  7. They’re tagging & commenting too! Oh my! Look at all the new visitors to our website! and all of our FaceBook friends! Hot Damn, we even have comments on the blog! http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)

  8. Oh wow. How am I going to measure social engagement - impressions and eyeballs? http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)

  9. How long will all this analysis take? It’s all a process of elimination, really. Isolating patterns, quantifying deltas, proving ad-hocs… Then all we have to do is figure out what works, what doesn’t, and give our recommendations to the captain... http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)

  10. Don’t do it… Do it with caution…. Experimentation….. Do a bit of everything – the ‘WILD WEST’ – no rules Now: Review what we learnt and consolidate - plan for future, structure. The Wild West of Social Metadata for Libraries, Museums and Archives “With a gay bandanna around his neck, the modern cowboy presents a vivid picture in boots and spurs, and is just as skilful as an old time ‘puncher’”.

  11. Our Research Aims ~20 QUESTIONS… • Objectives of Social Metadata? • How we measure success? • What UGC is of most value? • Good examples of sites? • Best practice – policy, guidelines? • Staffing? • Moderation? • Taxonomies and vocabularies? • Integration/sharing of social metadata? • Software, technology, functionality?

  12. Drew Bourn, Stanford Douglas Campbell, National Library of New Zealand Kevin Clair, Penn State Chris Cronin, U. Chicago Christine DeZelar-Tiedman, U. Minnesota Mary Elings, UC Berkeley Steve Galbraith, Folger Cheryl Gowing, U. Miami Rose Holley, National Library of Australia Rebekah Irwin, Yale Lesley Kadish, Minnesota Historical Society Helice Koffler, U. Washington Daniel Lovins, Yale John Lowery, British Library Marja Musson, International Institute of Social History Henry Raine, New-York Historical Society Cyndi Shein, Getty Ken Varnum, U. Michigan Melanie Wacker, Columbia Kayla Willey, Brigham Young Beth Yakel, U. Michigan, School of Information Staffed by Jean Godby, John MacColl, Karen Smith-Yoshimura Who we are: 21 staff from 5 countries

  13. Our Method and Process • Identify questions • Find websites relevant for GLAM and review (76 sites) • Read, listen, observe and share (200 items) • Develop questionnaire for website managers and send out • Analyse results (42 returned) • Discuss all findings and write up • Develop recommendations

  14. Timeline 2009 - 2010 Sub working groups (timezones and interests) Teleconferences Basecamp – project management and collaboration software tool Our Techniques and Timing

  15. Basecamp

  16. Our Results • Report 1 – Website reviews, and use of third party sites (150 pages) • Report 2 – Analysis of website manager survey results (50 pages) • Report 3 – Recommendations for social metadata and bibliography Expected date of publication: November 2010 NOW FOR THE PREVIEW….

  17. http://www.waisda.nl/homepage.do

  18. http://www.vam.ac.uk/things-to-do/wedding-fashion/home

  19. http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/index.php

  20. http://www.kew.org/

  21. http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home

  22. http://trove.nla.gov.au/

  23. Use of third party sites • LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL) • Flickr and Flickr Commons • Youtube • Facebook • Twitter • Wikipedia • Blogs

  24. LibraryThing for Libraries

  25. Flickr

  26. Twitter

  27. Wikipedia

  28. Blogs

  29. Interesting Facts…. Figure 1: Countries represented in sites that responded to Social Metadata Survey. This includes Libraries, Archives, Museums, Community and Discipline sites.

  30. Figure 2: How long social media features have been offered

  31. Figure 3: Measuring success

  32. Figure 4: Social media and user contribution features offered

  33. Figure 5: Number of visitors contributing content per month Top 10% = Australian Newspapers, Distributed Proofreaders, WorldCat

  34. Figure 6: Roles staff serve on site

  35. Recommendations (18 so far) • Have clear objectives for using social media PR for organisation vs. community around collections • Motivate users and leverage their enthusiasm Design, clear goals, easy and fun, reliable, intuitive, interesting, topical, acknowledgement, reward, community building features • Look at other sites to get ideas before starting (Report 1). • Establish/modify guidelines and policies For staff to use social media For users creating social metadata (personal info and privacy, disclaimer, terms of use, behaviour, content, ownership, re-use, modification).

  36. Recommendations • Prepare/train staff Policies, skills, interest level. • Consider benefits/trade offs of using third party sites e.g. Flickr, LibraryThing Low cost, quick implementation, high visibility, be where your community is. No control over how presented, no guarantee of stability/preservation, policies may change, how to get social metadata back to your site? • Consider open source software • Do not worry about spam/abuse, issues – Go Ahead! Very little seen – fear not reality. Strategies to reduce risk (users register, take down policy, Captcha, high visibility of users and actions, user profiles open, be explicit about what you are doing and why).

  37. Recommendations • Usability testing Continuous throughout – what works, what doesn’t. Develop with users • Display AND index social metadata and UGC • Consider if/how you want to integrate UGC with your own content. Layers – user interface, layers behind, integrate? • Measures for success Quantitative/qualitative, subjective/objective Return on Investment

  38. Recommendations • Use social networking features to build community Who is online, contact other users, user profiles, recommendations from other users • Use persistent identifiers and make them visible Site, objects resources (both site owners and UGC) • Ability to migrate/manage content (especially if using third party) Can you migrate to another place, how to manage/delete/modify UGC? • Get content indexed by Google so users find it

  39. Recommendations • Site to be alive – New content Make sure visible and new content can be yours or users • Respond quickly to feedback open channels of communication with users “makes me feel like I have a stake in the collections” “self-aggrandizing” “my feedback makes things happen”

  40. QUESTIONS?RLG Social MetadataWorking Group Rose Holley rholley@nla.gov.au Karen Smith-Yoshimura smithyok@oclc.org Do we know what we’re doing now? It’s all in the report captain! Credits: UFO Series http://ufoseries.com/index.html http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/aggregating/

More Related