• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Social metadata for libraries, archives and museums: Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group, October 2010
 

Social metadata for libraries, archives and museums: Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group, October 2010

on

  • 3,872 views

The presentative gives research findings from the Research Libraries Group (RLG) on Social Metadata Working Group. The group worked from 2009-2010 researching sites that used social media features ...

The presentative gives research findings from the Research Libraries Group (RLG) on Social Metadata Working Group. The group worked from 2009-2010 researching sites that used social media features before making some recommendations to libraries, archives and museums.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,872
Views on SlideShare
3,659
Embed Views
213

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
37
Comments
0

7 Embeds 213

http://iskouk.blogspot.com 197
http://iskouk.blogspot.co.uk 6
http://www.iskouk.blogspot.ru 5
http://iskouk.blogspot.de 2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://iskouk.blogspot.com.br 1
http://iskouk.blogspot.com.au 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Our original focus. Now lets just take a look at what’s happening regarding social metadata in our planet…..
  • DG of NLA May 2010 said in a web 2.0 strategy group meeting – “ Run free. I endorse chaos, failure and trial an error. I don’t want to impose controls from above, that would stifle creativity and new ideas. No idea is too silly, try it… Everything cannot be centrally controlled, that is unrealistic. Do not have fears and anxieties about mistakes, Don’t put boundaries around how you will work .”
  • The RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group is one of the largest we’ve ever had, indicative of the great interest in this topic among the RLG Partnership. We have 21 RLG Partner staff from five countries, from a wide range of different institutions and staff with various functions.
  • Will now go through some of the highlights with you starting with website reviews.
  • Website reviews 6 to follow. Netherland Inst for Sound and Vision – Archive. Video tagging game – for videos and parts within.
  • “ In advance of an exhibition of Wedding Dresses in 2013 we are creating a database of photographs of clothes worn for weddings from all cultures between 1840 and the present. We include civil partnerships. This database will provide a rich record and help people date their own photographs.”
  • Washington State University. Members of the public who become registered users have the ability to make their own collections, add comments and add tags. Tribes can also upload their own materials to the portal, using the administrative side of the portal, allowing then to decide the level of access to their own private collections.
  • Users can indirectly add photos, tags, and comments to Kew's image collection through Kew’s two Flickr sites: Your Kew on Flickr , where users can share their photos of Kew Gardens and Wakehurst Place, and People's Arboretum on Flickr , where users are asked to upload photos of trees in Kew Gardens, Wakehurst Place, and around the world. Kew encourages users of their Flickr groups to add description to the images, and Kew states that contributions of images and description may be repurposed on the Kew Garden site. Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, and blogs to engage a diverse audience, including families, plant lovers, art lovers, conservationists, and scientists.
  • The crowd-sourcing correction of OCR’d text is impressive. On any result set you can see which texts have been corrected and compare the corrected text with the original. Tagging. High usage.
  • Potential, tagging, commenting, uploading photos, forum. Impressive aggregation of content – open to public. Only 6 – a further 70 were reviewed….
  • LibraryThing – can join and catalogue your books easily. Use tags for loans/collections no circ. Or buy LibraryThing for Libraries. Make use of the 64 million tags in your catalogue, reviews, 2 million user uploaded cover art. 1600 libs are doing this so far.
  • Flickr. Normal account – often used for org publicity and new shots, or do something a bit different eg Oregan state uni has put archive photos on flickr map, PA collections public images in Flickr group, or Flickr Commons – aimed at large institutions to make more widely available public domain photos from collections. Increase exposure. E.g 500 photos from nlnz get 500,000 views in 2 years (1000 views per day) = same views as 100,000 images on their own site. Users can add their knowledge content and tool to draw around items in pic is useful.
  • Youtube. 1. Educate your users – screencasts/tutorials; 2. promote events and exhibitions; 3. promote collections, 4. post archival footage/clips. Can set up channels easily. Youtube allows blatant advertising and bias.
  • Facebook. Community building. Can link your applications to facebook.’like this’ popular feature. Get a ground swell of opinion. 1. Engage community with org, 2. Events, announcements, news 3. More novel ideas e.g. Getty Museum Illuminated manuscripts image game – name that saint and his instrument of martydom. US Archives Recovery Team – thefts and recovered items – your stuff has been stolen!!
  • Twitter. Brief snippets of infor- followers, re-tweet. 1. Events, announcements 2. Collections. 3. Creative ideas e.g. Scott Polar Research Institute posting diary of Captain Scott expedition – linked to full version on home page, CDL – John Muir handwritten letters.
  • Wikipedia – 1. Org page, 2. articles on topics – populate. Must be unbiased. Until recently libs and archives were not able to create article/collection pages and link to their websites. Now there is a guideline. Wikipedians want open access to be able to use images to illustrate articles e.g. DG NLA agreed for Wikipedians to be able to use any image in NLA collection for this purpose – example mutiny on the bounty. First image is National Maritime museum second is list of mutineers NLA. Wikipedian in residence – Liam Wyatt VP Wikimedia Aus and Smithsonian following suit.
  • Blogs – the usual, org, collections, daily life, books, but some are creative….e.g. University of Kentucky Archives have a large collection of old photos – many of them with mustached men. They put just the moustache photos onto a moustache blog and gave very amusing descriptions to them – had an instant following…
  • The site managers who responded to the survey come from seven countries. Responses from U.S. site managers represent the majority (60%). Eight responses came from Australia, four from the United Kingdom, two from New Zealand, and one each from Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Site types: Library, archive, museum, community, discipline
  • More than 70% had been offering social media features for two years or less. Four sites were not even public yet at the time of the survey. On the other hand, eight sites (19%) have been offering social media features for four years or more.
  • Building community is a key interest across all types. Academic libraries and archives tend to be more interested in increasing traffic to their sites, providing better access to their content, and enhancing description. They are less interested in acquiring additional content from other sources. National- and state-level institutions are more likely to seek additions to their collections. The other responses came from museums interested in inspiring visitors and getting them more involved with exhibits and museum activities. Measuring success was largely subjective. The top three data elements captured are comments (76%), unique visitors (67%), and visits (64%), which are relatively easy to measure. All thought their sites were successful even if they had not yet figured out how to measure quantity or quality.
  • We offered a list of nineteen social media and user contribution features and asked respondents to select the ones they offered, with an option to describe a feature not listed. The top three features used by the 39 site managers who responded were comments (85%), tagging (67%), and RSS feeds (54%). Frequency of RSS feeds may be because so many open source and off-the-shelf software packages offer it ‘out of the box.’ Annotations (37%), upload materials (31%), user profiles (28%), user-contributed images (26%), bookmarks (21%), reviews (21%) and ratings (21%) made up the midrange. At the bottom of the scale are collaborative filtering and synchronous chat at 3% . This may i ncrease in the near future as social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook drive this form of interaction deeper into the public’s toolkit.
  • Purple = 3 sites only over 1000 contributors per month. Australian Newspapers, Distributed Proofreaders, and WorldCat.org.
  • We were surprised that 72% (26/36) of the respondents were not concerned about the way the site’s content is used or repurposed. Perhaps the individuals in an organization who are most concerned with data privacy and security were not those who responded to the survey. Sites that focused on music content were among those who expressed concern about the way the content was shared. Sites where scholars share their original work also have some concern. No definitive answer on integrating metadata. 39% of respondents said that they incorporated metadata into their own descriptive processes. Therefore two-thirds did not, surprising since 60% of all respondents said that improving description was one of their key motivations for offering social media features. So it is just the search that is important?
  • The monitoring practices are apparently successful because the spam and abuse rate is low. Only two sites reported that spam represents a serious problem; nine reported spam as an “occasional problem.” Cultural heritage organizations seem to be unlikely spam targets. Only 36% of the respondents reported abusive user contributions, which happened a few times a year or less in over half of the cases. Only three sites—AcaWiki, Digital NZ Search, and WorldCat.org—reported abusive contributions as often as “a few times per week.” More than half of the respondents who reported abuse on their sites blocked future contributions after the first infraction. These results imply that abusive user behavior is sporadic and easily managed, which should be especially encouraging to resource-strapped cultural heritage institutions.
  • Questions about staffing were perhaps not as clear as they should have been. The survey went to different orgs and different professionals. This table shows staff roles for those managing site.
  • Most had to revise or implement new policies and guidelines. Only four of the 35 respondents (11%) said that they had not implemented any policies. The majority of sites (63%) were concerned with appropriate behavior. 57% of the sites retain the right to edit or remove content; almost all of them are sites that incorporate user content. 17 had policies that were extensions of existing institutional policies and 19 had created new ones as the result of situations arising from the site. LAMs are making efforts to maintain a safe environment for users (with particular attention to under-age users) by encouraging/enforcing acceptable community behavior and appropriate content; safeguard users' privacy; indemnify or otherwise protect the institution; and upholding professional ethics and laws, particularly in regard to providing equal access and protecting intellectual property rights.

Social metadata for libraries, archives and museums: Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group, October 2010 Social metadata for libraries, archives and museums: Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group, October 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums. Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group. Rose Holley [email_address] Karen Smith-Yoshimura [email_address] Libraries Australia Forum Canberra October 20, 2010 http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/aggregating/
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Woohoo! I have a job!!! http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)
  • 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) I’m a man of few words… Tweet!
  • All systems engage! Engage, full throttle. Mission commence. We have liftoff! We have liftoff! Crickey! I don’t know what I’m doing!!! http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)
  • 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! They’re tagging & commenting too! http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi (Adapted from)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • The Wild West of Social Metadata for Libraries, Museums and Archives
    • 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.
    “ 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’”.
  • 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?
  • Who we are: 21 staff from 5 countries
    • 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
  • 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
  • Our Techniques and Timing
    • Timeline 2009 - 2010
    • Sub working groups (timezones and interests)
    • Teleconferences
    • Basecamp – project management and collaboration software tool
  • Basecamp
  • 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….
  • http://www.waisda.nl/homepage.do
  • http://www.vam.ac.uk/things-to-do/wedding-fashion/home
  • http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/index.php
  • http://www.kew.org/
  • http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home
  • http://trove.nla.gov.au/
  • Use of third party sites
    • LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL)
    • Flickr and Flickr Commons
    • Youtube
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Wikipedia
    • Blogs
  • LibraryThing for Libraries
  • Flickr
  •  
  •  
  • Twitter
  • Wikipedia
  • Blogs
  • Interesting Facts…. Figure 1: Countries represented in sites that responded to Social Metadata Survey. This includes Libraries, Archives, Museums, Community and Discipline sites.
  • Figure 2: How long social media features have been offered
  • Figure 3: Measuring success
  • Figure 4: Social media and user contribution features offered
  • Figure 5: Number of visitors contributing content per month Top 10% = Australian Newspapers, Distributed Proofreaders, WorldCat
  •  
  •  
  • Figure 6: Roles staff serve on site
  •  
  • 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).
  • 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).
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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”
  • QUESTIONS? RLG Social Metadata Working Group Rose Holley [email_address] Karen Smith-Yoshimura [email_address] http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/aggregating/ Do we know what we’re doing now? It’s all in the report captain! Credits: UFO Series http://ufoseries.com/index.html