Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

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


Published on

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.

Published in: Technology
  • Login to see the comments

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

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Terminology: What are we talking about? <ul><li>Social media/networking </li></ul><ul><li>Ways for people to communicate online with each other e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs. </li></ul><ul><li>User Generated Content (UGC) </li></ul><ul><li>Things produced by users rather than owners of the site e.g. image, video, text AND metadata – tags, comments, notes. </li></ul><ul><li>Social Metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Additional information about a resource given by online users e.g. tags, comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Social Media Features </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive features added to a site that enable virtual groups to build and communicate with each other and social metadata to be added. </li></ul><ul><li>Social Engagement </li></ul><ul><li>User interaction online e.g. communication between users, from users to site owners, from users with objects/resources. </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Online applications that facilitate interactive rather than passive experiences. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Social Metadata Working Group Focus <ul><li>User contributions that can enrich the descriptive metadata created by libraries, archives, and museums. </li></ul><ul><li>Issues that need to be resolved to communicate and share user contributions on the network level. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Woohoo! I have a job!!! (Adapted from)
  5. 5. Dudes, we are ON THIS!!! Let’s start engagin’!!! I call dibs on the Library blog. (Adapted from) I’m a man of few words… Tweet!
  6. 6. All systems engage! Engage, full throttle. Mission commence. We have liftoff! We have liftoff! Crickey! I don’t know what I’m doing!!! (Adapted from)
  7. 7. 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! (Adapted from)
  8. 8. Oh wow. How am I going to measure social engagement - impressions and eyeballs? (Adapted from)
  9. 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... (Adapted from)
  10. 10. The Wild West of Social Metadata for Libraries, Museums and Archives <ul><li>Don’t do it… </li></ul><ul><li>Do it with caution…. </li></ul><ul><li>Experimentation….. </li></ul><ul><li>Do a bit of everything – the ‘WILD WEST’ – no rules </li></ul><ul><li>Now: Review what we learnt and consolidate - plan for future, structure. </li></ul>“ 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. 11. Our Research Aims ~20 QUESTIONS… <ul><li>Objectives of Social Metadata? </li></ul><ul><li>How we measure success? </li></ul><ul><li>What UGC is of most value? </li></ul><ul><li>Good examples of sites? </li></ul><ul><li>Best practice – policy, guidelines? </li></ul><ul><li>Staffing? </li></ul><ul><li>Moderation? </li></ul><ul><li>Taxonomies and vocabularies? </li></ul><ul><li>Integration/sharing of social metadata? </li></ul><ul><li>Software, technology, functionality? </li></ul>
  12. 12. Who we are: 21 staff from 5 countries <ul><li>Drew Bourn, Stanford </li></ul><ul><li>Douglas Campbell, National Library of New Zealand </li></ul><ul><li>Kevin Clair, Penn State </li></ul><ul><li>Chris Cronin, U. Chicago </li></ul><ul><li>Christine DeZelar-Tiedman, U. Minnesota </li></ul><ul><li>Mary Elings, UC Berkeley </li></ul><ul><li>Steve Galbraith, Folger </li></ul><ul><li>Cheryl Gowing, U. Miami </li></ul><ul><li>Rose Holley, National Library of Australia </li></ul><ul><li>Rebekah Irwin, Yale </li></ul><ul><li>Lesley Kadish, Minnesota Historical Society </li></ul><ul><li>Helice Koffler, U. Washington </li></ul><ul><li>Daniel Lovins, Yale </li></ul><ul><li>John Lowery, British Library </li></ul><ul><li>Marja Musson, International Institute of Social History </li></ul><ul><li>Henry Raine, New-York Historical Society </li></ul><ul><li>Cyndi Shein, Getty </li></ul><ul><li>Ken Varnum, U. Michigan </li></ul><ul><li>Melanie Wacker, Columbia </li></ul><ul><li>Kayla Willey, Brigham Young </li></ul><ul><li>Beth Yakel, U. Michigan, School of Information </li></ul><ul><li>Staffed by Jean Godby, John MacColl, Karen Smith-Yoshimura </li></ul>
  13. 13. Our Method and Process <ul><li>Identify questions </li></ul><ul><li>Find websites relevant for GLAM and review (76 sites) </li></ul><ul><li>Read, listen, observe and share (200 items) </li></ul><ul><li>Develop questionnaire for website managers and send out </li></ul><ul><li>Analyse results (42 returned) </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss all findings and write up </li></ul><ul><li>Develop recommendations </li></ul>
  14. 14. Our Techniques and Timing <ul><li>Timeline 2009 - 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Sub working groups (timezones and interests) </li></ul><ul><li>Teleconferences </li></ul><ul><li>Basecamp – project management and collaboration software tool </li></ul>
  15. 15. Basecamp
  16. 16. Our Results <ul><li>Report 1 – Website reviews, and use of third party sites (150 pages) </li></ul><ul><li>Report 2 – Analysis of website manager survey results (50 pages) </li></ul><ul><li>Report 3 – Recommendations for social metadata and bibliography </li></ul><ul><li>Expected date of publication: November 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>NOW FOR THE PREVIEW…. </li></ul>
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23. Use of third party sites <ul><li>LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL) </li></ul><ul><li>Flickr and Flickr Commons </li></ul><ul><li>Youtube </li></ul><ul><li>Facebook </li></ul><ul><li>Twitter </li></ul><ul><li>Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul>
  24. 24. LibraryThing for Libraries
  25. 25. Flickr
  26. 28. Twitter
  27. 29. Wikipedia
  28. 30. Blogs
  29. 31. Interesting Facts…. Figure 1: Countries represented in sites that responded to Social Metadata Survey. This includes Libraries, Archives, Museums, Community and Discipline sites.
  30. 32. Figure 2: How long social media features have been offered
  31. 33. Figure 3: Measuring success
  32. 34. Figure 4: Social media and user contribution features offered
  33. 35. Figure 5: Number of visitors contributing content per month Top 10% = Australian Newspapers, Distributed Proofreaders, WorldCat
  34. 38. Figure 6: Roles staff serve on site
  35. 40. Recommendations (18 so far) <ul><li>Have clear objectives for using social media </li></ul><ul><li>PR for organisation vs. community around collections </li></ul><ul><li>Motivate users and leverage their enthusiasm </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design, clear goals, easy and fun, reliable, intuitive, interesting, topical, acknowledgement, reward, community building features </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Look at other sites to get ideas before starting (Report 1). </li></ul><ul><li>Establish/modify guidelines and policies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For staff to use social media </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For users creating social metadata (personal info and privacy, disclaimer, terms of use, behaviour, content, ownership, re-use, modification). </li></ul></ul>
  36. 41. Recommendations <ul><li>Prepare/train staff </li></ul><ul><li>Policies, skills, interest level. </li></ul><ul><li>Consider benefits/trade offs of using third party sites e.g. Flickr, LibraryThing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low cost, quick implementation, high visibility, be where your community is. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No control over how presented, no guarantee of stability/preservation, policies may change, how to get social metadata back to your site? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consider open source software </li></ul><ul><li>Do not worry about spam/abuse, issues – Go Ahead! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul></ul>
  37. 42. Recommendations <ul><li>Usability testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuous throughout – what works, what doesn’t. Develop with users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Display AND index social metadata and UGC </li></ul><ul><li>Consider if/how you want to integrate UGC with your own content. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Layers – user interface, layers behind, integrate? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Measures for success </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative/qualitative, subjective/objective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Return on Investment </li></ul></ul>
  38. 43. Recommendations <ul><li>Use social networking features to build community </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who is online, contact other users, user profiles, recommendations from other users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use persistent identifiers and make them visible </li></ul><ul><li>Site, objects resources (both site owners and UGC) </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to migrate/manage content (especially if using third party) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can you migrate to another place, how to manage/delete/modify UGC? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Get content indexed by Google so users find it </li></ul>
  39. 44. Recommendations <ul><li>Site to be alive – New content </li></ul><ul><li>Make sure visible and new content can be yours or users </li></ul><ul><li>Respond quickly to feedback </li></ul><ul><li>open channels of communication with users </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ makes me feel like I have a stake in the collections” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ self-aggrandizing” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ my feedback makes things happen” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  40. 45. QUESTIONS? RLG Social Metadata Working Group Rose Holley [email_address] Karen Smith-Yoshimura [email_address] Do we know what we’re doing now? It’s all in the report captain! Credits: UFO Series