- Tech Sharecase, 8 December 2017
- Technology Sharecase, 10 November 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 20 October 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 8 September 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 5 May 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 21 April 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 18 November 2016
- Tech Sharecase, 23 September 2016
- Tech Sharecase: 28 July 2016
- Tech Sharecase on 10 May 2016
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- November 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
Monthly Archives: January 2013
An interesting story in the New York Times today discusses the e-book reissue of A.M. Rosenthal’s 1964 book on the Kitty Genovese case, Thirty-Eight Witnesses. At question is whether the e-book should include a disclaimer indicating that many of the claims made in the book have been seriously undermined by research over the years. A quote that got my attention was:
The book, which went in and out of print over the decades, also kept the case alive for generations of students studying “Genovese Syndrome,” a description of why onlookers turn away from bad events and the diffusion of responsibility.
I’m thinking that I might use this as a point of discussion in my LIB 3040 class this semester.
Kaufman, Leslie. “Releasing Old Nonfiction Books When Facts Have Changed.” The New York Times 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
h/t Margaret Smith at NYU’s Bobst Library
A recent article from the Business Information Review features mobile applications of interest to information professionals and researchers. Many of the apps mentioned are being used by librarians here, but there are few that were new to me.
Hoovers has two apps providing access to basic Hoover’s company information. They can be found here: http://www.hoovers.com/marketing/100003463-1.html The Hoover’s apps are only available for iPhones so as an Android user I can’t vouch for the content of these applications.
Also highlighted in the article is the federal government’s application portal: Apps.usa.gov. This great resource currently provides access to 250+ applications from many government offices, agencies, etc., covering a wide range of information topics.
Brown, Scott. “Mobile Apps: Which Ones Really Matter to the Information Professional?” 29.4 (2012): 231–237. http://bir.sagepub.com/content/29/4/231
Thanks to the “Statistics” module in LibGuides (you have to log in to see it), you can run reports that can help you answer questions like:
- On this particular guide I did, what links are getting clicked the most and the least?
- Which page on this guide is getting the most views?
- Which guide of mine has gotten the most views?
If you’re interested in looking at statistics that cut across all of our LibGuides, you can do fun things like run a report on the Databases page to see what database links are most often clicked on during a specific time period:
Or you can see what LibGuides got the most page views during a time period you define:
How to Get to the Statistics
- Login at the “Admin Signin Link” on the top right of any LibGuide
- Once you’re logged in, click “Statistics” from the yellow bar at the top of the page:
- Use the drop down to select which guide of yours you want to analyze:
- The default report you’ll see for any guide you select focuses on the pages in that guide and ranking them by views:
- Click “Links” to run a report listing the links on your guide as ranked by clicks:
For the report on links, keep in mind this important caveat noted in the Springshare documentation:
Links is a sum of the clicks on specific content in your guides; these clicks are tracked in Simple Web Links, Links and Lists, Books from the Catalog, Documents and Files, and Dates and Events box types. They are not tracked in the Rich Text Box.
In other words, links you’ve manually added in blank spaces in various boxes won’t be counted; links that have been added using the link lists feature will be counted:
Feel free to ask me for help running and interpreting these reports.
I heard that Micah Walter’s presentation at yesterday’s annual meeting for METRO, “Open Data at the Smithsonian” revealed a strong sense of humor in the web work going on at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. Reading over Walter’s presentation, which is posted on his blog, I can see what everyone was talking about. Here’s a choice quote that explains the rationale behind the humor:
We also wanted our website to be more approachable. We designed it with a minimalistic attitude and a somewhat whimsical style. You’ll see small jokes here and there and the language is meant to be more engaging and less “institutional.” We know that in order to be really relevant we need to disconnect ourselves from all of the institutional hand waving and move towards a website that anyone can enjoy and still gain some type of great benefit.
The museum maintains a “Cooper-Hewitt Labs” site that also offers doses of humor:
- the central nav bar on the site features a “+Cats” link that when clicked runs the Nyan Cat across the screen (the Nyan Cat meme is explained over at Know Your Meme)
- the usual message at the bottom of an experimental project page that mentions what software powers the site gets a little twist: Powered by Isotope and several hundred chocolate covered coffee beans.
This reminds me of a great little book I read last year, Aaron Walter’s Designing for Emotion, that argues that web design needs to prioritize efforts to make an affective connection with users.