Today I emailed a link to LibraryThing.com from my work email address to my home email address. I decided that's just stupid, and not working very well anymore. Why can't I blog small segments at work, and use Blogger or whatever tool I need to keep track of all the wonderful little (and sometimes big) doohickeys people are creating to keep myself informed and/or marginally organized?
This is a description of LibraryThing that I sent to a colleague:
"It’s a site where individuals can catalog their own personal libraries, with all the bells-and-whistles that communal (and corporate) distribution of effort can bring. They have different membership levels, from free through public libraries, and offer tagging and social-networking features. OCLC for the 21st century."
I should have put it here first, then just pointed her here. In a vain attempt to keep my work and home life separate, I seem to be wasting time at both. It's not like I watch, or plan to watch, 30 Rock at work on Hulu, but maybe if I go ahead and blog all those pesky little, "Denise--see this!" notes at work, I'll have time to watch 30 Rock at home, or at least read my backlog of "Denise--see this!" notes.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Who makes a book? (Idealist version)
Yesterday I was a bit harsh in my evaluation of a couple of new models for writing, authoring, and publishing books. Today several other new ideas caught my attention that don't push my "bullshit" button.
Foreword This Week reported that The Wall Street Journal reported that HarperCollins has announced an as-yet-unnamed imprint that will not accept returns from buyers, nor will they pay authors advances. Okay, so this is just a bit late for rumor that smacks of a late April Fool's Day joke. Maybe the new imprint will be graphic novels, and will be eased by the existing no-returns, no-exchanges comic book sales model.
Forward also announced "Digital Book 2008." Wow, standards for digital books. One of the sponsors listed is Adobe, so maybe they can actually make this work. DRM in music is failing, and books cannot be performed live (most, anyway). What is the future of a true digital book? A DRM-based Kindle, or the ubiquitous PDF? Given the disposable nature of mass market paperbacks, an advertising-based model could work (chapter headers, rather than embedded, I hope). Long disquisitions won't be such an easy sell. But those might be worth paper, outside class use.
Boing Boing reports on We Tell Stories: web-native storytelling from Penguin. These look pretty good, and, if not exactly innovative, it is certainly innovative for a mainstream "classics" imprint to be making these available. I read the first "chapter" of "The 21 Steps" and will probably read the next. Slick.
And, Todd Bryant at Academic Commons announced Sophie 1.0, a "multimedia authoring tool released under a creative commons license." The comments indicate that the tool is definately a 1.0 version. Looks like something I might check out at 1.5 or 2.0. I hope it will last that long.
Goodnight
Foreword This Week reported that The Wall Street Journal reported that HarperCollins has announced an as-yet-unnamed imprint that will not accept returns from buyers, nor will they pay authors advances. Okay, so this is just a bit late for rumor that smacks of a late April Fool's Day joke. Maybe the new imprint will be graphic novels, and will be eased by the existing no-returns, no-exchanges comic book sales model.
Forward also announced "Digital Book 2008." Wow, standards for digital books. One of the sponsors listed is Adobe, so maybe they can actually make this work. DRM in music is failing, and books cannot be performed live (most, anyway). What is the future of a true digital book? A DRM-based Kindle, or the ubiquitous PDF? Given the disposable nature of mass market paperbacks, an advertising-based model could work (chapter headers, rather than embedded, I hope). Long disquisitions won't be such an easy sell. But those might be worth paper, outside class use.
Boing Boing reports on We Tell Stories: web-native storytelling from Penguin. These look pretty good, and, if not exactly innovative, it is certainly innovative for a mainstream "classics" imprint to be making these available. I read the first "chapter" of "The 21 Steps" and will probably read the next. Slick.
And, Todd Bryant at Academic Commons announced Sophie 1.0, a "multimedia authoring tool released under a creative commons license." The comments indicate that the tool is definately a 1.0 version. Looks like something I might check out at 1.5 or 2.0. I hope it will last that long.
Goodnight
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Cool looks, needs more substance
--Today the email experience council's [no link because the newsletter's link was broken] newsletter featured a link to Zinio's Digital Classics. I would love to sign up to use them, except I already have tons of email that I never get through. Plus, who needs another Publisher's Clearing House (without the Sweepstakes)? Looks great--much more visually appealing than Project Gutenberg, but not as big, or as *gack* noble.
--Mediapostpublications.com announced the launch of Prime Time Rewind. Again, a visually interesting, if clunky, interface with less? content, and much of the same content, as is already available on Hulu.com. Maybe it's the dorky librarian in me, but alphabetical by title is still a pretty easy way to find shows. Mediaposts's Wayne Friedman says the appeal of the new site is that it "uses the free video links of every available full-length network program and presents those shows in an easier format for consumers to access." Well, the link in their article was wrong, so maybe he was looking at a different site than I.
[--I found it a bit ironic that both of these email newsletters, from big-time professionals in the business, featured broken or incorrect links. If they only followed their own, very good, advice.]
--Mediapostpublications.com announced the launch of Prime Time Rewind. Again, a visually interesting, if clunky, interface with less? content, and much of the same content, as is already available on Hulu.com. Maybe it's the dorky librarian in me, but alphabetical by title is still a pretty easy way to find shows. Mediaposts's Wayne Friedman says the appeal of the new site is that it "uses the free video links of every available full-length network program and presents those shows in an easier format for consumers to access." Well, the link in their article was wrong, so maybe he was looking at a different site than I.
[--I found it a bit ironic that both of these email newsletters, from big-time professionals in the business, featured broken or incorrect links. If they only followed their own, very good, advice.]
Monday, March 31, 2008
Good Books Independently Cataloged
This morning The Chronicle featured this news story, "Librarians Duel Over the Future of Producing Bibliographic Records", essentially a story about the protests librarians are making against the IT-ification of the profession--the move to take the "know" out of knowledge in favor of "Knol" and the like.
I've also become aware of the UI libraries' move to consolidate and make other changes in a move towards "Planning for New Service Models" (ugh, more money-sucking administrative committees).
I started searching for a recent Journal of the American Academy of Information Science article on algorithms and academic search, instead finding this article titled, "A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections." Thinking it, like about half of the articles in JAAIS, was close to what I was looking for, I clicked on the link at the bottom of the page: Related Articles, * Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience. The first two returns weren't bad. The third, "Corporate public affairs research: chronological reference list," fourth, " Confocal laser scanning microscopy of calcium dynamics in living cells," and fifth, "Biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice: Experimental and clinical aspects" just illustrate the reason for the librarians' ire and words of caution. As long as "AI" and "algorithms" are nearly interchangeable for search and other associative tasks, humans cannot be replaced by machines. (Helped, yes.)
These are also reasons why traditional libraries have collections of related items. While the algorithm can look across Wiley's "collection" and make connections that a human would not necessarily see, it also makes connections that are largely nonsensical and a waste of time to mere mortals who, while we won't be replaced by humans twice as fast in 18 months, do not have 18 months of our lives to waste wading through bungled corporate computer code.
So, just as I alluded to in "Good Books Independently Edited" librarians are important to the efficient transfer of information just as editors are. And perhaps small and/or academic presses, and libraries, occupy niches that big corporations cannot fill.
I've also become aware of the UI libraries' move to consolidate and make other changes in a move towards "Planning for New Service Models" (ugh, more money-sucking administrative committees).
I started searching for a recent Journal of the American Academy of Information Science article on algorithms and academic search, instead finding this article titled, "A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections." Thinking it, like about half of the articles in JAAIS, was close to what I was looking for, I clicked on the link at the bottom of the page: Related Articles, * Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience. The first two returns weren't bad. The third, "Corporate public affairs research: chronological reference list," fourth, " Confocal laser scanning microscopy of calcium dynamics in living cells," and fifth, "Biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice: Experimental and clinical aspects" just illustrate the reason for the librarians' ire and words of caution. As long as "AI" and "algorithms" are nearly interchangeable for search and other associative tasks, humans cannot be replaced by machines. (Helped, yes.)
These are also reasons why traditional libraries have collections of related items. While the algorithm can look across Wiley's "collection" and make connections that a human would not necessarily see, it also makes connections that are largely nonsensical and a waste of time to mere mortals who, while we won't be replaced by humans twice as fast in 18 months, do not have 18 months of our lives to waste wading through bungled corporate computer code.
So, just as I alluded to in "Good Books Independently Edited" librarians are important to the efficient transfer of information just as editors are. And perhaps small and/or academic presses, and libraries, occupy niches that big corporations cannot fill.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Hulu, the guilty pleasure
A couple of weeks ago NYTimes.com announced that Hulu.com was through testing, and open for business. Coincidentally, the same week the cable bill jumped 20% and I canceled it. So, I had plenty of time to test the new computer, old DSL connection, and new TV on the Internet.
It's a lot of fun. It turns out its mostly old TV, just like cable. Like iTunes, the quality would not hold up to a screening of Good Night, and Good Luck or Lawrence of Arabia. Unlike iTunes and YouTube, it's not open for anyone and everyone to post content or links to content, as it functions as a distribution channel for some big networks and production companies. Hulu's other shortcomings include little news or non-fiction (like the Discovery Channel and NGEO) programming, which I do miss. However, there are plenty of sitcoms, movies, and dramas that I had forgotten I liked.
The show that convinced me Hulu is worthwhile is the turkey episode of WKRP in Cincinnati. Because of music permissions the show hasn't been released on DVD until recently, and then, as now on Hulu, the music isn't as memorable as it was when I was a child. Even so, unless you're a card-carrying member of PETA, I recommend it highly if you want a good laugh.
P.S. One more major shortcoming: Apparently content will be changed almost randomly, so don't miss the turkey drop, in case it's pulled before the DRM is hacked!
It's a lot of fun. It turns out its mostly old TV, just like cable. Like iTunes, the quality would not hold up to a screening of Good Night, and Good Luck or Lawrence of Arabia. Unlike iTunes and YouTube, it's not open for anyone and everyone to post content or links to content, as it functions as a distribution channel for some big networks and production companies. Hulu's other shortcomings include little news or non-fiction (like the Discovery Channel and NGEO) programming, which I do miss. However, there are plenty of sitcoms, movies, and dramas that I had forgotten I liked.
The show that convinced me Hulu is worthwhile is the turkey episode of WKRP in Cincinnati. Because of music permissions the show hasn't been released on DVD until recently, and then, as now on Hulu, the music isn't as memorable as it was when I was a child. Even so, unless you're a card-carrying member of PETA, I recommend it highly if you want a good laugh.
P.S. One more major shortcoming: Apparently content will be changed almost randomly, so don't miss the turkey drop, in case it's pulled before the DRM is hacked!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Must remember . . .
It's impossible to read everything I feel that I need to, let alone everything I want to. Add blogging, or writing, or otherwise keeping track of the reading and my thoughts about what I've read and . . . I really admire people who can do it regularly.
More things I haven't kept up with, but think are important:
--Charles W. Bailey has updated his Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, as posted to COLLDV-L (a collection development listserv) . A well-developed list of more things that I should read! Actually, I've probably read about a third of it. Okay, maybe a quarter.
--With possibly the worst "well, duh," headline ever, the New York Times declared, Tech's Late Adopters Prefer the Tried and True." Since the article appeared in the same week that I finally broke down and replaced my perfectly good seven-year-old Compaq with a new computer, it managed to make me feel less guilty about holding on to the old machine for so long (because it still works!), and about finally abandoning it due to the uncomfortable work-arounds necessary to actually use it. It's one thing to keep a TRS-80 as a perfectly good word processor--as a customer actually did in the mid-90s when I was working at Radio Shack. It's another to try to use an orphan program on a networked computer. Good-bye, Netscape (which I deleted a few weeks ago) .
--And this Inside Higher Ed piece is likely to be revisited at a later date: Abandoning Print, Not Peer Review. This is an article about Indiana Library's new online-only journal, Museum Anthropology Review. With a super-organized editor at the helm, it sounds like it's doing well. What the article doesn't mention is the structure and the organization, not just copyeditors and graphic designers, that a University Press or other publisher brings to the table. There is an entire department at UIP that has several people who spend a good portion of every day tracking articles, making sure that changes are made, drafts are turned in, and that everything is organized by arbitrary deadlines that ensure that Indiana University and other libraries, organizations, and individuals receive their online or print scholarship in a timely and coherent manner. Like most people in publishing I love academia, and have great respect for academics, but I have no illusions about the quality or timeliness of the writing that will frequently be the result when publishers are taken out of the equation. More power to Jason Baird Jackson, the intrepid editor.
More things I haven't kept up with, but think are important:
--Charles W. Bailey has updated his Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, as posted to COLLDV-L (a collection development listserv) . A well-developed list of more things that I should read! Actually, I've probably read about a third of it. Okay, maybe a quarter.
--With possibly the worst "well, duh," headline ever, the New York Times declared, Tech's Late Adopters Prefer the Tried and True." Since the article appeared in the same week that I finally broke down and replaced my perfectly good seven-year-old Compaq with a new computer, it managed to make me feel less guilty about holding on to the old machine for so long (because it still works!), and about finally abandoning it due to the uncomfortable work-arounds necessary to actually use it. It's one thing to keep a TRS-80 as a perfectly good word processor--as a customer actually did in the mid-90s when I was working at Radio Shack. It's another to try to use an orphan program on a networked computer. Good-bye, Netscape (which I deleted a few weeks ago) .
--And this Inside Higher Ed piece is likely to be revisited at a later date: Abandoning Print, Not Peer Review. This is an article about Indiana Library's new online-only journal, Museum Anthropology Review. With a super-organized editor at the helm, it sounds like it's doing well. What the article doesn't mention is the structure and the organization, not just copyeditors and graphic designers, that a University Press or other publisher brings to the table. There is an entire department at UIP that has several people who spend a good portion of every day tracking articles, making sure that changes are made, drafts are turned in, and that everything is organized by arbitrary deadlines that ensure that Indiana University and other libraries, organizations, and individuals receive their online or print scholarship in a timely and coherent manner. Like most people in publishing I love academia, and have great respect for academics, but I have no illusions about the quality or timeliness of the writing that will frequently be the result when publishers are taken out of the equation. More power to Jason Baird Jackson, the intrepid editor.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Engagement," or, who reads this stuff, anyway? (part 1)
Today I received a rate care I had requested from Soy Daily (Our World of Soy I could imagine reading, but I don't think I could handle it daily). I won't post the rate card, because they don't, but the top of the card listed their "bargain" rates pay-per-view rates that started around $20 per thousand; no guarantee (that I saw) of unique visitors. Below that were their display rates, with a button ad starting around $600/month on the main part of their site. they also offer an ad in their weekly newsletter for nominal flat monthly fee. They also prefer Paypal, but will accept checks with prior arrangement.
I hope this sort of pricing structure and flexibility becomes a trend. I think it might, based on the hopeful comments the folks at MediaPost 1, 2 have been making recently about the rise of online display (re: Yahoo) as a viable alternative to search (re: Google). More importantly, in the latter reference Jeff Hircsh celebrates the seeming decline of Click Through Rate (CTR) as the be-all-and-end-all of online advertising, as a measure of the ever-elusive concept, "engagement."
I hope this sort of pricing structure and flexibility becomes a trend. I think it might, based on the hopeful comments the folks at MediaPost 1, 2 have been making recently about the rise of online display (re: Yahoo) as a viable alternative to search (re: Google). More importantly, in the latter reference Jeff Hircsh celebrates the seeming decline of Click Through Rate (CTR) as the be-all-and-end-all of online advertising, as a measure of the ever-elusive concept, "engagement."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)