First impression?  Loved their homepage.  It was slick without being cluttered.  A nice medium between Scriblio and a more standard library home page.  Using the search box at the top, I entered “The Road” and was greeted with over 1,000 matches.  Not a problem.  Most of the results had an image of the bookcover and there were several drop down menus on the left that would have easily allowed me to narrow my search.  I easily narrowed down what format, what branch and what audience I wanted to restrict my results to.  There were many other ways to limit the search and you could even use the user-generated tags tjat described the “mood.”  While it was interesting to see how people labeled the book, I don’t know how helpful that would necessarily be when trying to find a specific item, if only because mood is such a subjective category.

The below screenshot really doesn’t do justice to to the record.  If you wanted a better overview of all the bells and whistles, I’d recommend checking out the screencast tour of the service, which helps highlight just how unique it is.

In the left-hand column I could immediately see how many copies of the book are available and how many holds there were.  I could add my tags, comments and ratings to the book, as well as add it to a list.  That list could be made visible just to myself (a list of books I wanted to read) or visible to all users (a list of depressing quick reads).  In the right-hand column I could browse the shelves and look at titles that were physically located nearby.  I could also check out other lists that users have put this book on.

Overall, I was wildly impressed with the experience.  I thought it was intuitive, better than both Amazon and a standard catalogue.  Some people might not like how much it incorporates aspects of social media, but I thought it was a great addition.  It’s not like those additions are cluttering the page, and the user can always choose to not utilize those features.

I checked out the Seattle Public Library’s catalogue to see how they had used LibraryThing.  I searched the catalogue for and clicked on the record for Janet Evanovich’s One for the Money.

It was hard the capture it all in a screenshot, but the link should take you to same site.  My first impression was that I liked how well LibraryThing integrated into the catalogue.  It didn’t overwhelm me with huge tag clusters and the left hand column had a link that said “View LibraryThing Content” which brought me down to the bottom section of the page.  The tags were cool, but I didn’t find them particularly more useful than the displayed subject headings.  I loved the similar books feature.  I always find myself drawing a blank when at the library and having done my fair share of female detective novel reading, I thought the recommendations were well-selected.  Definitely a feature that I would use, as I’m sure other patrons would.

The other feature that LibraryThing really sells are the user-generated reviews.  That’s a feature I love on Amazon, and I found it useful here as well.  I didn’t really like how they were displayed though, clicking on the reviews opened a small box and they were only displayed ten at a time.  Not a big deal, but I like being able to scroll through them and still zip back up to the top to refer to information about the book, Amazon-style.

Another point to make is that user-generated reviews are only useful if people are generating them.  For bestsellers like Twilight, that’s not a problem, but I could foresee it being more of an issue with less popular titles.  Searching for my perennial favorite, Kate Chopin’s The Awakening, I was disappointed to only find one review.  And that’s for a fairly well-known literary classic.  For me, reviews are much more useful for material that I’m not aware of, that isn’t necessarily well-known, although with this application I suspect popular titles get much more attention.

What a great idea!  With real-time tracking, patrons immediately know how many laptops are available to take out from the library, as well as what percentage of the computer stations are free in the different labs/learning areas.  Even better, you can click on a link to one three labs at the bottom of the page and get a map of exactly which computers are in use.  Below is what the map looked like for RBC Learning Commons.  I could even see which computers were offline.

My initial elation at the mashup faded a bit after I started thinking about the service it was providing.  Wouldn’t a patron need a computer to view this information?  Why would someone with a computer want to find out when and where they can use another computer?  It may be helpful when students are on a laptop and they need to use one of the lab computers to print, but the mashup didn’t seem nearly as exciting.

This might be implemented with more success at place where there was a mix of online and offline computers.  I’m thinking specifically of academic or public libraries where some of the computers have limited internet access and are supposed to be used solely for searching the catalogue.  If there was some way that those “catalogue only” stations could be hooked up with this service, it might be of more use to patrons.  My experience at the public library has been that the offline computers are free much more than those that have full internet access.

While the service to patrons might not be particularly valuable, I could see this being useful to librarians.  The stats gathered could help justify certain expenditures, or help them advocate for additional computer funding.  Additionally, you could see how the layout might play a role in usage (i.e. computers placed by the circulation desk have 90% occupancy rate compared the 65% occupancy rate of computers by the washroom).

After navigating over to the Library Services page at the University of Huddersfield in the UK (where Dave Pattern works) I did a general keyword search of their catalogue.  My query for “Watchmen” returned two results, both which were displayed with cover images.  I clicked on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and sure enough at the bottom I saw the “people who borrowed this item, also borrow” suggestion list.  The list initially only displays three titles, although there was the option to “display all” (five suggestions in this case).

Unfortunately, it didn’t appear that everyone who signed out “Watchmen” had predictable tastes.  The first suggestion for Batman: The Dark Knight Returns seemed spot on, but the second suggestion was for Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps (sounds horrible!) while the third suggestion was for Type 2 Diabetes: In Practice.  I couldn’t help but imagine the person who might check all these items out: a comic loving, diabetic, suffering from communications problems in his current relationship.  Of course that’s not the case, but it was a fun excercise nonetheless.

Regardless, it seems that the application had limited use.  In a public library, when popular titles are highly circulated I could see this being a really useful addition to the catalogue.  In an academic library setting (like the one in this example) it might not be as helpful, especially with students having to check out school related items in conjunction with pleasure reading.  In October 2009, Pattern mentioned that his Pewbot application had actually been very successful.  Since its implementation in February 2006 it had received over 90,000 clicks, with a peak of over 5,000 a month.  Definitely impressive stats for university with about 20,000 students.

Once navigating at the Lamson Libray homepage I utilized the simple search box in the upper right hand corner.  A  search for “David Lynch” retrieved the following:

My first impression was that I loved the interface.  It seemed to be a great combination of the clean formatting of WordPress and functionality of an electronic library catalogue.  In general I find most electronic catalogues at academic institutions to be clunky, cluttered, and non-intuitive, and this is coming from a library student!  Additionally, the search box had a “smart search” feature that was similar to Google.  As I typed in my query, it offered different suggestions and what field (title, author) those suggestions would appear in.  Great!

In addition to the great results return, which included a cover image, the right hand column was filled with separate word clouds for subject, genre, format and place and time.  Normally, I find word clouds to be cluttering, but in this case (perhaps because they were limited by size) I thought they were an extremely useful addition.  Subject and format are frequently hidden away in catalogue records, here I found them easily displayed.  As a user, I could search for “David Lynch” and immediately narrow the subject down by format (films by David Lynch) or the subject (books about David Lynch) or even by author.  Much easier to do in this format than it would normally be in a catalogue.

An additional feature that I liked about Scriblio is that it searched the whole library website, not just the catalogue.  If there was a library event being held about the works of David Lynch that would have been returned in my query.  I thought it was a great way of combining all the library information into one search feature.  While in this case it was being utilized by an academic library, I thought the implication in a public library, which tends to do more community programming/events, would be a great addition.   The Collingswood Public Library in New Jersey has taken the leap and their homepage is almost shocking when compared to the clutter we normally associate with library websites.

Certainly, such a format is not without its critics.  Some would argue that reducing the search function into one-box, one-click process isn’t doing patrons any favors.  While I would agree that it might not be the best for a more complex information needs, I would note that Lawson Library has kept their old catalogue and provides a link to it above the search box.  Scriblio may not be a replacement for the catalogues of academic libraries but it seems to be an incredibly useful complement.

So far it appears as if Meebo has been one of the most popular ways to integrate chat services.  Jenny Levine at the  Shifted Librarian wrote about the many benefits of using meebo with libraries, back when it was first gaining traction in December 2007.  Since then the growth has been phenomenal.  A quick glance at the Library Success wiki shows that many libraries in Canada using meebo and that number is probably even higher.

The University of Saskatchewan Library provides a good template as to how most libraries integrate Meebo into their website.  From the library homepage you can navigate to the “Ask Us” link, under the “Help” heading.  Sure enough, their meebo chat service is presented front and center on their “Ask Us” page.  Obviously, not everybody is going to like the instant messaging format, so they list other methods of contacting the library (where the reference desk is located, phone numbers, email, etc).  While it lists that the service is “live” (there’s a librarian on it) it doesn’t list what the chat service hours are, which might be a helpful addition when students find their late-night questions can’t be answered.

Overall, I think the chat feature is a great addition.  Certainly, it seems particularly viable in academic libraries where many of the students are used to the instant messaging format.  That said, I can see some difficulties in implementation.  Librarians might need to be trained in chat etiquette and things like how to conduct a reference interview online might be an issue.  There’s also the problem of staffing the chat service, which could be a particular problem in light of shrinking budgets.

I checked out my old public library, the Hennepin County Library, back in Minnesota.  While their welcome page wasn’t the flashiest, the right side menu had a link to library locations and hours.  The link brought up a list of all the locations, but also had an “interactive map” feature right at the top.  Sure enough, there was the Google map that had bullets for all the library locations.  A quick click on bullet brought up a bubble featuring library address, phone number and website; great for when you’re dealing with a library system with over 20 branches.

Easy to use, easy to find, I think the HCL used the mashup to great effect.  I might have made the “interactive map” icon slightly larger (it might be easy to miss) but overall they did a good job.  While such a mapping tool might not be as essential for a smaller library system, I’d strongly suggest it for any large library branch.

Having trouble imagining it?  Think of a map of your neighborhood.  Then think of think of phone book that lists all the tailors in your city.  Then imagine doing a search on Google Maps using the term “tailor” instead of typing in an address.  Assuming you live in populated area, the search will a return a map with red bulletins marking the locations of different tailors.  Ta-da!  You’ve got your basic map mash.

Ok, that’s a pretty simplistic example that doesn’t really explain some of the more complicated aspects.  Like quick overviews?  Like whiteboards?  Then I’ll recommend that you check out David Berlind’s informative five-minute overview on the topic.  For someone who shies away from tech-speak, I found it particularly helpful.

Of course to create new content different APIs need to be made available.  There has been growing trend toward media sharing and it’s an essential component to creating mashups.  The Synthetic Librarian has a great post on the relationship between media sharing and mashups.

Sure mashups are fun to look at and they may make finding your nearest tailor easier, but there are some real implications for libraries.  They can help promote local services, they can assist in the location of materials and they can improve the functionality of the library homepage.  The potential of mashups seems incredible, and as they are relatively new technology (the past four or five years), librarians are still figuring out how to best utilize them.  This blog will look at several libraries that are creatively using mashups to improve their patron services.