social metadata for libraries, archives and museums: research findings from the rlg partners social...

Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums.

Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group.

Rose [email protected]

Karen [email protected] Australia

ForumCanberraOctober 20, 2010http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/aggregating/

Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura

2010-102

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 MetadataAdditional information about a resource given by online users e.g. tags, comments.

Social Media FeaturesInteractive features added to a site that enable virtual groups to build and communicate with each other and social metadata to be added.

Social EngagementUser interaction online e.g. communication between users, from users to site owners, from users with objects/resources.

Web 2.0Online applications that facilitate interactive rather than passive experiences.


2010-103

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.


2010-104

Woohoo!I have a job!!!

http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi

(Adapted from)


2010-105

Dudes, we are ON THIS!!!

Let’s start engagin’!!!

I call dibs on theLibrary blog.

http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi(Adapted from)

I’m a man of few

words… Tweet!


2010-106

All systems engage!Engage, full throttle.Mission commence.

We have liftoff!We have liftoff!

Crickey! I don’t know

what I’m doing!!!



2010-107

Oh my! Look at all the newvisitors to our website!

and all of our FaceBook friends!Hot Damn, we even have

comments on the blog!

They’re tagging &commenting too!



2010-108

Oh wow.How am I going to

measure social engagement -

impressions andeyeballs?



2010-109

How longwill all this

analysis take? It’s all a processof elimination, really.

Isolating patterns, quantifying deltas,proving ad-hocs…

Then all wehave to do is figure

out what works, what doesn’t, and give

our recommendations to the captain...



2010-1010

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’”.


2010-1011

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?


2010-1012

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


2010-1013

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


2010-1014

Our Techniques and Timing• Timeline 2009 - 2010• Sub working groups

(timezones and interests)

• Teleconferences• Basecamp – project

management and collaboration software tool


2010-1015

Basecamp


2010-1016

Our ResultsReport 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….


2010-1017

http://www.waisda.nl/homepage.do


2010-1018

http://www.vam.ac.uk/things-to-do/wedding-fashion/home


2010-1019

http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/index.php


2010-1020

http://www.kew.org/


2010-1021

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home


2010-1022

http://trove.nla.gov.au/


2010-1023

Use of third party sites

• LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL)• Flickr and Flickr Commons• Youtube• Facebook• Twitter• Wikipedia• Blogs


2010-1024

LibraryThing for Libraries


2010-1025

Flickr


2010-1026


2010-1027


2010-1028

Twitter


2010-1029

Wikipedia


2010-1030

Blogs


2010-1031

Interesting Facts….Figure 1: Countries represented in sites that responded to Social Metadata Survey. This includes Libraries, Archives, Museums, Community and Discipline sites.


2010-1032

Figure 2: How long social media features have been offered


2010-1033

Figure 3: Measuring success


2010-1034

Figure 4: Social media and user contribution features offered


2010-1035

Figure 5: Number of visitors contributing content per month

Top 10% = Australian Newspapers, Distributed Proofreaders, WorldCat


2010-1036


2010-1037


2010-1038

Figure 6: Roles staff serve on site


2010-1039


2010-1040

Recommendations (18 so far) Have clear objectives for using social media PR for organisation vs. community around collections

Motivate users and leverage their enthusiasmDesign, 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 policiesFor staff to use social mediaFor users creating social metadata (personal info and privacy, disclaimer, terms of use, behaviour, content, ownership, re-use, modification).


2010-1041

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).


2010-1042

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 successQuantitative/qualitative, subjective/objectiveReturn on Investment


2010-1043

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 visibleSite, 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


2010-1044

Recommendations Site to be alive – New content

Make sure visible and new content can be yours or users

Respond quickly to feedbackopen 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 MetadataWorking Group

Rose [email protected] [email protected]

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

social metadata for libraries, archives and museums: research findings from the rlg partners social...

Technology