Facebook

So it's entirely possible (likely, even) that I'm missing the point here, but it seems to me that it would be easy to spend a LOT of time trying to create blogs, facebook entries and the like without really having a clue what impact it was making in terms of patron using the library. I'm all for moving forward, taking advangtage of new technologies, and most definitely being useful at where the patrons are, as the blog gal described. My issue with social networking for libraries is that it's easy to do a really bad job of it. Blogger gal pointed that out. So is bad better than not at all? I don't think so. But is it bad to not try because we think we'll be bad at it on our first attempt (and second and third)? I think so.

I guess I think that if libraries decide to jump, we need to jump with both feet, and COMMIT to learning how to do it better, be more effective, etc. Committing means that staff time is dedicated to it for the long haul, and that training and research dollars are allotted to make it better, and staff time is provided not only for producing, but also for researching what can be improved. Simply throwing it out there for a few rounds and then bagging it because it's not working is the worst option of all I think. Try it. Assess. Learn from version1 and move to version2 and so on into infinity. Or at least until web3.0 arrives. So yes, thumbs up, with the conditions that we be active in figuring out who's doing it right, and learn from them, and advancing this new technique. Reinvest.