Resource Review #8

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=107&sid=3102d7a6-8d1a-45da-8a26-a52f4a7ff88d%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2lucGFnZT1Mb2dpbi5hc3Amc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=lxh&AN=44668680

This resource is the Library Journal article"Power Tweeting: Next Steps" by Melissa Rethlefsen. The article describes a number of applications that can enhance one's Twitter use, including photo and screencast sharing, Twitter-linked chat, Twitter-to-Facebook integration, and tweet scheduling and tracking services.

This article is a collections of tips and tools for Twitter use, like many of the other resources I've found. But this article focuses on not on the basics but on more advanced ways to use the site. It's quite a recent article, from the issue published on October 15 of this year. I like Rethlefsen's mention of the fact that Library Journal first covered Twitter in July 2007, the site was still little known and very few libraries were using it. This article really brings home for me how rapidly Twitter has achieved it current popularity. Rethlefsen notes, "from its early beginnings as a microblogging application, Twitter morphed into a communications platform, a customer service portal, an answer engine, and a marketing haven."

Many of the tools mentioned here are fairly simple, and I think tweet scheduling in particular could be very helpful for staff managing a library's feed. But still, I would not particularly recommend this article as a resource for Twitter beginners. Certainly, there are still many librarians who haven't yet taken the first steps in the world of Twitter and other Web 2.0 tools, and who clearly aren't ready for the "next steps." Like Jeff Scott's blog post (discussed below), I could see this article also being quite intimidating for librarians who are not yet extremely comfortable with Web 2.0 phenomena. The focus on "Power Tweeting" certainly creates the rather depressing impression that plain "old" regular tweeting is no longer adequate.

Resource Review #7

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=971F022807CC06267FB83BF32FE29FC3?contentType=Article&contentId=1805540

This article, "Reference utility of social networking sites: options and functionality" by Heidi Steiner form the journal Library Hi Tech News, analyzes four social networking sites -- Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and Ning -- with regard to their usefulness as library reference tools. Steiner finds that "Facebook provides the most promise and possibility as a reference utility." But she also notes that Twitter has a great deal of reference potential, primarily because of its simplicity in comparison to many other social networking sites.

I like this article because it analyzes Twitter in the context of other social networking sites, and it focuses solely on one library function, reference, rather than listing many different ways in which Twitter could be or is being used in libraries. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that Facebook has the most potential for reference use. To my mind, Facebook is much more about creating and viewing profiles, while Twitter's text-based approach seems to lend itself more to asking and answering questions. Steiner does mention the usefulness of the Facebook chat feature, but I think Twitter can also function essentially as a chat service as long as a librarian is logged in, monitoring the feed, and ready to answer questions as soon as they are tweeted.

This article, like at least one of my other resources, also mentions the privacy concerns that arise with using Twitter for reference. Tweets are available for anyone who has a Twitter account to see -- the question is, as Steiner puts it, "should reference questions and answers be available for all to read?" While many library users might not mind, certainly not all would want their references questions and answers to be quite so public. Steiner also points out that the 140-character limit for Tweets is too short to answer more complex reference questions. I think both of these are important issues that librarians need to keep in mind if they do choose to use Twitter for reference purposes.

Resource Review #6

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=107&sid=a057ff7c-90e4-44db-b991-9ef521f5c44e%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JmxvZ2lucGFnZT1Mb2dpbi5hc3Amc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=lxh&AN=45447265

This article, "Twitter lacks noise with serious readers: Heavy book buyers spurn social networking sites for book info" by Victoria Gallagher, comes from The Bookseller, a British publishing industry magazine. It describes the results of a poll done by the website Lovereading, which found that "only 17% of respondents found Twitter "useful" for [book] recommendations". Only 34% thought that social networking sites in general were useful for this purpose.

For this review, I've again chosen a resource that doesn't directly deal with Twitter in libraries. But from what I've seen in other resources and by following library Twitter feeds, it seems that book recommendations and other readers' advisory services are one of the main ways in which many libraries are currently using Twitter. This article would suggest that readers' advisory may not be a good way to use Twitter at all, if the vast majority of readers do not find Twitter book recommendations helpful.

Of course, this is still only one article, from one publishing industry magazine, based on the results of one website's poll -- so I certainly don't think the results should be given the same weight as, say, an academic study. But Twitter is still so new that it hasn't been the subject of all that much academic research yet. I think those of us interested in how Twitter is being used, and its successes or failures, have to be willing to consider any information we find.

It is also important to remember that this article does come from a source focused on the publishing and bookselling industries. The subtitle is important: "Heavy book buyers spurn social networking sites for book info." The article states that "Lovereading interviewed more than 1,300 people, the majority heavy book buyers, about their reading habits." There may be important differences in information-seeking behavior between people who primarily buy books and people who primarily read library books -- I think that would be a fascinating topic for future research. Twitter book recommendations coming from librarians, who could be seen as unbiased authorities, might have more weight than those coming from publishers, bookstores, or other sources. Also, there may be important differences between British and American readers.

Resource Review #5

http://gathernodust.blogspot.com/2007/04/twitter-update-or-how-i-was-able-to.html

This resource is a blog post called "Twitter Update or how I was able to exploit the latest social networking site without really trying" by Jeff Scott, Deputy Director of the Tulare County Library System in California. Scott admits that he was skeptical at first about how useful Twitter could be, but he goes on to explain how his library is now making use of Twitter. Scott's library had already used RSS feeds, a Google calendar, blogs, and photo-sharing accounts to produce and disseminate information. Scott discovered that, using http://twitterfeed.com/, he could easily combine the feeds from all of these tools into one Twitter feed, thus making it easier for library users to receive all of the information in one place.

So many of the other resources I've been able to find are basic introductions to Twitter for libraries, or tips for getting started using the site. I like this post because instead of just giving suggestions, it explains in detail how an actual librarian is currently using Twitter. I think it's also very interesting that this post is from April 29, 2007, over two and a half years ago. While that could make it dated, I still chose this resource because it shows that some cutting-edge librarians having been using Twitter succesfully for a long time now, even though it's taken quite a while to become more mainstream.

That said, although this post may be a library Twitter success story, I don't think it's one that all libraries could easily emulate. Using Twitter in the way that Scott describes depends on the preexisting use of many other Web 2.0 tools. It would be rather difficult for a library that is not already so technologically up-to-date or so invested in Web 2.0 tools to follow this example.

Resource Review #4

http://www.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7813/105/In_the_driver_s_tweet_Making_the_most_of_140_chara

This piece, "In the drivers' tweet: Making the most of 140 characters," comes from PR Tactics, a publication of the Public Relations Society of America, and was written by Amy Jacques. The article focuses on the challenges and advantages of communicating in posts of 140 characters or less. Jacques quotes the advice of several professionals in the fields of public relations, communications, and journalism. The article stresses that word choice is incredibly important for professionals using Twitter, as is choosing content that will be interesting to potential readers.

While this article has a certain focus on the public relations field, the corporate world, and the promotion of brands, I still think it article offers some extremely helpful tips for libraries using Twitter. "Public relations" are of course, in a sense, the most important consideration for public libraries. And libraries have to focus on promoting their "brand" if they want to fulfill the goal of serving their users in the best way possible.

While probably every article written about Twitter mentions the 140-character limit for tweets, I like that this article takes that limit as its major subject. I think many beginning Twitter users don't realize what a challenge it is to communicate effectively in so few words. Also, I think that many users of social networking sites in general don't take their communication on these sites very seriously. They view their posts as a trivial, throw-away form of communication, and as this article mentions, the content is often mundane, irrelevant, and uninteresting to anyone but the poster. If Twitter is to be a useful tool for libraries, then the library staff members using the site absolutely need to take it seriously, and use carefully-chosen words to express carefully-chosen, relevant information.