2008-05-25

I was at a library conference a few weeks ago and heard Roy Tennant speak about users and libraries and the future. I enjoyed his talk very much and agreed with a lot of it. His point really is that libraries NEED to meet users where they are in terms of technology (and many libraries don't). In his talk he mentioned the Library of Congress/ flickr page that let users of flickr, "tag" photos from the Library of congress, and how it made both the LC photo collection more visible, and it helped identify some previously unidentified images. He cited a use statistic that had flickr being like 100 times more popular than the Library of Congress. Afterwards in the "wrap-up" discussion, another librarian mentioned that she found that a really interesting statistic and kind of with the tone that added: and I wonder why. The discussion turned towards tagging and well I said--you know tags are like subject headings and whoa flickr lets people add subject headings to LC stuff, as well as their own. As librarians we need to know that patrons are used to doing this, they want to do this and we don't let them.

Which sounds like I want to turn the public catalog (OPAC for those of you who speak the jargon) into a big wiki with tags. Although that might be fun, I'm finding as I search flickr, just how much we need catalogers in an age of wiki more than ever.

You see catalogers are rule people. Catalogers are the myers-briggs S people. They make sure that when you search for a cookbook (and you use the LCSH heading cookery, divide by type) you find a cookbook and not a romance novel that includes cooking. They do this by insisting on authority files--the file that says that if you are an author named say: John Jones that you will always be in the catalog the same way. It might be as John Jones 1971- but you won't get mixed up with the other John Jonses out there.
I could never be a cataloger. I'm not that detail oriented (was going to say persnickety, but that sounds bad). I'm very much a forest person, the meyers-briggs N, the big picture gal. But I'm glad they exist, because they make my life as a reference person that much easier.

Catalogers don't have a lot of job opportunities, or so I've heard. My local public library does have a person on staff with a Masters degree in Library science whose job it is to catalog 20 hours per week (she works the reference desk, and does database control too). the Library I work at nominally has a cataloger. She does any original cataloging we might need. But like most places, people without library degrees do most of the cataloging. I think in some ways that this is kind of a bad thing, not becauause the paraprofessionals aren't qualified, because they certainly are, but because I think they should be getting paid a heck of a lot more.
See in library land, the degree--the MLS degree--decides your salary, have one and doors open, and your salary will be much better than the person sitting in the next cube, doing the hard work sans degree. Don't have one, and you may be doing the persnickety work for a few buck over minimum wage.
Oh but didn't I just say how wonderful it would be if people, ordinary people were able to apply "tags" or subject headings to the library catalog? Well sure, but only if you want searching the catalog to become like searching flickr.

Take that cookbook. Let's say it is on Thai food, and you heard Splendid table mention it once in passing and the title isn't on the website for some reason. The reference librarian can show you that putting in cookery, thailand would find you several. He or she could help you figure out which one, based on what else you might know. Or you might remember the title and just type it in and locate the book. But if it were a flickr entry there might be 6 of the same thing, but each will have a different title. each will have different "tags". So while you might gain something in the fact that *someone* has probably tagged the cookbook "thai cookbook" (instead of the arcane and difficult cookery, thailand), probably is key. More likely the tags would be curry, thai, yummy, good, food, book. AND these same tags might also describe a picture of actual thai food, rather than the cookbook.

I've been thinking on this for a while, but I don't really have any conclusions. I've always thought more subject headings were better than fewer, as they provide another entry point to the records. I've always admired the persnicketiness of catalogers, and known it wasn't for me. And I really like the power to the people aspect of wikis. Makes it kind of an interesting time to be a librarian.

Previously Next