Reference librarians hear this question asked
nearly every day. Readers advisory is helping readers find the next book, through the reference interview process, . The reference interview doesn't have to be in
person though. Social media can change
how libraries interact with patrons.
Tools on book ratings sites like Goodreads
have created a forum that gives reviews on many books that aren't reviewed
normally in traditional publications that library staff has used to provide
reviews for newly released materials.
One of the exciting changes to
reference services is the use of social media in providing readers advisory. Applications on social media networks allow
for instant messaging readers advisory services. Reader’s advisory services have also been
internalized through tools and applications.
Some public libraries have applications for instant messaging within
their websites an example is the North Kingstown Free Library which has its own
reader’s page at http://www.nklibrary.org/online-readers-advisory. Facebook has also become a leader in social
media readers’ advisory methodology. In an article published in Library Journal
last year reference library staff used Facebook for the first time and they
discussed the aspects of social media use for readers advisory. (http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/communitylibraryculture/890008-271/facebook_ra.html.csp)
Readers advisory at arranged times on
social media sites can reach a larger audience with less staff than traditional
in person reference interviews.
Traditional
readers advisory methods transfer fairly well into the social media setting. As more libraries develop social media
reference advisory programs the literature and studies about RA through social
media will begin to define what the best practices will be in the future for
developing social media programs with readers advisory activities. Social media is still a developing tool;
Facebook was only developed in 2004. Though
it is the most widely used social media program currently this area of library
services is rapidly changing but it is also leading other library programs into
new uses of technology use.
You would think that Goodreads and sites like Shelfari (http://www.shelfari.com) could reduce the amount of readers advisory questions that librarians receive. But your post focusses on how librarians can create their own web 2.0 readers advisory system, which is intuitive for libraries and can add a personal touch to the patrons' requests. Plus, the patrons do not have to deal with different accounts with different friends -- it is all right in their Facebook, which increases the odds of receiving requests from your friends and also helping other patrons find what can be good books for them to read too, if they find that you have listed books similar to their tastes.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Shelfari has that Goodreads does not have is friend recommendations in one location. This is a list of books that have been rated highest by your friends. This is useful when you know which friends read the most interesting books similar to your tastes. With Goodreads, a compilation of all of your friends' highest-rated books only include books read in the last month. You can view the highest-rates books by each of your friends, but you must go to each of their pages separately. With Shelfari, all friends' recommendations are in one spot.
Also, with Shelfari, users can find "Users Like Me", see what books they have in common, and then see what other books they recommend. Goodreads does not have something like this that I have found. If a library had a service like this, patrons could find out what patrons have similar favorite books and users could find out about new recommendations that way, too. It would be nice because the books could be specific to only the books in that library's catalog.
Thanks for your comment Kara. Good Reads and Shelfari are both examples of what could be called social cataloging. They each fill a unique niche in the online readers advisory market.* Other databases like Novelist also help to promote a larger more defined readers advisory experience but each version lacks the intuitive personalized expertise that a reference librarian has. Although the algorithms that form the backbone of many of the online reference sights is helpful the math doesn't always work out to helping people find the best book for them. Using social networks and social catalogs can only strengthen the Library professionals' ability to assist more folks find the books that they want to read. Remember Goodreads is only a few years old, and the entire web 2.0 is at best still toddling around learning what works and what doesn't. Librarians can help encourage and assist in this new field by trying to incorporate their experience into the equations giving library users the best service possible.
ReplyDelete* For an early article on "peer to peer" book reviews look at this article about LibraryThing: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0615/p11s02-bogn.html