[Publib] Clunky format, is this the best we can do?

[Janis Augustine]

I heartily agree with Marv's opinion.  I, being quaint, old-fashioned, redundant, repetitious, etc.,  would never remember to check anything but e-mail.

Janis Augustine
Library Director
Salem Public Library
28 E. Main St.
Salem, VA  24153
Ph:  540-375-3089
Fax:  540-389-7054
www.salemlibrary.info
-----Original Message-----
From: publib-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:publib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Marv K.
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:50 PM
To: publib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Publib] Clunky format, is this the best we can do?


As clunky and uncool as email and "Listservs" have come to be regarded
lately, I think the format guarantees the greatest number of eyeballs,
readers and most vigorous discussion. That's what we need most.

Everyone checks the inbox. One psychologist has likened it to pulling the
lever on a slot machine: we keep checking in hopes that the next look will
bring a "jackpot" of some kind. Once you put this kind of discussion into
a forum, my guess is at least 50% of those subscribed would never remember
to go check the forum.

We think we're so cool and trendy, but I doubt that most public library
people "do" forums of any kind and maybe 15% can tell you what the heck an
RSS feed is. I wouldn't change a thing.

Marv K.
__________________________________
mklibrarian at gmail.com
LibVibe: the library newscast
http://LibVibe.com/



Karen wrote:
> No, you aren't the only person who feels that way at all -- and actually
> I had a talk with our sponsors several months back about some of the
> old-fashionedyness of PUBLIB's format.
>
> In terms of "in need of technical help" -- note that this is a
> fifteen-year-old, 7,000-member discussion list now on its third
> backbone. We're fortunate to have been able to carry most of our
> presence forward in each migration. Be a little careful about assuming
> there was no technical acumen involved in bringing us to where we are
> today. Legacy systems are ALWAYS a pain. We did not have an
> over-abundance of options when we moved to Web4Lib and frankly many of
> us are *very grateful* for Webjunction's support for our endeavor. So
> yes, you are correct, it is a matter of cost and sponsorship.
>
> But yeah, we're no Chowhound (or whatever your favorite forum du jour
> is). I've occasionally commented on that for a couple of years now, and
> one of my concerns is that the old-fashioned list format is a big
> turnoff to librarians from more recent "net generations."
>
> Feel free to step up to the plate with suggestions, offers of sweat
> equity, etc. We're all ears!
>
> Karen G. Schneider
> Co-moderator, PUBLIB
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:00:23 -0600, pete.daniels at iplks.org said:
>> Am I the only person who finds this format quaint, old fashioned,
>> clunky,
>> hard to work through, unfriendly to gathering common threads, redundant,
>> repetitious, and in need of some technical help? Is shifting to a forum
>> style community information exchange a matter of cost or sponsorship?
>> Why
>> do
>> we persist with this format when better ones exist? Shame the devil and
>> tell
>> the truth.
>>
>> Pete Daniels
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> Pete Daniels, Library Director
>>
>> Independence Public Library
>>
>> 220 East Maple Street
>>
>> Independence, KS 67301
>>
>> 620 331-3030  Fax 620 331-4093
>>
>> www.iplks.org
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
>




_______________________________________________
Publib mailing list
Publib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib