Top four things I've learned cataloguing my own books

For several weeks now, I've been (somewhat amateurly) cataloguing my personal collection of books with LibraryThing.  I love it.  Basically I'm just ensuring the proper and well-formatted title, checking it has the right cover, including the main authors and other responsibility holders, tagging them with my own main "categories", putting  them in collections of who in my family it really belongs to, specifying where and when I got it (if I can remember or figure it out), and putting in a Dewey number.  It's fun, of course, being the librarian nerd that I am, but it's also fascinating and I was thinking about how valuable but impossible it would be to have library school students actually do some personal cataloguing of at least a hundred titles.  Here are some of the interesting things I've found:

1. I've never really thought about the categories of books I've had before.  I've collected books from many sources and over a long period of time so I've never really had a very clear personal "collection policy" so there's plenty of odd stuff in there.  It's mostly graphic novels, reference books, philosophy stuff, science stuff, and of course kid's books but there are ones that stand out:  "Sesshu's Long Scroll", a spiral bound copy of "Understanding Neural Networks", and a nicely bound copy of the Qu'ran.  In the course of cataloguing some of these works, particularly when I'm tagging them with my basic subject areas of interest -- figuring out how broad or specific to make those tags or whether to use them at all if there's only going to be one or two with that tag anyway -- it really makes me think about subject headings and how they can and/or should be used.  I initially just wanted to be able to see the numbers of certain books in a subject that I find interesting and retrieve them easily.  But then I had to add non-subject tags like ".damaged" or ".gift".  And then format tags, such as "REFERENCE" or "GRAPHIC NOVELS".  I came across my copy of "Dark side of the moon : the making of the Pink Floyd masterpiece" and realized that, although I like music, I don't really have a lot of books on the subject.  Should I get more?  Is it worth my time?  I have so many other interests.  Going through my books subject-wise is like walking through a list of my interests, both proven by past actions and potential or maybe just hinted at.
2. Dewey numbers are crap for fiction.  Ok, everybody knows that but trying to put my books into some sort of order led to using Dewey numbers which led to the hard fact that Dewey doesn't do any kind of fiction justice, especially comic strip compilations and graphic novels.  I had to invent a personal organization method to use instead, roughly based on the solutions I've seen in public library.  For example, "FIC A Smi 1997" is a work of fiction, considered an "adult" novel (not sexual, just grown-up, to differentiate it from my YA books and juvenile books, or other formats), by someone with the last name starting with "Smi" published (or originally created) in the year 1997.  It's mostly, as Dewey is supposed to do, to lump alike things together.
3. It's a lot of work.  Again, not a new discovery here but it's really hit home.  And I'm not even truly cataloguing them.  Just cleaning up a few key pieces of metadata.  I was tidying up the publication statement and ensuring it had the right ISBNs but that starting taking too long and I didn't think it was really worth it.  And besides, I think LibraryThing records include ISBNs that I can't easily see since I get records with a search for an ISBN that doesn't end up being the in field.  Odd.  Anyway, not really important, and not worrying about it made things go a little quicker.
4. Finally, although you have to "judge a book by it's cover" it's better if you don't have to.  Describing a book, or really anything, should be done with someone that has a good deal of knowledge about the work (or thing).  Some key access points may not be immediately clear to someone who hasn't read the book.  If you don't know the subject area, then how could you know the place this particular work has in it?  Ideally, cataloguing should be done slowly by a few people who love the particular work, perhaps the particular author.  Philosophy texts should be catalogued by philosphers, collections of poetry, by poets.  How can I truly describe my book on neural networks?  I know very little about cognitive science.  But cataloguers don't and can't know the subject matter to that degree.  The work is done by people who know classification and the rules of AACR2 and RDA.  But when keying in even the tiny specks of metadata about my own collection, I find it much easier and much more rewarding to work with a book I have written a review of, like "Knitting the Semantic Web", or read a million times, like "Waiting for Godot".  Sometimes it makes me think of the part of "Farhenheit 451" when the main character meets the "books", the people who have memorized entire novels and have saved them that way.  Perhaps each book should have it's own cataloguer, who gets to know the work, inside and out, and therefore is the only one qualified to know how to describe it and give access to it.  Not good for the people in those jobs though, I guess, right?

Oh, and one more thing.  I've discovered that I'm really weird.  I take great pleasure in considering the proper capitalization of my books.  For example, in AACR2, the only title words that get capitalized are the first one and any proper nouns.  I have the graphic novel "Star trek : countdown".  Although it looks weird, "trek" doesn't get capitalized because, in the context of the title, it's not a proper noun.  It's just a "trek" through the "stars".  But I also have "Star Trek : The Next Generation : technical manual".  In this case, "Trek" is capitalized because this is a technical manual for the ship in the TV show "Star Trek : The Next Generation".  TV show names are proper nouns.  (I mean, technically, the book should have been called something like "Technical manual for the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701D" or something like that, and not had a cool cover, but publishers like to think they're tricking us into buying their crap...  which they are.)  In the first case, the work is using the term as a name for the work and isn't referring to itself.  It's just using the words as they are, as the entire "Star trek" universe does.  The second case is using the term in reference to the series, to the previous works, to the fictional universe that the TV shows, movies, comics, etc. make up.

Of course, I'm only half way through my books so far so perhaps I'll learn more (or learn better?) as I go.  And then there's my movies and video games...  I need a "LibraryThing" for those.

Just Google It

Just like all librarians, I'm on the fence about Google and other search engines. Very useful - irreplaceable in some situations - but not always used appropriately and certainly not understood well enough to properly judge appropriate use.

I just came across another specific disadvantage of the "just google it" phenomenon. People in institutions with large websites seems to think that it's ok not to organize their site well since you can just site-Google what you want anyway. Even those who are invested in a specific area of an institution think it's just fine to have the primary (pronounced "easiest") access to their pages be through the Google search engine limited to the site's pages.

By itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It DOES provide quick and easy access to what users want without having to find their way through a long and complicated site structure, particularly for complex issues that aren't important enough to warrant front page real estate.

The problem is that it relieves us of the job of having to think about our desired information goal on a broader level. But is this a problem? Thinking is hard. It takes effort. And when we want information yesterday, we don't want to waste time thinking about something only tangentially related to our want/need. Having to think about, say, what KIND of thing is the thing we want to find, or WHY would the institution be providing this information and therefore where would they have made it available, is complicated and requires effort. But I think it's important in almost all situations.

Actually, I think there are only two situations: either it's easy to do this since the answer is obvious, or it's not so obvious and therefore is going to take some time and energy to figure out. The first case is not a problem. Finding information about "Dogs" should be in a book about "Animals" or in the "D" section or in the area related to "Pets". No problem. Find that section/chapter/link/section and go there. Problem solved. However, what about something like "Student Initiatives"? What is that exactly? The searcher themselves may not understand what exactly they are looking for. In fact, that may be WHY they're looking for information in the first place, because they don't know what that phrase really means. And without that information how will they be able to find what they are looking for if (a) the site is not using that phrase exactly, or (b) the phrase is being used in two or more different ways? Spending some time before searching to think about what the topic being searched for actually means, or even just COULD mean, would ensure that the searcher will be able to find the information faster and, when finding it, more quickly identify it as the information being searched for. Mere "phrase recognition" can lead to dead ends or mistakes.

Of course, all this relies on the pile o' information being searched is well organized in the first place, which, I guess, is the intitial stumbling block. This too is hard work and requires a lot of time and effort. This is certainly why it doesn't always get done in anything but those "piles" for which information searching is the primary purpose of the pile (e.g. journal article indexes). Web sites are not usually primarily about find each piece of information they contain. They are usually marketing tools to some degree. Communication of pieces of information chosen by the owners is the focus. But if the owners of this information want it all to be found, not just the pieces they want, then IMHO then need to ensure more finding tools that Google Site Search.

My 2.0 cents.

Tidying up my blog's tags

It's been bothering my for a while now.

I use Google's Blogger for this blog and it has a handy "labeling" tool for entries which are then linked and displayed for easy access to various similarly labeled entries.  It's a good function for the tagging practice that most people engage in.

But I'm different.  I can't remember whether I started tagging when I first created the blog but eventually, I recognized the main problem with simple tagging.  Most people use simple keywords to describe things -- politics, news, announcements, etc. -- and this is mostly fine.  However, as your list of tags increases, ensuring that everything is tagged consistently and comprehensively becomes more and more difficult.  At some point, you may accidentally start using a slightly different spelling at one point which will then start splitting your collection in two.  Or you may start using a different word altogether.  This may be a mistake or may even be intentional (e.g. using near synonymous tags like politics and government) seeing a difference in the entry that initially gets the new tag, but will also start splitting your content.

Also, as the list grows, appreciating the various types of tags becomes more difficult.  We tend to use different categories of tags:  subject descriptors and format types being the most common, but possibly describing audience preferences, included elements, or even subjective qualities.  Again, with a short list, this is fine, but, as the list grows, your ability to mentally juggle all the concepts you had in your head when you starting using each term becomes strained.  Did you use the "news" tag to describe news items you are posting, or commentaries on "The News"?  Or was it a misspelling of "new" and this was for newly discovered tools?  If you weren't vigilant enough in choosing your terms carefully (and I'm not sure any of us could be) then you will run across this problem eventually.  My solution to this was to make tag type explicit, using extended tags such as "Subject: Ethics" or "Type: Commentary".  Even then, sometimes I would forget what I meant exactly by a certain term and realize that two tags I've used should be merged.

However, given all that, I'm succumbing to standard tagging practice.  I'm converting all my tags into simple terms and phrases, trying to make it obvious what I mean but not "extending" my tags to clarify tag category.  My reason is mostly for space.  Blogger gives only a limited number of characters in the label field so using extra characters necessarily limits the number of tags I can use.  I'd rather have higher tag resolution (more tags per entry) than clearer tags.  This space-saving measure also helps in the tag cloud displayed in the side bar, and makes the list of tags in each entry a little more readable.

Finally, the purpose of this entry was not primarily to describe my retagging project, but to explain the existence of the "(checked)" tag.  This refers to entries I've looked at and am now happy with in the context of this effort.  When I'm done, I'll delete them all.

The problem with classification

There's a problem with classification systems (e.g. DDC, LCC, etc.). And it's not a secret. I certainly didn't discover this problem but it's not going away and classification will still be important enough in the near future that it would be nice if it were solved.

The problem lies in the two pressures on the system: change and resistance to change. The resistance to change is obvious: in a library of any decent size, change means work. More change means more work. Libraries do not tend to re-classify every item that would otherwise get a new call number every time OCLC and/or LC decides that the system needs expanding or restructuring. And consistency is good for the user as well; if they've become accustomed to the system as it is, then altering the system will be a little stressful. Not too much but a little.

But on the other hand, classification systems, at least the currently used and practical ones (i.e. the ones we like) are founded on something that does change, and quite rapidly nowadays: subject terminology. The words we use to describe what books (mostly) are about, the hierarchies that we put these terms into, the disciplines studying or working in these subjects, and the relative popularity of all of these, all change over time and therefore push the classification system in the same direction.

Coolendar: Not for me. Maybe for you?

Checked out Coolendar. This was described to me in the Lifehacker article I read about it as "an alternate take on calendars, turning the matrix-style calendar into a more simplified list."

True enough. Although later they say "a little more like a to-do list than a calendar", I would have to stick with calendar mostly. Although it looks like a to-do list, since everything seems to require a date and a time (it sets an item for 11pm if you don't specify a time), this is a calendar in list form. A very pretty list mind you. Very easy to look at, to play around with, to navigate. And entering items is pretty easy: type the date, time and some text and it creates and organizes it for you. There are ready made lists: all, today, tomorrow, and month. You can mark some things as important and there's a separate list for them.

But I'm a little OCD when it comes to date/data management. I may like a simple tool to begin with but I inevitably think of things I wish it could do, and if it doesn't do it, then I feel cramped. I want this to handle non-time-limited items. I want to be able to add more information than just when and what. I want to postpone things. I want to set things as due in the past. The list goes on. I guess I've been spoiled by Remember the Milk.

It also made me a little angry that it gets 12 am and 12 pm mixed up. Doh!

Bottom line: Not powerful enough for what would want, but good for a simple date/time based reminder system.

[ Informed of Coolendar's existence through Lifehacker's article "Coolendar Is a Half Calendar, Half To-Do List Webapp" ]

"Use del.icio.us tags for school" article needs work

Just read an article on "how to use Delicious to organize your student life" which included the pretty obvious but expanded on steps:

1. Sign up
2. Tag everything
3. Bundle it up

along with tips under the headings:

• What should you bookmark?
• Building on your records
• How to keep track of all the tags?

Some of this info is pretty basic and is obviously meant for someone at least close to a first time user but when I read through it I had some issues.

1. "Tag everything". This may hold many people back. This is absolutely a vital part of using a tool like del.icio.us (along with the almost equally important rule of 'tag consistently and as much as you can') but I would think that most people would balk at the sound of this. I don't think that most people 'get' the need to do this so perhaps the author could have stressed this a little more.
2. "...find the book in Google Books and bookmark the link..." Not even close to everything is in Google Books so I'm not sure why the author used it as the one example. Perhaps there's a bias? What about Amazon, LibraryThing, Wikipedia, WorldCat, or your local public and/or academic library's catalog (this last one is not always permanently linkable although it's getting better). These are all much more comprehensive (especially as far as your course syllabus is concerned) book lists than Google Books. Although none of them have complete access to the full text online, they all have benefits that Google Books doesn't have.
3. "...(along with any reasons why it was cited). Ensure you note which pages were given to you as readings and why." I assume this is meant to be written in the notes or description field. This is a good idea although this field can only have so much text and since each URL is allowed only one del.icio.us record, if you tag a site that you will use outside of the class it's "for" as well, your use of this text box may conflict.
4. The article is suggesting bookmarking a potentially large number of URLs for each course. This may get a little messy when you're trying to find one in a pile of 50 or more URLs. tagging with something in addition to your course tag should be mentioned. (It does this in a rather subtle way when it says "Don’t forget to use the class code tag and any relevant tags to indicate class topic, course topic, section in coursework, related essays, etc." but I'm not sure this is strong enough or explicit enough to get the point across.

Finally, the one big failing of using del.icio.us in this way is that it relies on the fact that there is an online presence for whatever you want to include in your tracking/record of your course materials. What if the professor does not have any web site with his/her information (increasingly rare but still out there) but hands you a piece of paper with all the relevant info on it? The article should bring up this situation.

Overall, there is some great information for the del.icio.us noob in this article, but it could be made better. What do you think? Have any tips that should be added to a "cheat sheet" like this?

[ Thanks to "How To Use Delicious To Organize Your Student Life" from makeuseof.com ]

Catalog2Delicious widget idea

I've had the item "Consider how to contibute to the organization of global goods (primarily information)." in my RTM to do list for quite a while but I keep postponing it, not knowing exactly how to accomplish such a task. Some of the more popular ways the general public find information (such as checking Google or asking their friends) don't really allow for such outside assistance. The creation of a new tool or method wouldn't really help unless it somehow fits into what they're using already.

One area of possibility is through the use of del.icio.us. I like del.icio.us and I think, despite the fact that the majority of people don't use it directly, let alone know what it is, that it is such a valuable storehouse of "tags" (along with other similar tools) and therefore metadata that could support future/behind-the-scenes organization of information, that it might be a good place to focus my efforts. Then I was thinking about how libraries and librarians use delicious: not very much. But how COULD we?

Not wanting to redo all the work that is put into the catalog, perhaps what could be created is a plug-in that automatically creates and updates a del.icio.us bookmark that corresponds to each record in the catalog (and vice versa) so that the work is only done once but the content reaps the benefits of being both controlled within the catalog and "out there for the world to see" in del.icio.us.

I don't have the programming expertise to develop something (yet) but perhaps someone out there does? I give this idea away into the public domain... Have at it!

Not enough time in the day

I spent a lot of today trying to fit in all the chores and responsibilities I have to do into a coherent and workable schedule, one in which I can get what I need to get done done but also not go absolutely bonkers with no time for myself, my kids, or the unknown.

I THOUGHT I had achieved a rock solid schedule but of course, it has cracked in a few key places already: forgot to include my daughter's new homework club time that started today, dinner took longer than expected to prepare particularly because the kids helped out, and important phone calls interfered. All perfectly expected unexpected things to happen and I'm glad they happened today... it will help me work out the kinks of the "time layout".

But it does bring into sharp relief the fact that, no matter what you're doing or what your priorities are, you can't get everything done. There is not enough time to fit everything in. You have to pick and choose and some things will have to fall by the wayside. I'm not sure what I'll have to drop but it will have to be something.

What has helped me is that I've taken the advice of almost every productivity-related website and actually written down my goals. I've even put them in order of importance:

1. My health (Exercise and eating right, as well as my comfort and entertainment. If I'm not happy and well, what's the point?);
2. My family (Both immediate and extended, my being with them and their welfare.);
3. My money (Not only making it but keeping it and saving it. Kind of important in this world.);
4. My learning (This includes self-imposed challenges, much of my non-fiction reading, things I would like to learn as well as things I really should learn for my career.);
   
5. My friends (Just as with my family, this in about connecting to them as well as supporting them. And it also includes other social efforts, making new friends, chatting up strangers meeting new people and the like.);
   
6. My profession (Librarianship of course, but can include related efforts such as anything else academic. This involves both working on my own professionalism and librarianship skills but also supporting the profession itself, with getting published and presenting at conferences.);
   
7. My "goodness" (Lacking a better single word for this, it refers to my efforts at making the work a better place, ethical goals, and helping people, however that manifests itself.); and
8. My administrative matters (Checking email, filing, organizing, communicating, etc. Holding a lot of the previous 7 together.).

Although I've created this list, and tag all my activities in my to do list (RTM) with them as appropriate, I don't feel as though I've fully integrated them (and it) into my routine and efforts. But I guess, what it should come down to is that activities furthering goals near the bottom of the list must be sacrificed for those nearer to the top. Thinking of it this way, I'm not sure I can, although I quite sure I should. I can't really stop checking email or the going through the bills as they come it. Perhaps for things like that, they need to be filtered and focused on how they support what is higher on the list of priorities. That sounds better. Still, some things I'm trying to do, must be canceled. Don't know what of course, and all that rambling above means that it's not going to be a simple matter to determine what or how.

Any ideas? Anyone out there in this situation with any part of the solution?

Project completion obstacles.

I've only recently starting thinking about some of my more complicated tasks as "projects" as defined by David Allen's GTD system/book. I think this has helped me immeasurably (that's a lie, I could totally measure it) by at least forcing me to break the process into smaller more manageable bits. My problem is that I'm not prepared to do it the way GTD suggests - recording the first action and then dealing with the next action when that's done (or at least that's my reading of it) - because I know that I would put off each step just a little which would add up to a whole bunch of procrastination. So I determine all the steps, their order, and which ones can be done simultaneously. This front loads the project work which is one of the big barriers but once it's done you'd think it would be easy from then on in. My big problem is that I don't have a tool or system built well enough to easily organize the individual tasks and then, in the midst of completing them, I come up with a better way of organizing them, or I remember a new task that I forgot to insert somewhere... What I need is a good seamless method/tool to help me manage all this and insert it into my work flow I already have (i.e. Remember the Milk). I keep looking but I have yet to reach the finding stage.