Thing 7 - Meebo and Twitter

Pardon the redundancy, folks. Obviously, we started delving into Meebo in the last Thing, but I think what sets the tasks in this Thing apart are the requests to experiment with Meebo Rooms and to explore embedding the MeeboMe widgit into library web pages.

Actually, I'd already taken part in a Meebo Room chat as part of RUSA outreach initiative aimed at soliciting input on boosting participation, and I felt that the platform was well-suited to that type of discussion. I could follow and participate in the conversation, submit questions without disrupting the flow of the exchange, and I was even able to send quick text messages to other participants outside of the context of the group discussion. I participated in a similar chat as part of a NoveList-sponsored exchange that sought input on upgrades to the database's interface. While face-to-face exchanges are preferable, Meebo Rooms offer a nice alternative when everyone can't be there or when you're dealing with a group that's dispersed all over the state and/or country.

The MeeboMe widgit is also cool, and I definitely think this is something MCPL should consider embedding in our catalog. Obvious spots include the "no results" page in the PAC, the "Research Tools" page, and on our "Help" pages (e.g. the Help page in the PAC and as an adjunct to AskUs).

Now Twitter is another story. This is a tool that I really see no redeeming value in whatsoever. Wow. I mean, there are Web 2.0 tools that are veritable wastes of time, and then there's Twitter. This thing, in my humble opinion, takes the cake.

I'm struggling not to say something extremely negative about Twitter (and failing) because I don't want to upset those who do like it. But I really don't get it. However, something that David Lee King said about Twitter in one of the linked web pages really struck a chord with me (and offered me a more diplomatic means of dismissing this tool). He mentions that some in the library blogosphere may be pondering the usefulness of Twitter. He states that if you're one of these people, then perhaps it's simply not the tool for you. And that really does hit the nail on the proverbial head--and is applicable to more Web 2.0 tools than Twitter.

I'm currently only up to Thing 7, and I've seen a few tools that have real library potential. Really cool stuff. But I've also run across a few applications--like Twitter--that seem pointless. And perhaps that what we as a library need to do: weigh the good and bad of these tools and then make a decision about which one's we'd like to experiment with. Honestly, is there a reason to try each of them out, or can we draw some conclusion via research and save ourselves the trouble of facilitating an implementation that only ends up wasting staff time and library resources? I'm inclined to think we can, indeed, draw reasoned conclusions without implementing each and every tool. In fact, all of this makes me think of an article I read recently over at Mashable.com. The question asked in the article is: can you join too many social networks? The answer, obviously, is 'yes'. These tools should boost productivity, not hinder it. This means we need to figure out which tools boost productivity; and if a tool has the potential to both boost and hinder it, then we need to figure out which features boost productivity and only use those features.

My two cents.