Types of Alternative Search

Alternative search technologies can be divided into a few distinct categories. There’s more than I have listed, I’m sure, but these are the ones I am primarily interested in.

• Many sites use existing human or computer supplied metadata to find and display information, but some sites are taking this approach above and beyond the traditional ways to create new and novel ways of finding information.
• Some searches analyze a documents’ contents (documents is used in the loosest form here, and meant to include everything from text to sound, images, and video) to return a result. Text is traditionally used for this, but some aspects of images are very easily returned in this way. For instance, it is fairly easy to analyze a picture for an average color and search by colors nearby in the color spectrum.
• A final method of search and retrieval is to rely on user added metadata. This form of search is becoming increasingly popular, and sites are inventing new ways to encourage users to supply their own metadata.

Two further distinctions in retrieval systems can be made: finding systems and browsing systems. Finding systems assist the user in finding a specific item, for instance, a picture of a cat. A finding system may also help answer a specific question. A browsing system helps the user find something, even if they are not exactly sure what they want. Browsing may also help the user make connections in a collection of documents, an especially useful attribute in online exhibits; in this way, browsing helps the user formulate a question rather than find an answer. A system that doesn’t work as a finding system may work wonderfully as a browsing system. One final note is that more and more systems use a combination of search techniques to find a relevant match.

Over the next few days I’ll examine a few sites that use existing metadata, the document’s content, or user supplied metadata to facilitate finding and browsing.

I was reading reviews on the book “Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss” and found this comment:

“Fuhrman does cite many scientific journal articles, but most people will not be able to access those articles to see if they truly support his statements.”

On one hand, I feel like the reviewer is naive to expect all researchers to use publicly available data, and on the other hand, I can totally see where he/she is coming from. Not many local libraries carry the expensive databases needed to verify the research, and not everyone has access to a university library. Isn’t it reasonable for people to expect that they can check to make sure an author is doing the research? Isn’t it great that people are even interested in critically analyzing works?

Will we see the tides turn, when information locked behind a pay wall is not cited by popular writers because it lacks credibility with the general population? Would this be a good or bad thing?

Photo of the “Pay Wall” here: http://flickr.com/photos/cgc/1200935/

The following is a post I made for class (on blackboard, of course, so I can’t link to it here). We were assigned to watch and post about V for Vendetta. I wish I could link to other student’s great posts.

In Neil Postman’s book “Amusing ourselves to Death” he quotes Huxley: “the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions” (1985, forward, pp. vii-viii). The challenge of information literacy isn’t to make people understand the information- I think most can understand it easily enough. I’m always amazed at how good people are at finding information when it interest them. The really hard part is getting people to care about information literacy. It is here where I run into a roadblock- how can I make people care? I can make all the tutorials in the world, but if no one wants to watch them, it’s useless.

I don’t believe hope is lost. I think the emerging culture- one that involves creating, not passively consuming, material is key to avoiding the kind of future described in these utopian/dystopian stories. People today create more content than ever before. They broadcast their likes and dislikes, and they speak up and act out when they see something wrong. This is why I think information literacy is as much about teaching people how to create content as teaching them how to consume information. Content creation is essential to democracy, and it should not be in the hands of a few elite. Joan K. Lippincott (2007) “suggest[s] using a framework that focuses on higher education’s need to prepare students to be content creators within their disciplinary or professional specialties” (para. 2). The author also points out that such content creation necessitates the skills to legally use and remix material. Built into this education is a conversation on responsibly using information. Over a year ago, I posted an entry about an old idea of mine- a community content creation center. I said:

“I guess what I would love to see is a more information literate community, and also one that encourages more people to share their knowledge and thoughts online. I personally would love to see more blogs by, say, WW II vets, retired schoolteachers, grandparents. There’s a huge number of people out there with interesting stories to tell, whose stories I would love to read, but who have no clue where to start. I would like to help with that” (2006, Dalziel, para. 12).

I keep coming back to this idea of libraries as a place for communication, a place for community, a place to say what you think. It is a bit off from the library’s traditional role as passive deliverer of information, but not by much.

Dalziel, K. (2006, August 29). Creating work. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from “nirak.net – Musings of an LIS Student” http://www.nirak.net/2006/08/29/creating-work/

Lippincott, J.K. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(6), 16–17. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm07/erm07610.asp?bhcp=1

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Viking.

Consulted:

Huxley, A. (1946). Brave new world. New York: Harper & Bros

Orwell, G. (1992). Nineteen eighty-four. New York: Knopf.

Portman, N., Weaving, H., Rea, S., Hurt, J., Hill, G., Silver, J., et al. (2006). V for vendetta. Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video.

In the Common Craft blog, leelefever posts about “A Sickening Review of Viral Video Tactics.” He does a good job of pulling out some of the more insidious techniques. I can’t seem to get myself too worked up about Greenburg’s post or his techniques, because I already assumed that’s the way things are. Take a look at the del.icio.us page for the post- the first posters have notes like “Another great example of why advertising is a dark filthy art” but later on, notes like these start to appear: “some of these ideas can be applied to music marketing” and “How to get your video into YouTube’s most viewed videos ;)”

Whatever you think of the original post, there are some useful gems of advice in there, especially considering putting videos on YouTube, so I thought I’d pull them out here.

Content of videos

I thought some of the advice for videos was rather good (I left out the pieces that obviously weren’t, especially for library purposes, like “appeal to sex.”)

• Make it short: 15-30 seconds is ideal; break down long stories into bite-sized clips
• Design for remixing: create a video that is simple enough to be remixed over and over again by others. Ex: “Dramatic Hamster”
• Don’t make an outright ad: if a video feels like an ad, viewers won’t share it unless it’s really amazing. Ex: Sony Bravia

I especially agree with “don’t make it an outright ad.” I’ve seen lots of library promotional videos that look like ads. That’s fine for a first attempt (learning to use the equipment) but why not try getting a little creative with the next clip?

Thumbnail Optimization

Have you ever uploaded a video to YouTube and hated the still they chose for the video? (I know I have!) Greenburg shared this little tip:

YouTube provides three choices for a video’s thumbnail, one of which is grabbed from the exact middle of the video. As we edit our videos, we make sure that the frame at the very middle is interesting.

This isn’t new (see a couple of older videos about it here) but it’s a good thing to keep in mind.

If you want even more control, especially for the version you embed in your own webpage, try using Vimeo instead of YouTube. Not only do they give you more thumbnails to choose from, they let you upload your own. Plus the quality is higher.

Releasing all [content] simultaneously

Let’s say you make a few videos, and a new webpage, and some other new content. You should hold back and only release a few things at a time, right? According to Greenfield, that may not be the best tactic.

If we have multiple videos, we post all of them at once. If someone sees our first video and is so intrigued that they want to watch more, why would we make them wait until we post the next one? We give them everything up front. If a user wants to watch all five of our videos right now, there’s a much better chance that we’ll be able to persuade them to click through to our website. We don’t make them wait after seeing the first video, because they’re never going to see the next four.

If people like what they see, they’re going to want more- so give it to them!

Think about tagging

The tags you choose for your video in YouTube determine the videos that are shown in the “related videos” section. So, if you have a video about a tea party the library (it could happen), it could be linked to this video. The point is, you want to think about what your keywords might link you to. Maybe do a few sample searches to make sure your keywords aren’t bringing up anything disturbing. If you want to be safe, use Vimeo or another service that doesn’t link to related content. (I don’t work for Vimeo, I just like the service.)

A technique Greenburg describes is using unique keywords to link his content together. So, you might tag all your videos with unique tags like “yourlibraryname” “libraryvideosrock” and “ilovethelibray” (I didn’t check these, they may not be unique) which will increase the probability that they are linked together in the related videos category. You should include other meaningful tags for findability, too.

I, personally, don’t see this as dishonest. Part of the beauty of tagging is that it can be used to bridge content. I’m willing to hear arguments otherwise, though.

Conclusion

When participating online, it’s good to know a few of the little tricks that marketers do. They’ll help people find you, they’ll help you get your message out, and they’ll help you avoid linking to objectionable material.

An aside: There seems to be a general consensus lately that advertising is evil. I don’t believe that’s the case. Most advertisers subscribe to particular ethics, just like librarians do. There are a few dumb people out there that ignore these ethics, but they usually come out looking stupid in the end, anyway.

Bonus: I originally was going to include a librarian (information ninja) in the diagram, but it just didn’t fit. So here it is as a separate graphic. Here’s the CC license, and you’d have to credit mattahan.deviantart.com as above. Again, I have the svg if you want it.

This is an awfully simplified version of the differences between Information, Media, and Digital Literacy. For the purposes of this table, I have treated the concepts as separate, but in reality there is quite a lot that is the same between all four concepts.

Note#1: I reserve the right to change this as I change my mind. :)
Note #2: On Jenny Levine’s suggestion, I’ve added “evaluating” as one of the primary activities in Information Literacy.

I can’t help if it is futile to try and identify and define specific literacies, when “Information literacy” encompasses so many. If it’s just a shift in language, fine- then we need to add Math Literacy, P.E. Literacy, Band Literacy, etc. to our curriculum. But if we’re talking theory and learning paradigms, we might be better served by sticking to a somewhat more general term.

Of course, the problem is, as librarians, we tend to fully accept, embrace, and use other’s terms for things- at least, on a working level. So when teachers use terms like digital literacy and media literacy, what choice do we have but to use them too?

My own personal opinion is that “Information Literacy” adequately serves to describe the skills one will need to survive in a  constantly changing environment. It’s the term I’ll use most often.

All this theorizing is just that, though, because I still have to ponder this stuff for school. In the end, it’s a useful exercise,  because it forces me to research what others are calling what I think of as information literacy. This opens up the door for conversations. Also, in continuing to think about this, I’m clarifying in my mind how to explain why information literacy is important- as well as collecting anecdotes, stories and statistics from various articles.

For another class (Library Use Instruction), I have to evaluate the difference between Information Literacy and Media Literacy. In my searches on Media literacy, I have found that it is used interchangeably sometimes with Digital Literacy. Some thoughts are below.

Literacy

Definition: The ability to read and write. Well, that’s pretty easy. Literacy is an odd word, because it’s used to describe both proficiency (America has a high literacy rate) and excellence (that professor is very literate). The fact that literacy is tied up in reading and writing is problematic- I think the reason these other terms have developed is the fact that it’s easier to make up a new term than to redefine an old one.

Information Literacy

Definition: The ability to find, evaluate and use information. OK, pretty straightforward. Information Literacy one ups plain old literacy- you not only have to be able to read and write, but you have to be able to evaluate and use what you’ve read.

Media Literacy

Definition: The ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and create messages in a variety of forms. [1] The big difference here is the word create. It’s similar to the word “use” in information literacy, but it implies more action. One still has to be able to find the information and be able to use it, but you’re using it to create something.

Digital Literacy

Definition: The ability to use digital technology, communication tools or networks to locate, evaluate, use and create information. [source] I’m a little muddy on how this is different from Media Literacy, but I get the feeling that most people think Digital Literacy = the internet. Digital literacy, to me, is figuring out the cool ways to use internet tools to accomplish stuff.

Other literacies:

We’re certainly not the only profession obsessed with literacies! This is a very incomplete list.

• Critical Literacy
• Media Literacy
• Visual Literacy
• Computer Literacy
• Multimedia Literacy
• Information Literacy
• Health Literacy
• Scientific Literacy
• Economic Literacy
• Technological Literacy
• Multicultural Literacy
• Global Literacy
• Cultural Literacy
• Social Literacy
• Natural Literacy
• Artistic Literacy
• Ethical Literacy

[1] Livingstone, S. (2004). Media Literacy and the Challenge of New Information and Communication Technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3-14.