Set up personal and [2] library pages about a year ago, after it was clear from the User ed@Cambridge meeting that we libraries really should have a presence. Fine, bunged a few bits and bobs on, left it, with vague intentions of creating a fabulous page ... eventually [Yes, yes, I do know that's not the right attitude].
To one's complete astonishment, these totally naff pages attracted friends and fans. Now, there were some jolly nice young Turkish [guessing by the names] gentlemen who expressed admiration, and we've had some lovely absolutely-library-related activities in the Crail Memorial Library Moshpit [see photo] but ....what the heck got these complete strangers to these pages, let alone bother to say they liked them ????
Because of Facebook's perhaps necessary nannyish attitude, it is very fiddly finding things, adding things, generally keeping a handle. There's a Facebook Group for past Genetics Department members, in preparation for some upcoming celebrations. Reasonable function, right? But of course a lot of non-department members have added themselves to the Group, which makes invitations etc difficult, and not the one-click option Facebook claims. A Group would seem to be a good place to add photos of past events - again, good idea, right? Well, no, because in a Group you cannot organise them in folders [yes, this is true - there's even a petition on Facebook 'Implement photo albums in Groups' which they ignore] which as you can imagine soon makes a hell of a mess. Moreover, photos I haven't taken are represented as mine.
Nanny Facebook won't even let you add favourite books it doesn't like the look of or is too stupid to recognise. I didn't think saying I was reading 'War and Peace' in Russian was unacceptable - even if untrue - but Facebook did. Well, that's lost me a lot of potential friends, now. It let me say I liked 'procrastinating', but not 'dissembling'. Didn't spot the other lies, though, did it, huh? More seriously, why can't I be innocently silly, when Faceboook vigorously defends the right of 1,320 people to avow 'Raoul Moat is a Legend'? Furthermore, Facebook doesn't prevent me seeing splashed on my home page, without even seeking it out, what 17-year old Crail Minor and her friends are up to, in stuff-of-nightmares detail [...and I do mean detail].
And would someone perLEASE enlighten me as to what Phil Bradley is on about when he claims Facebook is an efficient and trustworthy tailored-information provider? Why is Facebook's weasling around in personal activities and preferences more acceptable than Google doing it? The thing that really puts me off Facebook [and Twitter], is the muscling-in on what was a perfectly acceptable social medium by business and other interests, on which another rant later.
I have to say, I have yet to be convinced that Facebook is worth the effort in a library context but maybe that will have changed by the time I've done this task.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the updates from Crail Minor, I thought I'd share my sister's philosophy. "If mother INSISTS on adding me as a friend, she must be prepared for the consequences and is not permitted to use what she reads there against me."
Where does Phil Bradley say that "Facebook is an efficient and trustworthy tailored-information provider"? The meaning I took from the post you link to was very much more sceptical about Facebook's merits.
ReplyDeleteNo, you are quite right, Aidan, he didn't say that, but he did say "I usually have a Facebook tab open", implying he uses it constantly. Afraid I didn't detect much scepticism in his post, and was rather shocked that he seemed to be implying it was close to The Way Forward. The more personally-tailored ability of Facebook [which I find a bit creepy], and tricks such as the 'Like' feature, having the users and not the host control retrieval, could be a [less sinister if you don't like Google] part of that Way Forward, but retrieval of ...what exactly? It's probably because he envisages great opportunities for businesses muscling in that I get so cross, despite users supposedly being able to control that.
ReplyDeleteHere's a thought - instead of *assuming* you know what I think and then criticising me for it, why don't you *ask* me instead? I have a Facebook tab open most of the time to chat to friends, not as a search option. The point however is that it's open, unlike Google/Bing when I need to search. 2 very different things. To say that I think Facebook is close to a way forward is nonsensical. The 'like' function is however an important rank option which Google doesn't have.
ReplyDeleteFacebook does have considerable social leverage with businesses - Starbucks have 10 million fans. I don't particularly like it, but it's something I have to consider. I particularly don't like the idea that Facebook takes control away from users, which is why I spend time showing people how to ensure that they can stop this happening as much as possible.