Face in the jar by the door

As several bloggerini have said - notably Vanessa - a lot of us would prefer to keep professional and personal separate, especially if one does lead a double life as university librarian and stripper, entirely possible given who Belle de Jour turned out to be. Unfortunately the sort-of requirement to have a library presence on Facebook has made that division difficult on that platform, unless one is awfully clever with settings [I find it very hard to work out what others would actually see on my pages, even with Facebook telling me, as they make the possibilities so complicated].

Andy confesses to turning down colleagues' 'friend' requests so he can post 'full and frank' 'tired and emotional' exposes of them on Facebook [OK, I've loosely paraphrased]. LOVED his Michael Thomas example, by the way! Indeed, Crail's Head of Department no less did gently point out that acceptance of his 'friend' overture had been a little precipitate, since he could see things one might prefer he didn't [Crail Minor's antics presumably, since one's own life is blameless. Too embarrassed too ask]. Aidan has pertinently pointed out that the required use of the term 'friend' is often inappropriate. He also says "Facebook brings together play versions of lots of things that thrive better in a full-size version elsewhere". Much as it would be lovely to have one-thing-does-all, we know it ain't going to happen any time soon. We've all got several remotes at home [with the one we need of course missing], and we've all popped off on a mini-break whilst CrossSearch chuntered away [yes, I do know you can limit].


It would seem to be eminently sensible to use Facebook for the personal and LinkedIn or something similar for professional contacts. But, let's face it, Crail's already minimal chance of a career in libraries is now well-and-truly down the pan, along with the less-than-meteoric rise in MacDonalds ['No, I am NOT saying 'Have a nice day!'] 80% of employers use LinkedIn et al for recruitment? That requires some serious manipulation of one's personal details. Incidentally, LinkedIn does allow poseurs to claim they read 'War and Peace' in Russian, where Facebook does not.

Finally.... Is it just me, or does the mega-success of Facebook in particular suggest that there's an awful lot of Eleanor Rigbys out there, the stuff of 'Message in a bottle', and all those other songs people can no doubt think of, all feeling more and more isolated as we become immersed in technology?

Nanny dearest

Facebook, oh god, where do I start? Or, more appropriately - Don't start me! Well, I am going to start, from a negative point of view, and hope that by the end of the week I've had the Damascene moment....
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.