June 26, 2009
I may be misinterpreting Stephen Arnold’s words with my headline, but if you read his post here and disagree with my interpretation, the comments field is open.
As a law librarian, I took on the training of summer associates, fall associates and partners. Their training needs were based upon the fact that they underutilized the power of the commercial databases at their disposal and didn’t use the free resources on the Internet to their greatest advantage.
Librarians are continuously learning and expanding their own knowledge base. Partnering with vendors to maximize the powerful information collected in commercial services is just one way to win friends and influence users.
Keyword search with Google is so easy because most people are looking for those top indexed terms. Applying the Google method of search to complex information collections does not assure accurate results. If you are searching within a specific industry’sdata and that industry serves multiple audiences that use similar terms that talk about vastly different topics, you will understand that search is more than keywords.
Taxonomies, language structure, database structure and more affect how information is retrieved. The average user doesn’t think beyond their own interpretation of a topic and may turn away frustrated or satisfied when they have no information or the wrong information. And therein lies the danger because the average user does not recognize that the correct information is there, just beyond their keywords.
Without the education provided by information professionals the inaccuracies caused by amateur searchers could have significant impacts on business and research. Our profession must iterate the importance of information literacy that reaches beyond keyword retrieval. Verification of sources, currency, accuracy and complex search techniques are critical skills. No one is better able or placed to teach those skills than librarians.
So my fellow professionals, take up the charge and continue the fight. We must demonstrate the need, the problems caused by not meeting that need and why we are in the best position to meet the need. Teach information literacy beyond keyword search. Teach to cause and effect and champion yourself as the key weapon in the battle for information retrieval.
1 Comment | 
Professional Development, Search | Tagged: Information Management, Research methods | 
Permalink
Posted by answermaven
June 25, 2009
Perhaps I’m a bit naive but aren’t courts one of the slowest institutions to invest in technology? That whole identity of being a government institution that provides justice to indigent criminals and employing lots of people to man that whole justice process seems to preclude such an investment. Not to mention the fact that the court exists in an industry that is slow to adopt new technology in the first place.
Thus when I read about the petition to enhance PACER here, I was a bit surprised by the third request (and part of the second)
2. Make it more accessible by lowering its cost and improving its Web interface
3. Provide free PACER access to depository libraries
In 2003 a cap of $2.40 was placed on “appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation” documents including dockets and case-specific reports (that includes those complaints and Summary Judgment motions). How much more affordable does it get?
I understand that free is better. (I’d love to have free parking and free postage at all times.) However, I doubt that depository libraries will kill their budget for the number of users that come to them to access PACER records.
Seriously, if we don’t even pay the base $2.40 to have access to this information what’s the point? I know that technically these are government documents and thus should ultimately be free to one and all but the reality is that the users of these documents have a personal or business interest when accessing the information. Thus users should make an investment into accessing the data that serves their purpose.
I support the principles that Carl Malamud is so passionate about but at some point my practical nature takes over and asks: What is the reality of web enhancements (#2 in the petition wish list) if the there is no money invested? Does anyone really think that USGPO or the Federal Judiciary is going to invest in technology enhancements (no matter how affordable) for an archaic system that still functions when there is no profit motive? And don’t forget that each court’s PACER records are maintained separately, there is no unionization of this information. If you want that go talk to the big guns: Lexis & Westlaw and see how affordable that is for your budget.
So I won’t be signing the PACER petition my fellow law librarians. Despite my desire for an improved web interface because even in the hard times some data is affordable enough and useful enough to warrant a small investment by me. If the petition had focused on improved search functions, specific case alert features or other items to overhaul the overall usefulness of the system, you would have sold me. Price is not the issue with PACER, usability is.
Constance Ard June 24, 2009
2 Comments | Search | Tagged: legal research, Malamud, PACER | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
June 24, 2009
SLA 2009 was engaging and full of educational and networking opportunities. I was scheduled to return home on Friday, unfortunately that did not happen.
I did receive the unexpected opportunity for education and networking while standing in various lines for 3 plus hours on Saturday. My original plans called for a flight home on Friday afternoon. And the delay of the 1st flight and the cancellation of the Chicago to Louisville connection began my long journey home.
I took that first day’s delay in stride and made the best of my layover in Crystal City. What did not work for me was the 2nd day. I did my duty as a traveler and arrived in plenty of time for the security screening and other formalities. Our flight boarded and all looked well until the mechanical problems were announced. An hour of sitting on the plane finally ended with a de-boarding and a need to stand in the first line and the re-ticketing process began.
We were handed a sheet of paper with an 800 number to call to get new reservations. With 100 plus people standing in line calling the same number the odds of a quickly answered call seemed slim. Fortunately the call went through and the reservations for another flight were made. Pretty good…twenty minutes in line.
Then off to the other carrier, to print boarding passes and get gate information. Quickly navigate through the line to self-check-in kiosk and bam! The first brick wall…Your record can not be located.
Three hours later I’ve learned that competing airlines can’t talk to one another and if you’ve had trouble in the first self-help line with the same information, stay in the line to talk to the humans.
Problems encountered:
- American Airlines can’t talk to others and send a simple E-Ticket to the airline they with which they have made reservations.
- Delta Airlines can archive traveler records within hours of creation.
- Self-help isn’t the best option when travel arrangements are complex.
Conclusions & Observations:
- Airlines should be pro-active, when travelers are delayed serve water or coffee on the plane and in long-lines. (This type of courtesy will keep the frustrations at bay)
- The baggage process at Reagan National is bizarre: one line to get tags and weight, another to drop off – use the curb-side check-in (Thank you Casey for the tip!)
- Airlines are not making a profit because they have refused to invest in technology regularly to maximize communications internally and with other airlines when necessary.
- Line policing is important to avoid possible crowd eruptions. Delta did this well, American did not.
The final conclusion is that information flow is critical to satisfied customers. If the reservation made on the phone twenty minutes into the first line had been accessible via the self-service kiosk at the carrier I would not have been at my wit’s end at the end of the next three hours.
I hope my fellow-line compatriots are home, at Fort Benning in time to report to duty, and enjoying their Hawaii vacation respectively.
Constance Ard June 24, 2009
Leave a Comment » | Business | Tagged: Airlines, Best Practices, Information Management, Marketing | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
June 13, 2009
I’ve been thinking about requirements a lot lately. For my upcoming birthday I asked for a wheelbarrow. For my business, I’ve been thinking about my on-line presence.
One seems simple and the other seems complicated. However, as I have since learned, nothing about wheelbarrows is simple. I simply want a tool to carry heavy bags of organic potting soil to by 25 square foot garden in my backyard that can be stored in my garage. Easy right? No!
There are collapsible wheelbarrows and wheelbarrows that can be laid on the ground to scoop stuff into and there are big wheelbarrows that can handle 100 foot trees or something ridiculous like that.
Result of pre-shopping? I had to define my requirements. Result of requirements definition? We’ll see next month but I can reasonably expect a manageable wheelbarrow that can stand alone so that items can be taken in and taken out.
In thinking about my on-line presence the requirements may appear to be extremely complicated but the wheelbarrow requirements exercise has caused great focus. Here’s a list of reasonable requirements for Answer Maven.
- Consistent identity across networks
- Easy to find information
- Consistent blog tags that demonstrate my taxonomy ability
- Accurate, current Professional biography
- Clean, simple presence
- Can be found
Those requirements are broad but they will and do guide my inputs into the Internet and my future developments of such things as my website. (I’m about two weeks behind on meeting this deadline–must get busy.)
Many times, we don’t get or have what we need because we were not careful enough to set expectations and define our requirements. When working on a technology project you must know what you want to happen and let the people who can make it happen know. If something you dream is technologically impossible–the tech folks will let you know.
Product people, and this is anyone who is responsible for gizmos and content, must know what they want and communicate. Without definition it’s easy to say you didn’t get what you need. Success doesn’t just mean saying I want a wheelbarrow. It means saying I want a wheelbarrow that can stand up by itself and can handle up to 150 pounds of cargo and can be stored in my garage.
If you are having a problem with your wheelbarrow technology, have you really figured out what you really want?
Constance Ard June 13, 2009
Leave a Comment » | Information Management | Tagged: Collaboration, Information Management, IT, requirements, Strategic Planning, wheelbarrow | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
June 8, 2009
Last week on the train from DC to BWI, I overheard a conversation about social media. It made me realize that the general public truly is adopting technology that techs and geeks and librarians have been using for years.
With this mass adoption there is potential for greatness: both good and bad. Guttenberg was the first self-publisher and today the trend continues. This blog is self-publishing. Further applications like Facebook and Twitter offer status updates… what a person is doing and/or feeling. The sharing of information through these sites can offer up to much minutia. Used strategically these tools can allow individuals and businesses to publish powerful data that attracts clients and solves problems.
Solving a business problem in 140 characters is really good bait. Fishing for the prize catch takes perseverance. The self-published data, the connections and the shared links that are posted offer a sea of rich data.
Self-published status updates mixed with connections and links that are shared and you start to get a full 180 profile of an individual. You know what causes they are interested in, what they like to do for fun and what networking groups they are using to benefit themselves and their business.
The investigative potential within these tools is tremendous. Learning about product recommendations and company complaints through Twitter can provide businesses with a method of pre-empting problems and gathering primary market research. Investigating the people connections provide through the networks can be used in litigation to unseat a key witness.
There are as many ways to use this information as there are to gather it. If you are not thinking about this in your due diligence and business practices, why not? Do you think this is a fad that will pass while you sleep? It may, but chances are that there’s something even more data rich pushing social networks out of the way. As fast as technology changes, information will fill the bits and bytes. Are you ready?
Leave a Comment » | Business, Information Management | Tagged: Business Intelligence, Competitive Intelligence, Social Networking | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
