If you work in a public library, then you understand the agony of helping old people. Some of our elderly patrons will gleefully proclaim their ignorance of all modern technologies and smile as if this should make them appear cute and endearing. But it doesn't.
I've been using computers since around 1985 and I know people who started a few years before me. And AOL, your grandparents' Facebook, started in 1991. But I'll give these oldsters the benefit of the doubt and remind them that Google started in 1997, so that's 15 years they've had to get up to speed with computer technology.
So there's been more than enough time for them to learn something, anything, anything at all. But they haven't.
The old people who know about using computers probably never visit the library, spending all their free time, most probably, helping their computer illiterate neighbors get all their money back from that deposed Nigerian prince.
And this group of helpless mouse fumblers, virus spreaders, accidental rebooters and reckless spam clickers, is, according to Tom Brokaw, The Greatest Generation. Partly because they won World War II and defeated the Nazis.
So this is what I don't get: if our oldest Americans are so clueless about computers and digital technology and claim they can't learn to use any of it because it's new and strange and confusing, AND these are the Americans who beat Hitler's master race, then... wait for it... what the hell are the old people like in Germany?
Do German librarians work with even stupider people than we do? How did America beat the German Army or the Nazis? You know, the cool looking Germans who held their cigarettes upside down and wore monocles and polished their black leather boots until Colonel Hogan could read the latest secret codes in the reflection. One would think it's because we were better or smarter. Hell, we broke the Nazi code. Or maybe that was all just something that Hedy Lamarr did.
So this Greatest Generation can't figure out email, but they deciphered the Enigma machine. Where does that leave the German former soldiers, the defeated? Does this make them completey incompetent? Or something else entirely?
Based on what I learned from movies, I know Hitler was fascinated by the occult. Maybe German librarians face completely different problems from their aged veterans.
I can almost hear someone telling this to their confused patron and former Nazi:
"Sie können keine anhängen foto mit the Spear of Destiny." Or, You cannot attach a photo with the Spear of Destiny.
Or worse yet, but would probably only happen once, "Ich kann nicht helfen, I can't help you to email the Ark of the Covenant because I will need to cover my eyes when you open it."
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Monday, November 4, 2013
Bestsellers are not always what they seem.
Americans spend $6 billion a year on books. And this industry goes largely unregulated by the government. There is no Agency like the FDA or the FCC to test books for adherence to purity or national standards in publishing.
But using a method called DNA encoding, Canadian researchers have uncovered literary fraud in one-third of the New York Times bestsellers for fiction.
Consumer advocates say that the public has fallen victim to questionable and even unsafe practices whereby popular novels are nothing more than filler and falsified ingredients. Of the 44 novels tested, many showed outright substitution from materials created from the minds of others and not of the stated author whose name is printed on the cover.
Using a test called DNA barcoding, a kind of genetic fingerprinting that has also been used to help uncover labeling fraud in the commercial seafood industry, researchers tested popular novels from over a dozen large publishers.
For example, of one unnamed novel sampled, a current legal thriller on multiple bestseller lists, was not written by the well-known author, but actually penned by Tito Wagner, a much lesser-known thriller author who makes his home in Switzerland. The novel bares no resemblance to the claimed author's work other than for locations set in Mississippi. But the DNA testing showed that often Swiss place names appeared in the work, such as the location of the story's courthouse as being listed in Büttenhardt, Mississippi.
The test also showed that other sections of the novel contained almost no portion of the original story and others were only a sprinkling of source material diluted with Project Gutenberg content from a public domain title, mostly Little Women by Louisa May Alcott.
An example:
Sure it doesn't make much sense as a legal thriller, but so far no one has seemed to notice, heaping immeasurable praise upon this fraud.
Representatives of the publishing industry said that while mislabeling of novels was a legitimate concern, they did not believe it reached the extent suggested by the new research, stating, "Meg (from Little Women) is one hell of a character."
But because the latest findings are backed by DNA testing, they offer perhaps the most credible evidence to date of adulteration, contamination and mislabeling in the publishing industry. And given the explosive growth of ebooks, an area where demands for new books are continuing to rise, the need for fresh content has encouraged this unacceptable behavior. Critics say this blatant misuse of older texts to create new works is either being created from ignorance, incompetence or outright dishonesty.
All agree that more oversight is needed.
---
story idea ripped off from this NYT story about herbal supplements with some sections stolen outright and left unchanged. because it's funnier that way.
But using a method called DNA encoding, Canadian researchers have uncovered literary fraud in one-third of the New York Times bestsellers for fiction.
Consumer advocates say that the public has fallen victim to questionable and even unsafe practices whereby popular novels are nothing more than filler and falsified ingredients. Of the 44 novels tested, many showed outright substitution from materials created from the minds of others and not of the stated author whose name is printed on the cover.
Using a test called DNA barcoding, a kind of genetic fingerprinting that has also been used to help uncover labeling fraud in the commercial seafood industry, researchers tested popular novels from over a dozen large publishers.
For example, of one unnamed novel sampled, a current legal thriller on multiple bestseller lists, was not written by the well-known author, but actually penned by Tito Wagner, a much lesser-known thriller author who makes his home in Switzerland. The novel bares no resemblance to the claimed author's work other than for locations set in Mississippi. But the DNA testing showed that often Swiss place names appeared in the work, such as the location of the story's courthouse as being listed in Büttenhardt, Mississippi.
The test also showed that other sections of the novel contained almost no portion of the original story and others were only a sprinkling of source material diluted with Project Gutenberg content from a public domain title, mostly Little Women by Louisa May Alcott.
An example:
Nobody spoke for a minute; then Jake said in an altered tone, "You know the reason Lettie proposed not having any presents this Christmas was because it is going to be a hard winter for everyone; and she thinks we ought not to spend money for pleasure, when our men are suffering so in the army. We can't do much, but we can make our little sacrifices, and ought to do it gladly. But I am afraid I don't," and Jake shook his head, as he thought regretfully of all the pretty things he wanted.
Sure it doesn't make much sense as a legal thriller, but so far no one has seemed to notice, heaping immeasurable praise upon this fraud.
Representatives of the publishing industry said that while mislabeling of novels was a legitimate concern, they did not believe it reached the extent suggested by the new research, stating, "Meg (from Little Women) is one hell of a character."
But because the latest findings are backed by DNA testing, they offer perhaps the most credible evidence to date of adulteration, contamination and mislabeling in the publishing industry. And given the explosive growth of ebooks, an area where demands for new books are continuing to rise, the need for fresh content has encouraged this unacceptable behavior. Critics say this blatant misuse of older texts to create new works is either being created from ignorance, incompetence or outright dishonesty.
All agree that more oversight is needed.
---
story idea ripped off from this NYT story about herbal supplements with some sections stolen outright and left unchanged. because it's funnier that way.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Why Public Libraries are no longer WELCOME in the MODERN WORLD
I have a theory that public libraries are tied to the Middle Class in society. And like the disappearance of the middle class in the 21st century, the loss of well-paying jobs, the weakening of trade unions, libraries can also see that there are many who don't want to pay to support something that doesn't directly affect themselves.
When you read about libraries today, you will often see the author repeat that he has not entered a library in many many years. And that is why the library isn't needed. "I" don't need it, so "You" don't need it.
It seems to be a lack of empathy that is killing libraries. You can do just minimal research to learn the part of the brain that guides or forms feelings of empathy is one of the last to develop and that it doesn't develop equally in everyone. You can have a highly developed brain in other areas, be a genius, but develop little or no empathy.
By Trade, the librarian is taught to say, We and You and They need this because the librarian represents everyone. "I need this" is not usually a factor in the decision process.
I'll acknowledge that this role does not explicitly represent empathy. Buying a GED book for the library because the librarian perceives a public need may not be a sign of empathy if that same public wants something else. Librarians believe they are building infrastructure. If there is a general need for something, a librarian considers that material part of the core of the collection.
The worst thing about the "I don't need libraries, so you don't" people is that they attempt to use logic to justify their narcissism:
I don't use libraries.
No one I know uses libraries.
Everything is on the internet.
Everyone has smartphones.
No one needs libraries.
But they don't even use simple reasoning to find out if libraries are useful: VISIT THE LIBRARY.
The most basic rule of science is to observe. Is the library parking lot full? Are people passing through the doors? Are they entering and leaving with objects? What are those objects? What behaviors do you witness on the inside of the library? What are the people doing?
I don't use an Apple iPhone or iPad, but I don't expect the company to go bankrupt because I have no need for their products. Because I can make these observations and apply critical thinking to what I see.
That there are some who don't want to see the need for libraries is just another reason for librarians to work harder to serve the people who actually need us. Otherwise those we serve would just be invisible.
When you read about libraries today, you will often see the author repeat that he has not entered a library in many many years. And that is why the library isn't needed. "I" don't need it, so "You" don't need it.
It seems to be a lack of empathy that is killing libraries. You can do just minimal research to learn the part of the brain that guides or forms feelings of empathy is one of the last to develop and that it doesn't develop equally in everyone. You can have a highly developed brain in other areas, be a genius, but develop little or no empathy.
By Trade, the librarian is taught to say, We and You and They need this because the librarian represents everyone. "I need this" is not usually a factor in the decision process.
I'll acknowledge that this role does not explicitly represent empathy. Buying a GED book for the library because the librarian perceives a public need may not be a sign of empathy if that same public wants something else. Librarians believe they are building infrastructure. If there is a general need for something, a librarian considers that material part of the core of the collection.
The worst thing about the "I don't need libraries, so you don't" people is that they attempt to use logic to justify their narcissism:
I don't use libraries.
No one I know uses libraries.
Everything is on the internet.
Everyone has smartphones.
No one needs libraries.
But they don't even use simple reasoning to find out if libraries are useful: VISIT THE LIBRARY.
The most basic rule of science is to observe. Is the library parking lot full? Are people passing through the doors? Are they entering and leaving with objects? What are those objects? What behaviors do you witness on the inside of the library? What are the people doing?
I don't use an Apple iPhone or iPad, but I don't expect the company to go bankrupt because I have no need for their products. Because I can make these observations and apply critical thinking to what I see.
That there are some who don't want to see the need for libraries is just another reason for librarians to work harder to serve the people who actually need us. Otherwise those we serve would just be invisible.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
I coulda been a Mover. I coulda been a Shaker. Instead, I'm just a bum.
I first took notice when the phone rang. It was my brother Charley's voice. He said, Take the fall.
What? I said.
Tank it. Flub it. Do not answer that question correctly, he said. His voice a mix of anger and desperation. And the line cut off.
So I flubbed it.
A little girl was at the desk looking for a book on Bolivia. The catalog showed we had two on the shelf. But I looked at her innocent face and thought of Charley. Why would he call me at work, here in the library at that exact moment and tell me, beg me, to take a dive? It must be important.
So I sent that girl away with nothing. I didn't even ask her if she could use a book on Paraguay or Argentina. Hell, any librarian would have offered Argentina.
I flubbed it. I told her all the books were checked out. And I did it for Charley. Because he's my brother.
I learned later that the Mafia had moved into the library. Mobsters began taking book on the outcomes of reference queries: would she find the answer, or not? Laying odds based on Google pre-searches, catalog queries, the color of the librarian's cardigan, whether she wore contacts or glasses, many factors. And people were betting money. Big money. The odds in Macau on whether a certain Brooklyn librarian could find one tiny fact hidden within a terabyte of data fluctuates based on what she had for lunch: lo mein and spring rolls or a tuna hoagie.
At first I was surprised that gambling had come to the Reference desk. But then it began to make sense. Was that book on the shelf? 3 to 2 it wasn't. Is the document feeder on the copier going to jam on that folded sheet of paper? 17 to 5.
The library is all about numbers. Most people mistakenly believe the library is about words. But numbers rule. The words are just the decoration.
Item records are numbers. Statistics are numbers. Shelf locations are numbers. Many people have gone through library school after earning their liberal arts degrees in a bewildering cloud of unexpected numbers.
So it's no surprise that these numbers are going to make some people rich.
And that is how I got that call from Charley. He was helping to make his boss rich by taking the long odds against my finding that book and helping that girl. All it took was a threat to something Charley valued to make him make that call. Knowing Charley, it was probably the threat of someone cutting off his balls.
But for me, it was terrible timing because I'd just heard back from the awards committee at Library Journal that I made the short, the extremely short list to be named a Mover & Shaker. I wrote that Chrome browser extension where every instance of the word 'book' links in real time through IP or cell tower to the nearest library location when you touch or click the link. It works great and I was going to get some national recognition. But then Charley called. And, well, as you can guess, I didn't make the final cut.
He had "some guys" who wanted me to sabotage my algorithm to make it less accurate. And I said, Hell, No, and Charley said, But my balls! and I said, Okay. So I pushed the update with the weaker code and now 30% of the clicks direct users to the website for a Subway restaurant in Jacksonville, Florida.
But I almost made it. Almost counts for something, right? And maybe the next time Charley calls, it will be to say that some other schmuck librarian is going to take the dive and it will be my turn in the spotlight. Next time.
What? I said.
Tank it. Flub it. Do not answer that question correctly, he said. His voice a mix of anger and desperation. And the line cut off.
So I flubbed it.
A little girl was at the desk looking for a book on Bolivia. The catalog showed we had two on the shelf. But I looked at her innocent face and thought of Charley. Why would he call me at work, here in the library at that exact moment and tell me, beg me, to take a dive? It must be important.
So I sent that girl away with nothing. I didn't even ask her if she could use a book on Paraguay or Argentina. Hell, any librarian would have offered Argentina.
I flubbed it. I told her all the books were checked out. And I did it for Charley. Because he's my brother.
I learned later that the Mafia had moved into the library. Mobsters began taking book on the outcomes of reference queries: would she find the answer, or not? Laying odds based on Google pre-searches, catalog queries, the color of the librarian's cardigan, whether she wore contacts or glasses, many factors. And people were betting money. Big money. The odds in Macau on whether a certain Brooklyn librarian could find one tiny fact hidden within a terabyte of data fluctuates based on what she had for lunch: lo mein and spring rolls or a tuna hoagie.
At first I was surprised that gambling had come to the Reference desk. But then it began to make sense. Was that book on the shelf? 3 to 2 it wasn't. Is the document feeder on the copier going to jam on that folded sheet of paper? 17 to 5.
The library is all about numbers. Most people mistakenly believe the library is about words. But numbers rule. The words are just the decoration.
Item records are numbers. Statistics are numbers. Shelf locations are numbers. Many people have gone through library school after earning their liberal arts degrees in a bewildering cloud of unexpected numbers.
So it's no surprise that these numbers are going to make some people rich.
And that is how I got that call from Charley. He was helping to make his boss rich by taking the long odds against my finding that book and helping that girl. All it took was a threat to something Charley valued to make him make that call. Knowing Charley, it was probably the threat of someone cutting off his balls.
But for me, it was terrible timing because I'd just heard back from the awards committee at Library Journal that I made the short, the extremely short list to be named a Mover & Shaker. I wrote that Chrome browser extension where every instance of the word 'book' links in real time through IP or cell tower to the nearest library location when you touch or click the link. It works great and I was going to get some national recognition. But then Charley called. And, well, as you can guess, I didn't make the final cut.
He had "some guys" who wanted me to sabotage my algorithm to make it less accurate. And I said, Hell, No, and Charley said, But my balls! and I said, Okay. So I pushed the update with the weaker code and now 30% of the clicks direct users to the website for a Subway restaurant in Jacksonville, Florida.
But I almost made it. Almost counts for something, right? And maybe the next time Charley calls, it will be to say that some other schmuck librarian is going to take the dive and it will be my turn in the spotlight. Next time.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
How we killed the public library
Don't know if you've heard, but the public library is dead. Or dying. Or has a really bad cough.
If you don't know if you know how public libraries worked when they were around, but they were places where people could read and borrow books without having to pay any money for the privilege. Lots of other people with money paid so that people without money could spend their days in a comfortable space away from all the places where the people with money went to spend their days.
And at one time libraries had a noble goal, to educate. And then they had the somewhat less noble goal, to entertain. And now we see libraries without any goals at all, filled with librarians who sigh all day long. Until they can go out and drink all night.
The original primary goal of libraries was probably to find and store copies of all the stuff -- but since that wasn't possible as more stuff was produced, libraries chose to just collect the best stuff. So all these professional associations and publications formed to try to evaluate all the stuff and decide which stuff by which publishers and authors was worth having.
And that worked great for the last 75 years. But then libraries stopped caring so much about the best stuff and began collecting popular stuff, regardless of quality. But at least people borrowed that stuff.
But now we're in a period where we have vendor driven stuff, meaning you get what you get. We had vendor issues in the past with print materials and with CDs and DVDs, but libraries were able to get pretty much anything that was produced. But now we have ebooks available to libraries from one to three vendors and the selection is very limited with some publishers completely opting out from offering any e-content to libraries. And downloadable music has one company that I know of that gets all it music from one publisher. And streaming music and video probably suffers from the same conspiracy of limitations.
And that's where we are now, in a conspiracy of limitations. We get what we get based on any number of intentional or random factors.
So what does this mean in the really bad cough of libraries?
I guess there will be libraries with no books. They will call themselves Conversation Stations, or some other bullshit, and they will feel successful because the seats are filled every day with people streaming movies to their "devices" - whatever the fuck those will be. But there might still be libraries that are still serious about being libraries. And they will have books. (Please, let them have books.)
Ask any library professional to speculate on the future of the public library and as you listen, you will hear a prediction of its death. You will hear about the evolving space and the concept of community and some other incarnation whereby the library is essentially an open-air toilet with some bookmarks left over from a summer reading program in 2006. Services will evolve, they say as if those words are brand new.
But when free wireless is available city-wide, delivered from Google dirigibles or a massive congestion of overlapping signals from McDonald's and Starbucks, what will the library have left to offer?
I read articles where some idiot laments the difficulty with using library resources, catalogs, databases. They want everything to be easier. But tools are not easy to use; you cut your finger on a kitchen knife or smash your thumb with a hammer, but no one stops cutting or hammering. We learn. If tools were easy, we would all fix our own cars. But no, professional mechanics fix your car. Some librarians want to dumb down the profession of librarianship! To what end? Why the fuck would you want to do that? So what if the catalog is difficult to use: teach people to use it. The people who learn will be smart and the other assholes will remain assholes; it's that simple.
The librarians want people to share more with others. Share. More. You know identity theft didn't affect hardly anyone 15 years ago. There was maybe one movie on Lifetime about how "She Stole My Identity and My Daughter." But now everyone, EVERYONE, has received a letter from some company stating that your credit card information may have been included in the 200 million accounts that were stolen from their computers and that you should monitor your credit for $6.95 a month FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
So what is the future of the public library when there are no books, everything is in the cloud, wireless access is everywhere and professional librarians are replaced with videos and online tutorials?
No books means no building.
The Cloud means no building.
Online tutorials mean no building.
And no building means no staff.
But wait! The librarians say, We're a Conversation Station! Or a Community Center! Or a Homeless Shelter!
Sure you are. But is that a Library?
You can cheer and say you did your job because everyone has what they want and the mission is served, but the library will be gone.
My idea of the library has always included some form of Quality Control. I went to school to learn what that is. But now we don't seem to care about what content the library offers, just that it circulates.
The librarian used to provide answers. But this new librarian just wants to sit back and let the people converse.
What is the answer? everyone asks.
And the librarian grins, Exactly. Because everyone is talking.
I think librarians feel inadequate compared to the internet. After all, the internet has all the answers. The internet got faster while the librarian just seemed like an unnecessary second step in finding information. So the librarian quit offering to find information. The librarian outsourced more of the answers to the database vendors and told people how to search but not how to find the right answers.
And when the people proved too stupid to find the answers in the databases, the librarians gave up on those and funneled all the money into streaming movies and music. Which is okay because if you look at the library mission, there's always something in there about "community needs." And when your community is too dumb to learn, then give them Adam Sandler flicks.
I don't think about what the library will be like in 2020. Maybe it will be an organ farm, forming body parts in organic 3D printers. I don't give a fuck. I just know that for a library to function, information should be accessible. And that requires three things: information, the information seeker and the librarian.
And moving any part of that equation farther and farther from the library is not how I define accessibility.
If you don't know if you know how public libraries worked when they were around, but they were places where people could read and borrow books without having to pay any money for the privilege. Lots of other people with money paid so that people without money could spend their days in a comfortable space away from all the places where the people with money went to spend their days.
And at one time libraries had a noble goal, to educate. And then they had the somewhat less noble goal, to entertain. And now we see libraries without any goals at all, filled with librarians who sigh all day long. Until they can go out and drink all night.
The original primary goal of libraries was probably to find and store copies of all the stuff -- but since that wasn't possible as more stuff was produced, libraries chose to just collect the best stuff. So all these professional associations and publications formed to try to evaluate all the stuff and decide which stuff by which publishers and authors was worth having.
And that worked great for the last 75 years. But then libraries stopped caring so much about the best stuff and began collecting popular stuff, regardless of quality. But at least people borrowed that stuff.
But now we're in a period where we have vendor driven stuff, meaning you get what you get. We had vendor issues in the past with print materials and with CDs and DVDs, but libraries were able to get pretty much anything that was produced. But now we have ebooks available to libraries from one to three vendors and the selection is very limited with some publishers completely opting out from offering any e-content to libraries. And downloadable music has one company that I know of that gets all it music from one publisher. And streaming music and video probably suffers from the same conspiracy of limitations.
And that's where we are now, in a conspiracy of limitations. We get what we get based on any number of intentional or random factors.
So what does this mean in the really bad cough of libraries?
I guess there will be libraries with no books. They will call themselves Conversation Stations, or some other bullshit, and they will feel successful because the seats are filled every day with people streaming movies to their "devices" - whatever the fuck those will be. But there might still be libraries that are still serious about being libraries. And they will have books. (Please, let them have books.)
Ask any library professional to speculate on the future of the public library and as you listen, you will hear a prediction of its death. You will hear about the evolving space and the concept of community and some other incarnation whereby the library is essentially an open-air toilet with some bookmarks left over from a summer reading program in 2006. Services will evolve, they say as if those words are brand new.
But when free wireless is available city-wide, delivered from Google dirigibles or a massive congestion of overlapping signals from McDonald's and Starbucks, what will the library have left to offer?
I read articles where some idiot laments the difficulty with using library resources, catalogs, databases. They want everything to be easier. But tools are not easy to use; you cut your finger on a kitchen knife or smash your thumb with a hammer, but no one stops cutting or hammering. We learn. If tools were easy, we would all fix our own cars. But no, professional mechanics fix your car. Some librarians want to dumb down the profession of librarianship! To what end? Why the fuck would you want to do that? So what if the catalog is difficult to use: teach people to use it. The people who learn will be smart and the other assholes will remain assholes; it's that simple.
The librarians want people to share more with others. Share. More. You know identity theft didn't affect hardly anyone 15 years ago. There was maybe one movie on Lifetime about how "She Stole My Identity and My Daughter." But now everyone, EVERYONE, has received a letter from some company stating that your credit card information may have been included in the 200 million accounts that were stolen from their computers and that you should monitor your credit for $6.95 a month FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
So what is the future of the public library when there are no books, everything is in the cloud, wireless access is everywhere and professional librarians are replaced with videos and online tutorials?
No books means no building.
The Cloud means no building.
Online tutorials mean no building.
And no building means no staff.
But wait! The librarians say, We're a Conversation Station! Or a Community Center! Or a Homeless Shelter!
Sure you are. But is that a Library?
You can cheer and say you did your job because everyone has what they want and the mission is served, but the library will be gone.
My idea of the library has always included some form of Quality Control. I went to school to learn what that is. But now we don't seem to care about what content the library offers, just that it circulates.
The librarian used to provide answers. But this new librarian just wants to sit back and let the people converse.
What is the answer? everyone asks.
And the librarian grins, Exactly. Because everyone is talking.
I think librarians feel inadequate compared to the internet. After all, the internet has all the answers. The internet got faster while the librarian just seemed like an unnecessary second step in finding information. So the librarian quit offering to find information. The librarian outsourced more of the answers to the database vendors and told people how to search but not how to find the right answers.
And when the people proved too stupid to find the answers in the databases, the librarians gave up on those and funneled all the money into streaming movies and music. Which is okay because if you look at the library mission, there's always something in there about "community needs." And when your community is too dumb to learn, then give them Adam Sandler flicks.
I don't think about what the library will be like in 2020. Maybe it will be an organ farm, forming body parts in organic 3D printers. I don't give a fuck. I just know that for a library to function, information should be accessible. And that requires three things: information, the information seeker and the librarian.
And moving any part of that equation farther and farther from the library is not how I define accessibility.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Because we are cheap labor
It's amazing what the switch to an Information Economy does to a society.
There was an article a few months ago that showed why Amazon doesn't make a profit.
here's one. Yet, Jeff Bezos has enough money to buy the Washington Post.
And Google produces nothing as far as I can tell, yet it is one of the most powerful companies in the world.
And Facebook is worth $50-$100 billion? And they produce, what?
And the companies that produce actual products or manage commodities aren't nearly as rich as the ones who manage information.
Agriculture and manufacturing may keep humans alive, but information gives us purpose.
Each of us must expect that we are here to produce data and information. You might be mad that Google reads your email, but that's their job, and yours, to let them. And what asshole thinks that free email is like paid snail mail? If you could pay 46 cents, the current price of a stamp, to send an email with the guarantee it would not be read, would you pay it?
No, you wouldn't.
In the current economy, we produce data. And we are rewarded with more crap than we can read or view or hear in this lifetime. We consume what we produce and produce what we consume. It's a cycle. But in this information chain, we humans are very near the bottom and companies like Amazon and Google, Facebook are at the top.
I just think it's interesting that snail mail and landline phone calls and UHF/VHF television and AM/FM radio could never be monetized in the way that digital media is now. Companies could only guess at what motivated consumers. But now that we are both the producers and the consumers, companies know everything. Because we just give it away.
There was an article a few months ago that showed why Amazon doesn't make a profit.
here's one. Yet, Jeff Bezos has enough money to buy the Washington Post.
And Google produces nothing as far as I can tell, yet it is one of the most powerful companies in the world.
And Facebook is worth $50-$100 billion? And they produce, what?
And the companies that produce actual products or manage commodities aren't nearly as rich as the ones who manage information.
Agriculture and manufacturing may keep humans alive, but information gives us purpose.
Each of us must expect that we are here to produce data and information. You might be mad that Google reads your email, but that's their job, and yours, to let them. And what asshole thinks that free email is like paid snail mail? If you could pay 46 cents, the current price of a stamp, to send an email with the guarantee it would not be read, would you pay it?
No, you wouldn't.
In the current economy, we produce data. And we are rewarded with more crap than we can read or view or hear in this lifetime. We consume what we produce and produce what we consume. It's a cycle. But in this information chain, we humans are very near the bottom and companies like Amazon and Google, Facebook are at the top.
I just think it's interesting that snail mail and landline phone calls and UHF/VHF television and AM/FM radio could never be monetized in the way that digital media is now. Companies could only guess at what motivated consumers. But now that we are both the producers and the consumers, companies know everything. Because we just give it away.
Monday, July 29, 2013
THE FUTURE OF LIBRARIES IS...
<drumroll>
library users.
Thank you. You may go back to work.
Google gives over one million results for "a solution in search of a problem." So there should be a word for that, right? If there isn't one, make one up and create a Wikipedia for it with some bogus reference to a German text citing "Lösungnichtproblem," a solution without a problem.
Libraries are continually pushing new solutions to imagined problems. When, to quote the scholar Johnny Rotten, "the problem is you."
Problem, what you gonna do?
Here is what I see in my library. This is the library patron who hasn't visited any library in many years:
There's no reason to chase the customer who can't think of a reason, all on his own, to visit the library. You don't need him.
That NEW THING is not going to get that person to visit the library.
But since you work in a library and you don't know what else to do with your time, I suspect you'll buy that NEW THING.
Did you hire more staff when you did that NEW THING?
No
So existing staff need to find time to learn this NEW THING?
Yes
And spend time not helping your existing customers?
Yes.
THEN DON'T DO THAT NEW THING.
Why would you neglect your existing customers to chase after some hypothetical new customer?
Do you enjoy making people unhappy?
If you look at your visitor stats and your circulation stats and your program stats, and
everything looks good, then why are you fucking with anything?
Did you find new money to spend on this new thing?
If not, did you survey your users to see if they agree with diverting money away from old
things to this new thing?
But let's assume you answer Yes to having new money for new things. And we'll also assume everyone has time to learn this new thing. And you're not really sure what the new thing will do for your library users, but you're read about some success with the new thing at other libraries.
Then, by all means, do it. You have my blessing.
library users.
Thank you. You may go back to work.
Google gives over one million results for "a solution in search of a problem." So there should be a word for that, right? If there isn't one, make one up and create a Wikipedia for it with some bogus reference to a German text citing "Lösungnichtproblem," a solution without a problem.
Libraries are continually pushing new solutions to imagined problems. When, to quote the scholar Johnny Rotten, "the problem is you."
Problem, what you gonna do?
Here is what I see in my library. This is the library patron who hasn't visited any library in many years:
I haven't been to a library since I was a little girl.That's your motherfucking library customer.
What brought you in today?
Well, then, the library is here for you.
- I'm tired of buying shit that I can get for free.
- I also don't need to own more shit.
- I just want to read the book or watch the movie or listen to the album and then get it the hell out of my house.
- I don't want my family to have to sell a whole bunch of crap after I die.
There's no reason to chase the customer who can't think of a reason, all on his own, to visit the library. You don't need him.
That NEW THING is not going to get that person to visit the library.
But since you work in a library and you don't know what else to do with your time, I suspect you'll buy that NEW THING.
Did you hire more staff when you did that NEW THING?
No
So existing staff need to find time to learn this NEW THING?
Yes
And spend time not helping your existing customers?
Yes.
THEN DON'T DO THAT NEW THING.
Why would you neglect your existing customers to chase after some hypothetical new customer?
Do you enjoy making people unhappy?
If you look at your visitor stats and your circulation stats and your program stats, and
everything looks good, then why are you fucking with anything?
Did you find new money to spend on this new thing?
If not, did you survey your users to see if they agree with diverting money away from old
things to this new thing?
But let's assume you answer Yes to having new money for new things. And we'll also assume everyone has time to learn this new thing. And you're not really sure what the new thing will do for your library users, but you're read about some success with the new thing at other libraries.
Then, by all means, do it. You have my blessing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)