 |
 |
no one has mention the integration of LibGuides into other packages. Anyone here involved with Summon 2.0? it is integrating libguides... but we are not a libguide site. curious if others would put that into the consideration bucket. Sent from New Gadget On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:13 PM, Lauren Magnuson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I've worked at a small, under-resourced institution that had LibGuides, > despite the fact that as a staff member I did have the technical know-how > to install and maintain an open-source solution. So why didn't we? My > existing job duties without an open-source guide project already demanded > 120% of a full-time position. With no time to investigate and test an > open-source solution, the value we got back for our LibGuides cost was my > time as a staff member to do other things. We weren't going to be able to > pay for additional staff support with $1000 / yr. > > Some small libraries at institutions also have very little say at the IT > negotiation table - for examples, policies may exist that state that any > campus department wishing to host software either ask to use the existing > campus host or ask for (read: beg) permission to go with one's own host if > there's a desire to use a code library that isn't supported by the campus > host (and there are a lot of institutions with leadership that is VERY > suspicious of open source, and therefore only use proprietary frameworks > like ASP.NET). Either way, you're begging for permission to have access to > something. I've been in this situation where the reaction to a request to > pursue open-source is disbelief - how can those luddites in the library > possibly have the skill/experience/interest in getting themselves into > something like this? It can be very hard to justify when an administrator > is also expecting the one person who would know how to manage the > open-source project to leave at any time, and IT certainly doesn't want to > provide staff time to support some weirdo project librarians came up with. > There are university libraries that are moving toward using LibGuides as > their entire library web presence. In many cases this is because just to > change a link on their university-provided library website they have to go > through 6 layers of approval and wait two weeks. > > It's not an ideal situation, and may not be helping the big picture, but > there are lots of libraries that are just trying to survive. Thus, > LibGuides. FWIW, we got a lot of usage out of it, and cost per use was > incredibly low (and much lower than cpu for our other > subscriptions/databases). > > Lauren Magnuson > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Darby <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I don't get this argument at all. Why is it "counter productive to try to >> look at open source alternatives" if the vendor's option is relatively >> cheap? Why wouldn't you investigate all options? Maybe the vendor option >> makes sense, maybe the open source option does. >> >> The "technology skills" for open source software are on the >> install/maintenance side. It's not like the content creator has to do some >> crazy programming if they want to create a guide in the open source option, >> while in LibGuides a team of angels guides their every click and drag. >> >> And if technology skills are missing, how does writing a check to >> Springshare remedy the situation? How does sending that check to >> Springshare benefit the "small poorly resourced" libraries? >> >> I assume I'm preaching to choir when I say that we should all be open to >> supporting our peers' open source efforts, rather than dismissing them out >> of hand. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask] >>> wrote: >> >>> Technology tools are a non issue here. Straightforward documented open >>> source technology is readily available. What is missing is technology >>> skills. Someone can't buy those if they don't already have technology >>> skills, or else they are a sitting duck for scammers. >>> >>> With a basic pricing of about $1000 a year, it's counter productive to >> try >>> look at open source alternatives. $1000 a year with more handholding is >>> good. Even companies, like lishost, which do open source for libraries >>> price in this same range, because they have to take on more handholding. >> I >>> also don't see vendor lock in issues in LibGuides, since the research >>> guides concept includes routine change and replacing content. >>> >>> If you want libraries to operate better, what you should be doing is >> having >>> conversations with people from a variety of libraries, including small >>> poorly resourced ones, recognizing that there is a spectrum of needs, and >>> being available to provide realistic advice. (That advice would be >>> different for different libraries.) >>> >>> Lack of access to technology skill creates the situations in which >>> LibGuides is useful and beneficial. Lack of access to technology >>> skill causes most situations in which LibGuides are a counter productive >>> waste of time, whether that's a misguided administrator or poor >>> interdepartmental communication (yes, even competent IT housed in a >> library >>> is sometimes not proactive and helpful at being in touch with IT-hostile >>> reference departments). If you have technology skill, then by having >> broad >>> connections and being available to give advice or pointers, you can >> assist >>> libraries / departments that don't have the luxury of having access to >>> technology skill. If all you do is drum on open source diy, when there >> is >>> a low cost alternative that works, then you harm things. >>> >>> -Wilhelmina Randtke >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Andrew Darby <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are open source solutions created by librarians: SubjectsPlus >> and >>>> Library a la Carte. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Cornel Darden Jr. < >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello? >>>>> >>>>> Soringshre's link-rot tool has gotten much better. Even at alerting >>>> admins >>>>> about broken links. I think $999 a year for the basic package is >> worth >>> it >>>>> since most librarians aren't coders like we 'ALL' should be! Maybe an >>>> open >>>>> source solution created by librarians is needed. However database >>>>> management will still require librarians to pick up those skills like >>> SQL >>>>> that we too often think isn't or shouldn't be a skill that a >> librarian >>>> must >>>>> have. It's the 21st century!!!! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Cornel Darden Jr. >>>>> MSLIS >>>>> Librarian >>>>> Kennedy-King College >>>>> City Colleges of Chicago >>>>> Work 773-602-5449 >>>>> Cell 708-705-2945 >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 11, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Robert Sebek <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Heather Rayl <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have to say that I loathe LibGuides. My library makes extensive >>> use >>>> of >>>>>>> them, too. Need a web solution? The first thing out of someone's >>> mouth >>>>> is >>>>>>> "Let's put it in a LibGuide!" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shudder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This fall, I'll be moving our main site over to Drupal, and I'm >>> hoping >>>>> that >>>>>>> eventually I can convince people to re-invent their LibGuides >>> there. I >>>>> can >>>>>>> use the "saving money" card, and the "content silos are bad" card >>> and >>>>>>> *maybe* I will be successful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone fought this particular battle before? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~heather >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm fighting that battle right now. We have an excellent CMS into >>>> which >>>>> I >>>>>> have set up all our database URLs, descriptions, etc.Anytime we >> need >>> to >>>>>> refer to a database on a page, we use one of those entries. That >>>> database >>>>>> just changed platforms? No problem. I change the URL in one place >> and >>>>>> everything automatically updates (hooray CMSs!). >>>>>> >>>>>> All of our subject guides (http://www.lib.vt.edu/subject-guides/) >>> are >>>> in >>>>>> the CMS using the exact same database entries. I converted from our >>>>>> failing, home-grown system into the CMS and then gave training on >> how >>>> to >>>>>> maintain from there (remove an entry, add an entry, create a >> parallel >>>>>> course guide)--using the same skills as maintaining any other web >>> page >>>>> that >>>>>> librarian is responsible for. But apparently that's too hard. >>>>>> >>>>>> So we have a trial of LibGuides. NO ONE here has created a guide >> from >>>>>> scratch yet, but they all say this is going to be easy. No one >> will >>>>> admit >>>>>> that someone will have to recreate all those database entries >>>> (literally >>>>>> hundreds) and then maintain those entries. When presented with >> this, >>>>>> several librarians said--oh that won't be necessary, we'll just >>> create >>>>>> individual entries as needed on individual guides. WHAT?! >>>>>> >>>>>> If implemented, we'll have hundreds and hundreds of entries, any of >>>> which >>>>>> could be out of date and nonfunctional, with no easy way to find >> and >>>> fix, >>>>>> other than waiting for patrons to complain that the link doesn't >>> work. >>>>> Ugh. >>>>>> All for several thousand dollar a year (as opposed for free in the >>>> CMS). >>>>>> >>>>>> And yes, those librarians' favorite example libguides have a dozen >>> tabs >>>>>> with hundreds of links on each tab. Overwhelm the patron with >>>> links--who >>>>>> cares! Just let me recreate the Yahoo Directory I so miss with >> every >>>>>> possible resource I can find online. Half those links don't work >> next >>>>>> semester? Doesn't matter, as no one will ever maintain that page >>> again >>>>> (and >>>>>> no patron will use it, since they will just Google these resources >>>>> anyway). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Robert Sebek >>>>>> Webmaster, Virginia Tech Libraries >>>>>> (http://www.lib.vt.edu/) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Darby >>>> Head, Web & Emerging Technologies >>>> University of Miami Libraries >> >> >> >> -- >> Andrew Darby >> Head, Web & Emerging Technologies >> University of Miami Libraries > > > > -- > PALNI Systems Coordinator > 530-949-5108