Google data goes missing
Google glitch loses user data, By Dan Goodin, The Register 26th April 2007. Google users found that "settings and data they've amassed over months have suddenly gone missing from their personalized homepage." Although this story doesn't directly pertain to government information it has a lesson for us. While the loss of individual preferences is hard on the individual, it is not the same as losing public information that we want accessible forever. We hope that Google will be able to restore these user preferences, but the lesson here should not escape us:
Over the years, the many free services offered by Google and its competitors have become indispensable to many of us, but they also bring to mind the old adage that we get what we pay for. And Google's personalized homepage isn't the only such service to show signs of untrustworthiness....As libraries (and government agencies) increasingly rely on Google to provide essential access to government information (e.g., Google to index government deep web? and Google begins to offer full-text scanned government documents and Agencies are working with Google to boost rankings and increase traffic and Cabbage Statistics, a microcosm of our selection decisions?), we should all be asking ourselves if this is an adequate infrastructure for permanent access. Every time we think "I don't have to [index, catalog, fill-in-the-blank-service] because Google will..." we should ask ourselves what we'll do if Google doesn't, or fails, or changes it's services. If we do more (e.g., Cabbage statistics and google bombs), we will at least be able to use our own systems and Google and its competitors and its successors. An even more important question is, do we know what google does and how it does it? What do they index and how do they rank? What gets ranked high and what gets ranked low? How deeply do they index a given web site? Are these the same decisions that we would make? Have they changed what they do since last week? Are they the right decisions for our users? Does there need to be an alternative that we control and can explain to our users and thus better help them? Continue reading
Technical Requirement for Digital Deposit
A recent thread on the govdoc-l mailing list is about digital deposit. See Digital Deposit by Janet Fischer, 26 Apr 2007 and digital deposit by James [R.] Jacobs, 27 Apr 2007. Thanks to Janet for bringing this up and to James for the helpful links to technical information on digital deposit. I'd just like to add two thoughts: 1. I believe that it is best to think about digital deposit in much the same way we think about paper deposit: every library will be different. We shouldn't be looking for a one size fits all solution in the digital world anymore than we expect any two depositories to be identical. The technical requirements that any given library comes up with will depend on the level of service and collection profile that the library chooses. We should be thinking of services and collections first and technology second. We should not be trying to shoehorn our service and collection decisions into an abstract technological solution. Nor should we assume that every digital depository will have to meet the same requirements that an OCLC, CDL, NARA, or FDSys will meet. I can, for example, easily imagine a small depository with a slow or intermittent Internet connection and little or no online services selecting a few essential titles and putting them on a stand-alone public PC so that users can easily use those titles when in the library even if the network is down or slow or the originating site unreachable. And, at another extreme, I can see a large library, which already has some digital collections online and accessible over the web, adding government information to its collection and integrating government and non-government sources together so that its users do not have to go to two different interfaces or sites to find the information they need. You can probably easily expand these simple examples too your own situation and see where digital deposit will fit into your existing collections and services -- or collections and services you are planning. 2. I think it is equally important to emphasize to library management and to your technical support people that there are different technologies for implementing any given collection and service plan. Again, I believe that we should not be looking for a one-size-fits-all technological solution -- even for similar collection and service plans. For example, one library might choose to use LOCKSS to implement online collections, another might use its institutional repository software (e.g., DSpace, EPrints, Greenstone, etc.), another might use content management software, and another might integrated documents into its existing webspace by uploading them to the same server that hosts its existing html documents. The point is that there are different technical ways to implement the same collection and service plans. I hope this helps and others will contribute to this thread. If you have specific suggestion or solutions that you anticipate using, please share your stories! Continue reading
Anonymous Senator Blocks Campaign E-Disclosure Again
Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill, By Matthew Mosk, Washington Post, Friday, April 27, 2007; A21.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically. Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years.Continue reading
Are there really 25 states without a podcast?
As you know, FGI has been paying renewed attention to government podcasts. After moderate searching on some people's favorite search engine, I have concluded that the 25 states listed below have no state government podcasts:
Alabama - AL - www.alabama.gov - Nothing found 4/26/2007
Alaska - AK Nothing found 4/26/2007
Arizona - AZ Nothing found 4/26/2007
Colorado - CO Nothing as of 4/26/2007
Hawaii - HI Nothing Found 4/26
Idaho - ID Nothing found 4/26
Iowa - IA Nothing found 4/26
Louisiana - LA Nothing found 4/26
Maine - ME Nothing found 4/26
Maryland - MD Nothing found 4/26
Massachusetts - MA Nothing found 4/26
Montana - MT Nothing found 4/26
New Hampshire - NH Nothing found 4/26
New Jersey - NJ Nothing found 4/26
New Mexico - NM Nothing found 4/26
North Dakota - ND Nothing found 4/26
Oklahoma - OK Nothing found 4/26
Pennsylvania - PA Nothing found 4/26
Rhode Island - RI Nothing found 4/26 - but ri.gov looks like they're getting ready to podcast in near future.
South Carolina - SC Nothing found 4/26
South Dakota - SD Nothing found 4/26
Vermont - VT Nothing found 4/26
West Virginia - WV Nothing found 4/26
Wyoming - WY Nothing found 4/26
Am I right? I am defining a government podcast as follows:
- It must have audio or video produced either by a state agency, local government or an elected official.
- It must be hosted on a government server (.orgs/.edu that clearly id themselves as a gov't body ok).
- The agency must put the CAST in podCAST by having an obvious way to subscribe to the podcast feed (RSS, iTunes, etc). Posting static audio files and expecting people to manually download files one by one won't cut it.)
Cabbage statistics and google bombs
The recent govdoc-l posts regarding cabbage statistics, selection and google piqued our collective FGI interest (thanks Chuck, Carlos and Amy!). I thought it might be interesting to share our thoughts and connect these threads together. After reading the above govdoc-l posts, Daniel, Jim and I had a spirited discussion about the Congressional Record, databases, and google. We explored whether or not google indexes the CR (turns out that at least for cabbages, google gets to at least some of the "correct" data), all of that un-indexed information stuck in govt databases, and the fact that anyone who uses google will miss out on govt info in the "dark web." What really resonated in the original thread was that Chuck was willing to deselect that item because cabbage is not of interest to Illinoisans (sorry Chuck, but I'm glad Carlos pointed out that that decision would be short-sighted). But also, we found it interesting that the google searches all hit on a site at Cornell rather than a gpoaccess purl, and even the purl pointed to the Cornell site. And this leads to the main gist of our internal discussion. Rather than shrugging our collective shoulders at the ubiquity of google, we should be using google's indexing strategy and people's search inclinations to our advantage (google docs bombing if you will). The article that Amy referenced ("Agencies are working with Google to boost rankings and increase traffic" by Trudy Walsh) discussed how govt agencies were starting to do just that (if inadvertantly!). We need to create our own govt info sites, remix govt info, open up our catalogs -- or better yet use tools like scriblio, a not-yet-released Wordpress plugin that converts marcXML to blog posts (check out the Cook Memorial Library in Tamworth, NH for a look at scriblio nee WPopac). And once we have govt info in as many indexable places as possible, we (meaning docs librarians but also librarians in general) need to make sure that all those index points lead the info-curious back to our analog collections. In other words, we need to leverage the google logorithm and users search proclivities, to position ourselves in the online environment. Here's a real world example (apologies for tooting the FGI horn :-) ). The Wall Street Journal contacted us this week wanting to know about government podcasts (Daniel's audio interview will be up in a few days!). We found it odd that WSJ would want to talk with us until we did a few searches and realized why. If you do a Google search on the words "government podcasts," FGI's the first hit, above that for usa.gov. FGI is 2nd on Yahoo, just below usa.gov. We're #1 on ask.com. We didn't do anything special, we just described a subject area that happened to be of interest to the WSJ. And this is what libraries can and should be doing. Shinjoung and I saw Rick and Megan Prelinger talk two nights ago. For those of you who don't know, Rick is a film archivist and is on the board of the Internet Archive, Megan's an independent scholar and bird rescuer; the two of them have built their own amazing library! A couple of things that stuck in my mind about their talk was when they described the library as an "analog-digital landscape of ideas" and an "information ecology." I think that's what we need to be building. That's what archives do with digital finding aids, and that's what we need to do with the rest of the library. WE know that only an extremely miniscule portion of knowledge/information will ever be digitized, and only a small portion of that will be accessible via google (I *hate* snippets!), but the general public doesn't know that. We also know, as Carlos said, “You just never know when that piece of information will be useful to anybody.†I'll end with a link to David Weinberger's blog where he quotes (with permission) an email from Bobbi Carlton about a conversation she had recently with Bernie Margolis, president of the Boston Public Library:
“Bernie Margolis was ... talking about how people think the Web is going to put libraries out of business. He says that the more hits on the BPL website, the more visitors come to the library. The more people learn about the library, the more they come in. The BPL sees a direct correlation between web traffic and foot traffic but that is because the library is more than a repository of things and information - it is a resource as well."Continue reading