Pacs in the Library 2.0 World

Jesse Haro, Burton Barr Central Library, Phoenix AZ;
Mary Catherine Little, Director of Tech Services, Queens Borough (NY) Library; Grace Lillevig, eBranch Librarian, Harris County Public Library, Houston, TX; Ross McLachlan, Library Services Administrator, Burton Barr Central Library, Phoenix, AZ; Amy Cantu, Production Librarian, Ann Arbor (Mich) District Library.

Patron Reviews:
Annotation cards are paper based and antiquated. They are just not as useful as they once were.
Every webpage has some sort of review (Amazon, eBay, etc). Why shouldn’t there be reviews on the library webpage?

There are four options for reviews.

1. Blogs:
Blogging is easy and free. Blogging only allows staff reviews, but can be set up to allow patron comments. Can be done through a variety of sites and linked to home page. Include all staff in blogging process. Have a rotating blog schedule and each staff member blogs a couple times a week or as time allows. A blog can be as simple as a paragraph and as much as many pages.
Seattle Public Library has a good blog with comment options.
(http://shelftalk.spl.org/)

2. Wiki:
Wikis are good for patron reviews and can be set up in minutes. The wikis can be opened or closed. This means that staff could control who can and can’t make posts.
Palo Alto City Library has a good example of this.
(http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/lib/news/details.asp?NewsID=505&TargetID=140)

3. Custom Database:
This option takes time and money to set up, however it is customizable.
Harris County Public Library has a good example of this.
This option can also make use of captions and various levels of moderation.
The only required information when making a review is the book title and the review. They also suggest asking only for the patron’s first name for privacy sake.

4. Commercial Options:
The final option is having a site built for us. This obviously costs money and will limit the control staff has over it.
It is customizable and able to be integrated into the catalog. It is also possible to include a data pool from many different libraries.
http://www.chilifresh.com/



Once reviews are established patrons tend to find reviewers who they like and respect and will read more of their reviews. It’s a neat and unexpected networking aspect of online patron reviews.

Things to consider:
Moderation- We will want to review submissions before they are live on the internet.

Staff Time- How much time does staff need to spend reviewing/moderating?

Cost- Is this something we’d want to pay for or do more inexpensively?

Customization- How flashy do we want this?

Usability- We want this to be easy for both Staff and Patrons to use.