LibraryThing Scanner: an App Review

I’ve recently begun using my LibraryThing account in earnest, and have been adding books to my “to read” list by the dozen. In the course of doing so, I’ve found myself missing the barcode scanner I use at work to make quick work of ISBN numbers. LibraryThing sells its own barcode scanners, but knowing what smartphones can do means that I am reluctant to buy something when I think there might be a free alternative. Sure enough - there’s an app for LibraryThing. Unfortunately for me, it’s not available for Android yet. Fortunately for me, someone came up with a work-around app that scans barcodes and links them to LibraryThing records. So, huzzah for the aptly-named LibraryThing Scanner! Well… in theory. 

The app starts off well, with a very simple one-screen interface:

Hard to mess up here

And the scanner itself works even when you hold it at awkward, blurry angles:

This focused quickly

But the link that opens to the webpage… that’s where I ran into problems. The big one being: LibraryThing does not have a mobile page. Accordingly, the text is small, the pages hard to navigate, and the search results difficult to see. 

This... this is too small

The app did the job as advertised, and I suspect that if given a very large stack of books, it might be worth the navigational issues. Scanning several more codes demonstrated that the process does get quicker each time, particularly if the “add a book” settings remain the same. This app gets 2 ½ stars of 5 from me; with a bit of effort, it serves its purpose as a free way to imput books quickly. That being said - I’ll be using it as a stop-gap until the Android app for LibraryThing comes out and streamlines the process even more.

MUVErs and Shakers

MUVErs and Shakers

Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) have been around for a while now, so I’m a bit ashamed to say that, but for the educational variety (Blackboard, Moodle, and Canvas), I have fairly little experience with them. The subset of MUVEs that involves gameplay is of increasing interest to me, however. The Sims were big during my grade school years, but when I played, I played solo on my computer, not in a setting like The Sims Online, where players can interact with other players. Since my Sims and Age of Empires days (the latter being installed on a school computer), I have only dabbled in multiplayer gaming. What games I have dabbled in have been less thoughtful and interactive and more about crushing the opposite team (not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind).

The options for The River City Project 

Given the continued growth of MUVEs and related gaming, I thought it might be worth doing some exploring to see what different applications of the concept look like. As expected, many of the most-used and most visually pleasing games are those that are entertainment-driven and designed by gaming studios (Wikipedia has a handy list here). However, the world of education is jumping on the bandwagon and coming up with many inventive games that combine schooling with interactive gaming. The key feature of these games as far as I can tell is the interactive part - other educational games have been around for some time. I am following the development of a historical game about the development of a smallpox vaccine in 1800s Edinburgh called Pox in the City (funded by a National Endowment for the Humanities grant). The beta game seems fun (the final game looks even more so), but lacked many of the features used in a similar game developed by Harvard called the River City Project. Although the subject of smallpox in Scotland seems more interesting to me than general disease spread in a generic town, Harvard’s game allows a richer experience with its interactive options. Students can talk with each other as they play, take notes, draw maps, and accordingly process and learn together in a way that they could not in Pox and the City.

Both games focus on teaching students scientific principles in a historical setting, and I think it’s safe to say that they both achieve their aim - but I also think that interaction, much like class discussion, is a more effective way to learn. Regardless, it is clear that this is a style of game we will be seeing a lot more of in the future.

Mock-up of the finished Pox and the City game, aiming for historical accuracy (from Pox and the City by Sam Kean, Humanities v.34, issue 1, 2013). 

Social Networks for Libraries

     My inclination when thinking about library advocacy is to use every social network available in attempt to reach the widest possible audience. However, there are an increasing amount of social networks out there, and maintaining a presence on all of them is time-consuming and, frankly, unnecessary. Just because MySpace and LiveJournal are still around does not mean that they will be effective in marketing a library (with those two, it might even do the opposite).

    Thankfully, there are networks that are particularly useful platforms to focus on using. For my purposes, I’ll be looking at Facebook and Goodreads. These two social networks have a handful of things in common - they both are:

• free
• allow for profiles
• allow for private messaging
• allow for group pages
• connect you to “friends”
• have widgets you can integrate into library sites, and
• link to each other

Outside of these standard similarities, the two sites operate with different purposes, and are best used accordingly.

   Facebook is a force in the digital world; it aims to connect individuals to just about anything. Users can share things with each other through messages, posts, links, and instant messages. Audiovisual media is also easily added and viewed on Facebook. Perhaps most relevant to libraries is the option to create a profile and page for an institution rather than an individual. These profiles can be a space where libraries can post hours, list services, promote events, advertise new holdings, give directions, and make other announcements (among others). These options make Facebook at particularly great platform for general library outreach, particularly because so many people use the network.

IUPUI's Organizational Profile Page is a media smorgasbord! 

    Goodreads, in contrast, is more focused. While Facebook is a heavy hitter in promoting a library, Goodreads is useful in working with a library (particularly if patrons are aware of the site). Books are the focus of Goodreads, and the network allows for the creation of monitored book groups that meet in person or online, provide lists, make recommendations, and display descriptions, reviews, trailers, author information, and book location (including libraries!). 

Lots of things to play with here!

Quizzes, quotes, trivia, and other miscellaneous related topics can also be found. All this in-depth information on books does mean that Goodreads does neglect other media like film, music, journals, and databases. Given that there are other sites that provide similar functions for other media - the Internet Movie Database, Amazon - it doesn’t need to.

     In my view, Facebook will always be the most profitable social network for a library to use, as its outreach methods are more diverse and its audience wider. On a personal note, though, I have a much better time on Goodreads than Facebook. 

So many options to rabbit-hole down into...

The former I check frequently but quickly, while the latter can easily suck up much of my time. I’ve also had the opportunity of using both sites for managing a book club I belong to. While Goodreads would be my choice for that purpose, the older members of my group found it particularly difficult to use, and we switched to Facebook instead (which also has caused some issues with the less tech-saavy members). Fortunately, though, these two social networks are not mutually exclusive. A library or an individual can link their accounts and use Facebook for general life purposes, while using Goodreads to discover new books of interest, organize them, rate them, and recommend them. Thank goodness for both!