Social Bookmarking Comparison

Looking at a few social bookmarking sites, I chose to play around with both Diigo and delicious, two varyingly popular bookmarking applications for the web, because I was unhappy with the social aspects of Diigo. In the end, though I could not say I established an unequivocal preference for one service over the other as a pure bookmarking tool, delicious stood out because of its social networking capabilities.

To test these applications, I bookmarked five of my favorite literary (news, reviews, etc.) websites and tagged them appropriately (using “literary,” “reviews,” and “books,” for example), and then checked to see how many other people had bookmarked the same sites, as well as checking on similar tag usage:

·         http://www.themillions.com

·         http://htmlgiant.com/

·         http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/

·         http://conversationalreading.com/

·         http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/

I found that many more people had linked to these same sites on delicious than had done so on Diigo, owing in part, I imagine, to delicious's much larger user base (reportedly 5.3 million users with over 180 million unique URLs^[1]) and popularity.I also found that tagging was much less extensive on Diigo, with most people not tagging these sites at all. This is likely a fact of Diigo’s relative youth, but it also speaks to the site’s much smaller community, a community which may be using the application more as a web-based bookmark manager than as a social tool. I also checked my sites and their tagging through Netvouz, which has similar features with delicious, though I found the interface somewhat more cumbersome. It was helpful, however, that Netvouz provides the number of users who have also bookmarked the site and, when you search by tag, a list of commonly used tags for the sites recalled. Delicious provides a similar set of search features; Diigo’s search function, on the other hand, is significantly lacking in comparison, because tag search results are minimal (a symptom of its narrow community, perhaps) and instead of listing the number of users who have bookmarked individual sites Diigo uniquely notes the first time each site was saved.

With Diigo, it is very easy to set up an account and begin bookmarking. There is a browser plugin specifically for Chrome, as well as other browsers, though these are external plugins and seem to still be in beta (as is the site itself). I was pleased to see a number of signup options, including the ability to use my already extant (and always ubiquitous) Google account. The site is well-designed and pleasing to browse, though it is heavily reminiscent of Facebook’s aesthetic (and even resembles delicious, which may or may not always have been the case, as the latter site recently underwent a redesign). The bookmarking utility itself is easy to use: you can either use the browser plugin to highlight and bookmark current sites, or you can manually add bookmarks from your “Library” page using the URL. This latter route calls a screen on which you can input your own tags or use recommended ones (utilizing stats from the site’s growing community of bookmarkers), write a short description (already provided for many sites), and choose whether to allow other users to see the bookmark in your library (public or private, with no advanced settings in between).

Delicious is set up similarly, though it has a few features not found on Diigo and a much larger community of users from which to draw information and to connect with new users. Setup was, again, very easy, though it is noteworthy that the only signup alternative is through Yahoo accounts (I chose to dreg up an old account I started years ago rather than start a new one), and clearly I would have preferred to pass through with Google, a menu I still use and enjoy. There are also a number of browser add-ons, with browser-specific tools for Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer (there is an option to add a simple Bookmark via delicious button for any browser not currently supported), and it seems these bookmarking tools are actually quite different from those that Diigo offers (searching by tag, for example, though Diigo may have the upper hand with its ability to highlight and add sticky notes to sites). Adding new tags to delicious functions similarly, though there is the added benefit of tag input auto-completion, using both tags from your own library and recommended tags. Where delicious really stands head-and-shoulders above competitors, however, is in social networking (hence the stated purpose of these sites). Through my list of bookmarked sites, I can clearly see how many other users have found the same sites, and finding who these people are and how they have tagged sites is as easy as clicking on the number just to the right of the site in question. I found this feature very useful and exciting, because it not only connects me to other people reading and viewing the same sites, but it is also ordered by date bookmarked: I was able to see that another user had bookmarked The Millions on the same day I had. There is also a feature that aggregates the sites bookmarked by members of your network (through friending and favorite relationships), organized for viewing content you might also enjoy.

At the end of the day, it is unlikely that I will begin using a social bookmarking application, if only because I prefer to keep my favorites sites attached to my own computer (Google has changed this!^[2]), though I likely will go with delicious if that ever changes. Diigo functions well as a simple bookmarking application, but it does not really function socially and currently lags behind the popularity and wide community of delicious. For what it’s worth.

---

^[1] "Exclusive: Screen Shots and Feature Overview of Delicious 2.0 Preview." TechCrunch. Web. 31 May 2010

^[2] Google created a bookmark sync that allows one to access bookmarks across computers via Chrome and GoogleDocs. See: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/08/sync-google-chrome-bookmarks.html

it ain't pretty but it works

Today we talked a lot about mashups, what they used to be (i.e. the grey album, et. al.), what they are, and what they may be in the future. We worked with Google Maps, and were able to create custom maps that detailed the steps between two locations (and many places in between). My map, below, shows a route from Irish Lion to the Wells Library that I may or may not have taken one night in recent memory. I found using Google Maps to create a map very easy, thankfully; it seems they have updated the application since I first attempted to play around with it early last year.

The "mashup" I created was fairly simple to do as well. I used an .html document I had created earlier in order to embed several widgets. The process for created badges for most sites generally involves a quick trip to the "goodies" or "extras" section of the website whose content you want to embed (and it seems more and more sites are hopping on to this "widget" culture, as it were). I have included content from a variety of sources, including two twitter accounts and books from my Librarything.

Mashup: it ain't pretty but it works.

Ayn Rand

On Thursday we discussed the many benefits (greater availability, for one) and perils (organization, support) of virtual reference in a library setting.

To begin with, we looked at and considered a few examples of VR implementation in other libraries, and then chewed over a hypothetical setup of our own. We decided that our library's virtual reference would be available during the library's open hours, though we discussed the possibility of starting and ending this service later. Many of us were adamant that only reference librarians or those with public service positions within the library should be able to staff VR, though I think it's true, as Keern suggests, that initial forays into VR need the support of the entire library. It may be true that a cataloger won't provide the same level of service as a librarian who does reference daily, but it isn't necessarily so, and I would be hesitant to distance the virtual reference service from someone who may really want to be a part of the project.

We also tried out some VR of our own, using Meebers and Soho. I was able to find out the population of LA County and that Ayn Rand is some dead chick. I don't know why any library would choose not to implement virtual reference services.

Also, I tried adding a little GoogleTalk chatback thingie (spellchecker hates all three) to the right side-panel of my blog, but apparently it has issues. Fine, fine. Edit: it works now!

RSS Feed Reader Comparison

For my RSS feed reader comparison, I looked at Google Reader and the Sage add-on for Firefox. I had used both of these applications before, but have long preferred Google Reader for its ease of use, organization, and appealing look. I do use an aggregator on a regular basis, so I will look at both applications and try to explain why I have chosen one (Google Reader) over the other (Sage).

To begin, I added everyone’s blogs to my Google Reader, organized into a folder specific to our course, and then did the same with Sage. I toyed around with the various features of each, to get a feel for the application’s power and customizability.

Mozilla’s Sage is an extension to the Firefox web browser, and as such is immediately integrated into one’s browsing experience (provided that experience is done through Firefox). My recent switch to Chrome, then, would have necessitated a change in aggregator if I had not already begun favoring GReader (see below). Two problems I ran into with this trial run of Sage were the clumsiness of its layout and a bug, which caused the Sage toolbar to take up a 2 x 6 in. immovable square space near the top of my browser. Though I was able to fix the latter, with difficulty, I still found a great deal lacking in Sage’s ability to organize feeds into groups. Though it is possible to put one or more feeds into folders, this process works much in the same way as Firefox’s bookmarking toolbar: it works, but I wouldn’t call it pretty. One thing I did like was the organization of the browsing window (when a feed is selected), which places the feed’s most recent posts into a nice table. Another problem, however, is Sage’s ability to display content: text and hyperlinks work, but videos do not display properly, if at all, in the feed browsing window (I was unable to view Fallon’s video post without clicking over to her actual blog-space).

Google Reader, on the other hand, is a sort of aggregative dream in comparison, though admittedly I am biased in its favor. It does not, as far as I know, have the ability to integrate into one’s browser, but it is far more powerful in terms of organizational tools, sharing features, and general options for customizability. Those familiar with other Google applications, particularly Gmail (Umail, eh?), will have no trouble acclimating to GReader’s style. Also unlike Sage, Google Reader is an application that functions, self-contained, within its own window. Once one is signed into Google and using this aggregator, RSS feed links automatically direct one back to this reader for subscription and organization. The feed organization pane is to the left of the main browsing frame, and it is easy to drag-and-drop new and existing feeds into new groups (though renaming requires toggling to the settings menu). For the most part, video and other media work well within GReader, though I have noticed some videos decline to show up after selecting the individual post, especially with longer videos. I am especially fond of how easy it is to share posts with others, provided you have established “following” relationships, and the comment system that enables conversation within your GReader community. There is even a feature that allows one to share, via bookmark, individual webpages and stories that are not fed into the aggregator itself. To top all this off, there are a number keyboard shortcuts available (try, while in the application, pressing g + u; navigate with arrow keys), and this number is growing with each update.

Overall, I have found Google Reader to be well-ahead of Sage in nearly every point of comparison. It is customizable, well-organized, easily searchable, and interactive. I use it daily. Sorry, Sage.

check it out, burns

last post's feed

This is my first blog post for S603

What a mighty good first blog post.