Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Phone interviews in May 2011 with 2,277 adult internet users ages 18 and older p.2 65% of online adults use social networking sites; p3 Of young adult women ages 18-29 who are online, 89% use social networking sites, 69% on an average day. Highest usage skews toward female and younger, but no significant differences in usage by race, household income, geography and education level.

-in 2005, 8% of adults used SNSs, now the figure is at 65% -most users rate their SNS experiences as positive *great from a social capital standpoint, as they are more likely to keep accounts active, and pursue weak links in newsfeed -"Young adult women ages 18-29 are the power users of social networking", 89% have accts and 69% access them daily *target young adult women with ads on FB, maybe? use GIS data to appeal to interests of that group, and explain what the library can do for them -more adults are using social networks (driving the avg age of the user up considerably from the imagined age) -"As of May 2011, over eight in ten internet users ages 18-29 use social networking sites (83%), compared with seven in ten 30-49 year-olds (70%), half of 50-64 year-olds (51%), and a third of those age 65 and older (33%)." Positive Negative Neutral Notable (top ten) (top ten) (top ten) (mentioned only once) Good Boring Okay Nosey Fun Confusing Fine Omnipresent Great Frustrating Adequate Hog Wash Interesting Time-consuming Family Glitches Convenient Overwhelming Rarely Vulnerable Excellent Addictive All Right Crowded Easy Annoying Communication Stalking Awesome Addicting Seldom Influence Informative Mediocre Facebook Conformity Useful Overrated Infrequent Befuddled *how to work on changing those negative and neutral to positive associations... how to work the library in as a positive association? Infrequent users can be prompted via opt-in participation to log on and complete activities, post. Process needs to be secure, and easy to use for those who are frustrated with the SNS, etc. Address these concerns and you can generate stron

-part of the social concept of Twitter is the re-tweeting, or reposting of others' tweets *this is how information spreads, or knowledge becomes viral (information diffusion) *displayed as: RT @ username "copied message" -56.7% of retweets have URLs in them while only 19.0% of regular tweets have URLs. *example of info diffusion.. content creation spreads across a network, creates links -retweets on a large scale take not just content but context *not just what you tweet, but who you tweet it to (followers) -"findings suggest that microblogging can be tailored to facilitate informal communication between colleagues in organizations" *libraries can tweet info to patrons? links, database promotions, etc -real-time concept of Twitter disseminates info faster (but... more accurately?) *much of Twitter is personal sharing/overshare? -URLs and hashtags help retweetability, as does age of account and number of followers/ees, but number of tweets does not affect potential for retweeting *libraries can establish accounts, and not worry about constant tweeting to get retweeted

-online vs offline social networks: what is happening when more people go online? -possible ideas of sociotechnical capital revolving in a more cyclical fashion *other articles (find!) mentioned the idea of FB interactions rising and falling, this could be similar -Internet-Focused Social Capital Research (history of social capital on the internet) *early researchers adopted an either/or philosophy where time spent online devalued time spent offline. They failed to conceive of a world where social interactions could be valuable online. -as different mediums occupy time, it is important to note that social interactions can occur within the online medium (unlike tv) *mediums allow for interactions around the medium... can discuss what was on tv, share memes, etc -Putnam's concepts of "bridging" and "bonding": "bridging" social capital is inclusive. It occurs when individuals from different backgrounds make connections between social networks. "bonding" can be exclusive... The continued reciprocity found in bonding social capital provides strong emotional and substantive support and enables mobilization. *libraries want to bridge social connections and form weak ties with all patrons online *more and diverse ties to better reflect the community -matrix of social capital measures Online Bonding Offline Bonding Online Bridging Offline Bridging -Putnam suggested that the social capital derived from bridging, weak-tie networks is "better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion" (2000, p. 22). *validates the idea that libraries need bridging, weak-ties for information diffusion *marketing on FB is info diffusion

Tool for measuring social media "influence" on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn

*does this matter for libraries? If users are basing decisions off it, then yes! -"Klout helps you understand your influence and how to leverage it. Benchmark your success, understand who you influence, and discover who to trust in the topics you care about." *another analytics tool

Librarian monitors Twitter during class session and suggests resources, provides links

-Librarian as monitor and librarian as embedded resource *librarian monitors classroom discussion in real time, and suggests links/resources as necessary *allows students to get another layer of information besides real-time classroom discussion *augmented reality, library-style? Information layers over what is occurring in real-time *librarian is not participating, but instead providing additional info as conversations and discussions present themselves *allows at least one person to dig deeper, and give more in-depth examination to questions/ideas posed *embed librarians into conversations from afar (book discussions, etc?) and augment what is discussed

If conversations happen over SMNs, a librarian can chime in with stats, info, and relevant links *how to avoid being creepy or stalkerish?

Sept 2011: 78% have Internet at home, 61% have broadband at home; 83% of all adults have mobile devices and 73% of adult cell owners use text messaging at least occasionally; 35% own smartphones; 64% of cell phone users send photos or videos and 55% access social networking sites; 60% of cell phone users who are on Twitter use the cell phone to access Twitter. "New media are the new neighborhood." 48% of those active in groups say group has a social networking page on site such as Facebook; 42% say group uses text messaging; 30% say group has own blog; 16% say group uses Twitter.

*the new neighborhood is online. How to maintain relationships there? What is the library's role? "Sentry? Evaluator?" *each social network has its own etiquette, thus its own way of bridging and maintaining "social capital" *with the explosion of "creators and niches", how to remain relevant and visible? *if in the "information ecosystem" we are all alone together, then how do libraries fit? Lurking in the background, or always a friendly presence just around the corner? *technology allows the time to better-connected with groups... less effort to maintain social capital

as advances in technology increase, so does the importance of social networks in everyday lives. "Together we are more alone than ever" means that as we can carry our networks with us, and latent or weak connections become more important.

Lee Rainie of Pew Internet & American Life Project Oct 20 2011

-mobile connectivity changes the way people interact with media, and how they learn -Internet adoption at home is at 78%, broadband at 62% -65% of Internet users utilize social media -as the speed of learning changes, social networks become more relevant in people's everyday lives -35% of adults own smartphones, which means they take the web/social networks with them (51% of Millenials own smartphones) *social networks are accessible anywhere, anytime -40% of adults use the smartphone as a primary internet connector

-texting is popular among younger users *how to sent/relate to users who text primarily? Tweets to phone? -the rise of smartphones means more access points for info *people can look for whatever they want, whenever they want... more real-time info access -"augmented reality" "a merger of real world and data" *layers of information arranged per need *networked connections are more established because of constant availability of network (via smartphone) *libraries can be a weak connection, there for information purposes? *an app/a networked friend/a connection! -small screen leads to "info-snacking" -mobile screens leads to more alone time together, a blurring of private and public spaces -people are more confident in searching (even to their detriment) -Old: knowledge is objective and certain (organized categorically) new: knowledge is subjective and provisional (organized organically) (learning as transaction versus learning as process)

-SNSs change the meaning and perception of popularity *popular people maintain/increase popularity while less-popular have a chance to create new identities -perception of attractiveness still matters re profile pic and albums *libraries need to be conscious of brand and marketing. Create a unified brand which is easily recognizable across the SNSs. *visual aspects of the profile are just as key as content. In a world dominated by SNSs, appearance matters -SNSs have also changed people's method and expectations of communication

create a social media strategy via a website by answering questions

same as infographic posted above, basically -56% of Americans think its irresponsible to friend your boss 83% of women are ignored by their FB friends -avg user spends 7 hrs 46 min/month on FB -FB links about sex are shared 90% more than average -Top liked pages: FB, Eminem, Texas Hold-em Poker, Rihanna, YouTube -Top non-Internet liked brands: Coke, Oreos, Disney, MTV, Starbucks -is FB skewed more Dem? Obama has 23 million likes, nearest Repub (Sarah Palin) has 3.1 m likes

-although the FB site exists based on real-world information, the author of this paper states FB creates a "hyper-real" environment where both positive and negative elements are accentuated to an hyper-real extent -"To aid in this "perpetual connectivity," "Facebook" is now a pervasive verb, and the site that was formerly a mirror of "actuality" is now an outlet for virtuality-requiring active user participation." (3) *does FB change how we connect, or do we mold FB to our uses? (this paper focuses on teens) -ideas of semiotics and FB are tantalizing *how to signal profile and commonality among groups *veracity too

-1. Strategy: measure objectives and potential for insight *Google Analytics *know what your organization has and needs before making social media plans -2. Define success: metrics or goal to achieve *what is a successful campaign/media effort? -3. Identify resources, training and potential obstacles *who can help? What might impede progress? How can these things be avoided/surmounted? -4. Identify tools based on these needs *what exists to help with this? -PR is not a transaction but a relationship. *SMNs help people connect with each other. SMNs can also help brands connect with potential users. -people act and share differently on various social media (FB vs Twitter vs other platforms)

College students and cellphones; 94% text every day, 73% call every day. 57% in survey use smartphones, 97% of smartphone users use them for social networking - 95% of those do Facebook, 47% Twitter - infographic by HackCollege on Mashable.com

smartphones and the pervasiveness on connectivity allow the "network" to be mobile *enormous potential for libraries to connect with patrons at their point of need

**written before the rise of the SNSs -"It has been hailed by two U.S. presidents as the ultimate weapon in the battle against totalitarianism and tyranny, and credited by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan with creating a "new economy." (574) *foreshadowing the Arab Spring w/ Twitter... and SNSs participation of the overthrow of govts -quote by Manasian on p 574 (the Internet will change every aspect of our lives...) -digital divide is a concern, and it only gets worse -"Several scholars have contended that Internet communication is an impoverished and sterile form of social exchange compared to traditional face-to-face interactions, and will therefore produce negative outcomes (loneliness and depression) for its users as well as weaken neighborhood and community ties" (575) -"Others believe that the Internet affords a new and different avenue of social interaction that enables groups and relationships to form that otherwise would not be able to, thereby increasing and enhancing social connectivity" (575) -"First, each new technological advance in communications of the past 200 years-the telegraph, telephone, radio, motion pictures, television, and most recently the Internet-was met with concerns about its potential to weaken community ties" (Katz et al. 2001, p. 406) (576) *there are always concerns about the decline of the community, which are never fully realized

-"CMC (computer-mediated communication): viewed by some as an impoverished communication experience, with the reduction of available social cues resulting in a greater sense or feeling of anonymity *SNSs reduce the anonymity by creating online communities, and giving people cues by which to negotiate and validate truths and options