82 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
this information on the Web in mind.
When we post materials on the Web, researchers find them and generate research queries, particularly via e-mail.
While putting finding aids on the Web increases user demand, there is generally little impact on decisions regarding
processing, level, arrangement, and description other than demand being an incentive to make almost all finding aids
available online. Some researchers, seeing the online finding aid, expect the materials to be digitized as well.
With minimal processing, we’ve gone with the idea that some info is better than none and having any information on
the Web will enhance access. Finding aids for full, minimally, or preliminarily processed collections are posted. Ability to
keyword search has probably made it easier to accept minimal processing as adequate for a collection ever to receive.
Also has affected cataloging records since we don’t have to try to jam as much as we can into a MARC record any more
for it to be findable online.
Impact of using Web 2.0 applications and social software, such as Facebook, Flickr, tagging, etc. N=50
2.0 tech has contributed very little of value to our collection descriptions, even though we employ these technologies as
vehicles.
Blog and wiki presence established in 2009 impact to be reported in 2010.
Currently investigating use of these options for outreach and promotion, access to materials, way to engage patrons and
researchers in descriptive processes.
Do not currently use Web 2.0 applications.
Don’t use at present. (7 responses)
General interest comments have come via Flickr. Facebook was implemented in February 2009. The “share” button to
allow researchers to bookmark or e-mail a source are expected to be implemented during mid-2009.
Has no effect. (10 responses)
I cannot think of any processing decisions that have been influenced by our (admittedly very minimal!) use of Web 2.0
applications.
Increased our connections with users the use of Flickr and YouTube have increased our number of requests as well.
Since this work is at the item level, it does sometimes interfere with our processing priorities.
No impact on processing although we now use 2.0 applications for dissemination of information about holdings and
services.
No significant impact. (2 responses)
No time to test, would like to add “collection user” information, need to work on automating output from our systems,
as our collection information is not stable. Also, as we create EAD/xml structured information it enables us to more
easily link to systems.
None—another waste of time in light of the backlog of materials that do not have the basic description noted in
immediately preceding box.
Not using Web 2.0 applications.
Planning to explore.
this information on the Web in mind.
When we post materials on the Web, researchers find them and generate research queries, particularly via e-mail.
While putting finding aids on the Web increases user demand, there is generally little impact on decisions regarding
processing, level, arrangement, and description other than demand being an incentive to make almost all finding aids
available online. Some researchers, seeing the online finding aid, expect the materials to be digitized as well.
With minimal processing, we’ve gone with the idea that some info is better than none and having any information on
the Web will enhance access. Finding aids for full, minimally, or preliminarily processed collections are posted. Ability to
keyword search has probably made it easier to accept minimal processing as adequate for a collection ever to receive.
Also has affected cataloging records since we don’t have to try to jam as much as we can into a MARC record any more
for it to be findable online.
Impact of using Web 2.0 applications and social software, such as Facebook, Flickr, tagging, etc. N=50
2.0 tech has contributed very little of value to our collection descriptions, even though we employ these technologies as
vehicles.
Blog and wiki presence established in 2009 impact to be reported in 2010.
Currently investigating use of these options for outreach and promotion, access to materials, way to engage patrons and
researchers in descriptive processes.
Do not currently use Web 2.0 applications.
Don’t use at present. (7 responses)
General interest comments have come via Flickr. Facebook was implemented in February 2009. The “share” button to
allow researchers to bookmark or e-mail a source are expected to be implemented during mid-2009.
Has no effect. (10 responses)
I cannot think of any processing decisions that have been influenced by our (admittedly very minimal!) use of Web 2.0
applications.
Increased our connections with users the use of Flickr and YouTube have increased our number of requests as well.
Since this work is at the item level, it does sometimes interfere with our processing priorities.
No impact on processing although we now use 2.0 applications for dissemination of information about holdings and
services.
No significant impact. (2 responses)
No time to test, would like to add “collection user” information, need to work on automating output from our systems,
as our collection information is not stable. Also, as we create EAD/xml structured information it enables us to more
easily link to systems.
None—another waste of time in light of the backlog of materials that do not have the basic description noted in
immediately preceding box.
Not using Web 2.0 applications.
Planning to explore.
