DISQUS

On one hand, this isn't a new model for (some) gold OA journals (as BMJ notes). Some journals use "overlay publishing," where a defined issue is a set of pointers to articles that were posted as soon as they were ready. Others have abandoned the issue concept entirely and define the journal as a branded stream of articles. (That model, sometimes difficult to deal with, has been around for years--at least since 1995 and probably before then.)

Other than BMJ's high profile, what makes BMJ's change interesting is that there's a print journal--and it's becoming a selection of BMJ's published articles rather than the totality. Assuming nobody tries to make a branding distinction between "accepted but not part of the print record" and "part of the print record" this strikes me as a useful innovation.

[I'm in the process of building a cluster on open access at the PALINET Leadership Network, so I've been thinking about this more than usual.]

I know better than to respond to conference comments, but I'd sure like to see Steven C's basis for his claim re Google Reader. I know he loves it, but I don't know of any basis to claim it's more popular than Bloglines. Certainly not true for my own blog and not even close to true for the observable figures for 500+ liblogs (where Bloglines subscriptions outnumber Google Reader about 3:1)

I'll send him email. Maybe there's documentation I haven't seen...

And there it is. I think the idea that people should never multitask is silly--and implausible, even at work (with some exceptions). Much of the time, "doing your best work" for that period of time *requires* CPA or multitasking, because "being there" for a variety of interrupt-driven purposes is what's happening.

The issue, I think, is whether multitasking is always preferable--whether you can indeed do your best work under CPA conditions. So far, the answer I'm getting from experienced multitaskers is the same as yours: No--there are times when you focus.

Frankly, the (few) writers I've seen who seem to claim that CPA/multitasking is always preferable don't usually impress me as proving their point: It almost always seems that they're intelligent enough to write more lucidly if they weren't multitasking. But I think for most of us, no matter what generation, it's a matter of degree. Sometimes we do (and should) multitask; sometimes we don't. Our *preferences* may be different.

I think the question is whether you're doing your best work--or, perhaps, whether you set aside "unitasking" periods for cases where focus really does lead to better results.

I can't say what the answer is in your case. I know, without any doubt, what it is in my case--and most studies (as you've noted) seem to suggest that most people do their best work--on those tasks where focus means something--when they don't multitask.

Gotta admit, I really wouldn't want a surgeon to be participating in a chat session or checking email while I'm under the knife, and I wouldn't expect a concert pianist to be browsing Bloglines during a concerto. Those may be extreme cases, to be sure--and there are lots of daily cases where 100% focus won't make much difference. For me, "serious writing" requires focus, as did serious systems analysis and programming. Your mileage (and your tasks!) may vary.

The third option: Have something worthwhile to say, and say it--talking to people, not reading from a script. (Notes, yes. Script, no.)

That's how I've done 95% of my speeches over the years. (The other 5% actually needed something visual to work.)

Actually, though, I think I agree with your penultimate paragraph. The problem with PPT is usually that people use it as a way to avoid actually speaking to people--they speak to their PPT presentations instead. But that's not always the case.

And, of course, people with Hot PPT Skillz are doing loads of speaking and I'm basically off the circuit--so what do I know?

Well, since I've been saying it in print since at least 2001...

You need breaks now and then. They provide perspective.

Sooner or later, not taking breaks catches up with you.

And true breaks mean being totally disconnected for a while.

I had the same experience. It took Bloglines a while to solve its LISHost problem, but once it did, I returned. That's partly because I like having a mix of providers, but partly because Bloglines seems to fit.

I believe people are writing less--actually, I'm pretty sure of that as a long-term trend. (I'm finding it easier and easier to keep up with some 350 liblogs.) Conference season probably has a short-term effect. Maybe the hyperconnected are too busy twittering to blog?

You're not the only one, and I've been using the same "solution" as Jennifer: Clicking through from the blog header. Sometimes there are new posts, sometimes there aren't.

But then, there are also at least two blogs in my list that show 15, or 20, or 39 new posts whenever anything on the blog site changes...and I don't know whether that problem is Bloglines.

I think that post requires a firm response.

Namely, they darn well better start showing new Gilmore Girls episodes pretty soon.

We've been completing our catchup of early seasons while repeats run. We're now at the overlap point (mid-fourth season, when we started watching). Time to get confused again between Rory's first year at Yale and Rory's current visit to academia.

"he then asked “How else?” and there was a series of other answers that came from the audience and Paul told them they were wrong. The correct answer was Google,"

Tell me he didn't actually say that. It's one thing to make the nonsensical claim that Google's the only way people search. It's going way over the top to correct people who offer other means, particularly if anyone said, oh, Yahoo or MSN or Ask...

Arggh...

"One other person mentioned (which I didn’t know) that you have to join the ALA in order to join organizations like LITA (which is something I have considered joining) - which seems like a money making scheme to me."

That was me--and I would disagree. LITA is a division of ALA. It is not a separate entity. The financial relationship between divisions and the associations is tricky (particularly because, technically, there is only one financial entity: ALA).

I don't know of any professional association that lets you join a roundtable or division or subgroup without also being part of the whole.

As it happens, I do believe ALA offers good opportunities to socialize and network--that's why, although I'm pondering the LITA situation, I'm still a member and go to both annual get-togethers. They're big, and can overwhelm people, but they certainly offer hundreds/thousands of opportunities to network and socialize.

Sorry, Nicole: My first and second paragraphs weren't supposed to be read as a single thought. It's two comments in one.

I think the Cites & Insights special issue explores the virtues and dangers of the name itself as much as I'd choose to explore them.

The second paragraph notes some attitudes that have definitely popped up, some instances referred to in the special issue, some since them.

I suspect you're doing what needs to be done: Paying attention and building tools within your library's means, and presumably seeing how those tools work/tuning them to work better. This is all good, this is what progressive (in the apolitical sense) librarians should be doing...and, albeit given different tools, what they've always done. Which is not to say the new tools aren't powerful and worth attention: They are.

T Scott's last paragraph on the significance of names is more lucid than I've apparently been on this point, so I'll just say, "What T Scott said."

I have yet to encounter anyone who says that no librarians should spend any time working on new services that use the tools sometimes lumped under the Web2.0 brand. I have yet to encounter anyone who believes that libraries should not change. Which is quite different than agreeing that public libraries will fail if they don't "transform" themselves in X years or that every library, no matter how small and underfunded, must devote X amount of time/resources to these new tools.

"Stephen makes some great points that (I hope) will shut the mouths of the people debunking Library 2.0 and make them go “hmmmm”."

Shut the mouths? Wow. Another demonstration that there's no "us vs. them" in Library 2.0: If you're not on the bandwagon, shut up and go away. Certainly makes me go "hmm."