Two Libraries, Two Attitudes

9 thoughts on “Two Libraries, Two Attitudes”

  1. When you speak of blocking access, are you talking about on library owned machines, or are you talking about blocking if a person is using their own machine via wifi? I can understand blocking some apps (facebook, myspace) IF you are concerned that some people will sit there and tie up computers just to talk online instead of using the library resources a bit more deliberately. If you have sufficient computers available to where this is not an issue, that is one thing. But it’d be a pain to need access to a resident system, and not be able to because somebody is having a long chat about their boyfriend or girlfriend online. IMHO. DEFINITELY lots to consider here, and a great post.

    1. They block both – hard-wired library owned machines and computers that attach via WiFi. I can understand not wanting folks to tie up library owned computers, but having it block the WiFi is a pain.

      FWIW, I was at the Middle Tyger Branch of the Spartanburg Library and saw at least one user on Facebook.

  2. Thank you for the positive comments and the recognition. We have a very talented group of young staff and they have helped us develop these tools.

    Mr. Cothran makes a good point. Time limits help control use and equalizes access. There is an old story about a patron complaining about another patron’s reading habits of the NY Times newspaper. “Can’t you take the paper away from them?”, the patron complained to the librarian. “I have important things to read about, and they are just reading the comics!”

    We are all still learning and trying to grasp the power of this technology. Btw, Derrick just posted our Monday Minute to Youtube:

  3. Not exactly about “social media,” but I wonder when/if libraries are going to be in a position to have resources digitized and accessible through the library’s web for “reader” devices like the new iPad or maybe a Kindle that is more open to varied media than just Amazon stuff. I doubt this would be something accessible at a distance due to copyright issues, but maybe there would be the chance of reading locally via the WiFi. Kind of like Clemson now does some of its electronic books and journals. Maybe access is limited by library card somehow.

  4. I think libraries in general are struggling with these new technologies. Assuming something could be worked out with Amazon’s quirky DRM, I think they would be able to set up something like what they currently do with video files. Both counties have access to a video check-out system, where you can watch videos online for a limited period of time. Availability is restricted to the number of licenses they currently have available.

  5. I find this to be quite a pain. I teach Modern Communications at a local university. Part of the class is learning social networks and how the work etc. I have many student who have to now go to Spartanburg or McDonalds if they need to do homework and have no internet access at home.

  6. For an article that make mention of a site not being maintained, to any viewer in mid 2010 or beyond this information is very old. GCLS launched a FB 6 months ago. It’s implementation really blows Spartanburg’s away.

    No mention of GCLSm (Greenville County Library’s mobile app)…? Been out since 2011 as well and again compared to SCPL’s, really puts it to shame. The other technologies mentioned are all available in GCLS, Facebook included. And when you get to the ILS / Catalog Search of both libraries, again GCLS wins hands down.

    One fact this article did have correct, both the Greenville County Library System and the Spartanburg County Library System are top-notch organizations in nice towns. Other than the embarrassingly out-dated content, as with most blogs, you really have to take them with a huge lump of salt…?

    1. As of when this blog post was written, this was EXACTLY what I found, and I stand by those comments. My most recent visit to the library (a couple of months ago) showed that most social media was still blocked, and that the acceptable use policy still contains antiquated language prohibiting “chat.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *