Pennsylvania Public Libraries and Facebook
Kate Burgdorfer
Social networking sites allow users to create connections and online communities based
on shared interests. Throughout history, libraries have served as gathering places and
community spaces, and online social networking can now serve as an extension of that role.
Social networking has become a mainstream activity and Facebook.com, the world's largest
social network, has become an important cultural force. "Before MySpace and Facebook, there
was no one site that captured the attention of so many people of all ages, and our patrons
overwhelmingly use them."1
Facebook was founded in February 2004 exclusively for Harvard students. Over the
course of a few months, the site grew from Harvard students to include all Ivy League students,
then any college or high school student in the United States. In September 2006, the site opened
to anyone over the age of 13.2 In July 2009, Facebook became the most used site on the Internet,
with users spending an average of 4 hours and 39 minutes on it per month.3 In March 2010,
Facebook became the internet's most trafficked site, when it took 7.07% of the market share for
all U.S. internet visits, beating Google's 7.03%.4 As of July 2010, Facebook had over 500
million active users (users who have logged into the site at least once in a 30-day period)5,
Milica Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work: From 'Librarian Habilis' to 'Librarian Sapiens',” Computers in Libraries
29, no. 9 (October 2009): 16.
2
Facebook, "Press Room: Company Timeline," n.d.,
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics#!/press/info.php?timeline (accessed October 30, 2010).
3
Emma Barnett, “Americans Spend Most of Web Time on Facebook,” The Telegraph, July 15, 2009,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5833400/Americans-spend-most-of-web-time-on-Facebook.html
(accessed October 30, 2010).
4
Michael Arrington, “Hitwise says Facebook Most Popular U.S. Site,” TechCrunch, March 15, 2010,
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/15/hitwise-says-facebook-most-popular-u-s-site/ (accessed October 30, 2010).
5
Facebook, "Press Room: Company Timeline."
1
1
making it the world's largest online social network. The average Facebook user is connected to
80 pages and groups.6
Just as libraries have traditionally served as community meeting spaces, libraries also
have a long history of delivering services where patrons need them – through bookmobiles,
through the mail, in jails, and, more recently, in malls and shopping plazas. Farkas noted that
"Just like putting a library branch in a strip mall, creating presence in social networking software
makes the library more visible and more convenient to access."7 In order to create a presence on
Facebook that makes the library more visible and convenient to access, it is important to
understand how the site works.
Facebook’s features are based on the very simple notion that there are people in one's life
that "you'd like to stay in touch and connect with."8 Facebook offers three types of accounts for
users: profiles for individuals; pages for organizations, businesses, celebrities, and bands; and
groups that allow people to form communities around any topic, idea, or event. Profiles are the
basic building blocks of Facebook and are intended for use only by individual people.
Individuals can use their profiles to share information about themselves, make friends, share
photos and links, connect with organizations and groups, and participate in discussions.
Pages and groups are similar to profiles but are intended for use by non-individuals.
Pages are the authorized profiles of organizations, businesses, celebrities, and bands, and they
can only be created by an official representative of the group called an administrator. When an
individual likes a page, a one-way relationship is created, whereby the individual user can see
everything posted by the organization, but the page administrator cannot see the individual's
6
Facebook, "Statistics," http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed November 24, 2010).
Meredith Farkas, “Going Where Patrons Are: Outreach in MySpace and Facebook,” American Libraries 38, no. 4
(April 2007): 27.
8
Facebook.com, "Getting Started: Find Your Friends," http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/help/?guide (accessed
October 31, 2010).
7
2
profile. Pages are indexed by search engines and are visible to anyone on the Internet, even
those who are not registered Facebook users. Groups, on the other hand, can be created and
maintained by anyone on Facebook, and are often quickly and spontaneously created as needed,
then abandoned.
Facebook was unpopular with libraries and other organizations until the launch of pages
in 2007. Libraries had been attempting to join Facebook since 2006, when the network opened
to anyone with an email address. Initially, libraries created fictional people to act as figureheads
for their library, but these pages were deleted by Facebook because they violated its Terms of
Use.9 Libraries then turned to the Groups feature, but it was not until Pages were created in
November 2007 that libraries were able to establish a genuine presence on the site.10
Status updates are the vehicle by which content is created on Facebook. A status update
is a short post by a user, and it can be anything a user chooses to share with their community –
reports on what they are doing or thinking or reading, where they are, photos, links, anything at
all. Comments and likes are ways for a user's friends to interact with each other and the items
they've posted. A like can serve two functions: a friend can like another friend's status update, or
a user can like a page, which creates a connection between that user and the organization. Users
can also comment on their friends' status updates or other activity.
The news feed is a personalized stream of real-time posts from all a user's connections,
including friends, pages, and groups. The news feed is the home page for Facebook users, and
the site is designed to show new content on the first page users see when they log in. Axelsson
noted that "one of the appeals of Facebook, initially at least, is that every time you log on there's
Lori Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries,” Christian Librarian 52, no. 3 (2009): 113.
Abimbota Alayo, “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook,” Impact: Journal of the Career Development Group
12, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 96.
9
10
3
the feeling that something new has happened since the last time you were there."11 The wall is
the main page of a profile, page, or group, and it contains a complete record of the user's activity,
including status updates, comments, photos, and likes. It is also possible for users to post
directly on friends' walls.
Facebook is considered a Web 2.0 platform. Although it has been noted that noted that
"the label 'Web 2.0' is far less important than the concepts, projects, and practices included in its
scope,"12 it is still beneficial to understand the term and the characteristics of its applications.
The term Web 2.0 is commonly attributed to marketing strategist Tim O'Reilly13, who coined the
phrase in a 2005 article titled "What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software."14 O'Reilly studied the businesses that survived the internet
business crash in 2001, and he noted that they valued the collective wisdom of crowds and
encouraged their users to remix data in order to make their applications more useful. This
approach created businesses and sites that got better the more people used them. O'Reilly called
this hallmark of Web 2.0 a state of "perpetual beta," whereby developers continually monitor
user behavior to determine how they are using the application, then adjust the application
accordingly. Abram also observed that Web 2.0 technologies are "complex, constantly in flux,
Anna-Stina Axelsson, “Libraries, Social Community Sites and Facebook: Do You Have a Facebook?”
Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly Theme: Social Technologies, no. 2 (2008): 18.
12
Bryan Alexander, "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” EDUCAUSE Review 41,
no. 2 (April 2006): 8.
13
Laurie Charnigo and Paula Barnett-Ellis, “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a Digital Trend on
Academic Libraries,” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 1 (March 2007): 24; Cheryl Peltier-Davis, “Web
2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative Services for Sustainable Libraries,” Computers in
Libraries 29, no. 19 (November 2009): 18; Tom Kwanya, Christine Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood, “Library 2.0:
Revolution or Evolution?” South African Journal of Library & Information Science 75, no. 1 (2009): 72; Jennifer L.
Boxen, “Library 2.0: A Review of the Literature,” Reference Librarian 49, no. 1 (2008): 23.
14
Tim O'Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software,” last
modified September 30, 2005, http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
11
4
and really in a Renaissance mode."15 Furner16 later observed that Web 2.0 characteristics
include collaboration, social networking, resource sharing and community building.
Library 2.0 is an offshoot of Web 2.0, "another conversation"17 whereby patron needs are
re-evaluated in light of the opportunities presented by new Web 2.0 technologies.18 Casey &
Savastinuk claimed that the user-centered change is the center of Library 2.0, and that "Any
service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes
use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service."19
Facebook is an excellent example of a Web 2.0 technology. The site's developers
continually adapt the site to meet the changing needs of its users. Facebook users further
contribute to the site's changing nature with each status update posted or connection made.
Facebook always has new features to explore – some changes are controversial, but all changes
maintain a high level of interest in the site.20 When Facebook is used by a library, it has great
potential to be a Library 2.0 service, reaching users where they are to create communities and
share resources.
There is not a large body of scholarly literature concerning Library 2.0, since the term
was only introduced within the last five years. There is even less scholarly study of public
libraries' use of Web 2.0 technologies. One notable exception is Rutherford's qualitative research
Stephen Abram, “Social Libraries: The Librarian 2.0 Phenomenon,” Library Resources & Technical Services 52,
no. 2 (2008): 20.
16
Jonathan Furner, “User Tagging of Library Resources: Toward a Framework for System Evaluation,”
International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control 37, no. 3 (September 2008): 48.
17
Abram, "Social Libraries," 21.
18
Gobinda Chowdhury, Alan Poulter, and David McMenemy, “Public Library 2.0: Towards a New Mission for
Public Libraries as a 'Network of Community Knowledge',” Online Information Review 30, no. 4 (2006): 455.
19
Casey and Savastinuk, "Library 2.0," 42.
20
Marshall Breeding, “Libraries Face Online Social Networks,” Computers in Libraries 27, no. 8 (September 2007):
30-32.
15
5
into how public libraries in New Zealand and the United States are using social software,21 but
that study is limited in scope because the sample contained only seven libraries.
The most common type of scholarly literature on Library 2.0 is the case study. A familiar
feature in popular library journals, case study articles explore how and why a library employed a
specific technology and what the results were. Popular case study topics include blogs22,
podcasting23, tagging24, and next generation OPACs.25 The second most common type of
scholarly literature on Library 2.0 focuses on the theoretical and philosophical implications of
Web 2.0 on librarianship.26
Facebook is one of the newer Web 2.0 technologies and therefore there is an even more
pronounced lack of scholarly literature about it. Facebook was first developed as a networking
tool for college students, and so the site already boasted a large student population when libraries
began joining in 2007. There is, therefore, a small body of scholarly literature concerning
academic libraries' use of Facebook.27 There is a considerable amount of mainstream writing
available on library blogs about libraries' experiences with Facebook. These provide first-hand
anecdotal accounts of Facebook usage and results. While these articles are not scholarly, peer
Louise L. Rutherford, “Implementing Social Software in Public Libraries: An Exploration of the Issues
Confronting Public Library Adopters of Social Software,” Library Hi Tech 26, no. 2 (2008): 184-200.
22
Jessica Zellers, "In Blog Heaven: A Painless New Approach to Readers' Advisory," Virginia Libraries 53, no. 3
(July/August/September 2007): 23 – 24.
23
Angela L. Jowitt, "Creating Communities with Podcasting," Computers in Libraries 28, no.4 (April 2008): 14-15,
54 – 56.
24
Furner, “User Tagging of Library Resources," 47-51.
25
Sharon Q. Yang and Melissa A. Hofmann," The Next Generation Library Catalog: A Comparative Study of the
OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager," Information Technology and Libraries 29, no. 3 (September 2010): 14150.
26
Abram, "Social Libraries," 19-22; Mark Alfino and Linda Pierce, “The Social Nature of Information,” Library
Trends 49, no. 3 (Winter 2001): 471-485; Chowdhury et al., “Public Library 2.0," 454-460; Tom Kwanya, Christine
Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood, "Library 2.0: Revolution or Evolution?" South African Journal of Library &
Information Science 75, no. 1 (2009): 70 – 75.
27
Laurie Charnigo and Paula Barnett-Ellis, “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a Digital Trend on
Academic Libraries,” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 1 (March 2007): 23-34; Deborah Chiarella, et al.
"Use of Facebook in Academic Health Sciences Libraries," Journal of the Medical Library Association 97, no.1
(January 2009): 43 - 46; Kwabena Sekyere, "Too Much Hullabaloo About Facebook in Libraries! Is It Really
Helping Libraries?" Nebraska Library Association Quarterly 40, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 25 – 27.
21
6
reviewed, or subjected to an editorial board, they can be informative when looking for
information regarding the experience libraries are having on Facebook. For this study, these
types of articles were not formally considered.
In 2008, a year after libraries began using Facebook's pages feature to establish a
presence on the site, Rutherford noted that there was still a noticeable gap in Library 2.0
literature concerning public libraries' use of social technologies,28 like Facebook. While not
exclusively focused on social networking, Lietzau conducted research with a team at the
Colorado State Library's Library Research Service29 and discovered that only about 5% of public
libraries in their random sample of 483 U.S public libraries used social networking sites.
Furthermore, most of the public libraries in their sample had only the bare minimum web
presence – that is, a web site, an online public access catalog, and online availability of patron
accounts.
The small body of literature on Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 contains two general
considerations for libraries using social networking tools. The first general recommendation is
that Library 2.0 technologies be implemented in accordance with the library's strategic goals and
with the intention of fulfilling the library's mission, not simply for the sake of using something
new.30 Cvetkovic echoed others when she insisted that there is "nothing 'cool' or useful about
having a profile on these sites. It’s what you do with it that matters."31 The second general
recommendation in the literature is to focus on keeping users interested and engaged, because a
disengaged fan base will quickly lose interest.32 Keeping users interested will also help to
28
Rutherford, "Building Participative Library Services," 414.
Zeth Lietzau, "U.S. Public Libraries and Web 2.0: What's Really Happening?" Computers in Libraries 29, no. 9
(October 2009): 6 - 10.
30
Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work," 16; Casey and Savastinuk, "Library 2.0," 42.
31
Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work," 17.
32
Joe A. Fernandez, "SWOT Analysis for Social Media in Libraries," Online (Weston, Conn.) 3, no. 5
(September/October 2009): 35-37.
29
7
encourage them to share the library's information with their friends, which will help expand the
library's reach virally. "It is a truism that the greatest internet success stories don't advertise their
products. Their adoption is driven by 'viral marketing'--that is, recommendations propagating
directly from one user to another."33 To keep users engaged, libraries can post regular status
updates, interact with their patrons via comments, and post about events that are happening or
have happened at the library. Some specific suggestions for using Facebook include using it to
communicate with patrons and friends34 and to market programs, events, and resources.35
Jennings and Price36 urged libraries to use Facebook as a space to provide Reader's Advisory and
to conduct reading challenges and book clubs. Thornton37 recommended humanizing the library's
Facebook presence by posting virtual library tours, photos of librarians doing their jobs, and
comments by librarians.
This study attempted to fill the gap in the scholarly literature about public libraries' actual
Facebook usage. The study explored the extent to which public libraries in Pennsylvania are
currently using Facebook. How many public libraries in Pennsylvania have a Facebook
presence? How are those libraries using Facebook? Is there a connection between the levels of
activity on a Facebook page and library size as calculated by total circulation?
Social networking is a relatively new field of inquiry for library research, and so it is
better suited to a qualitative research methodology. To analyze how libraries in Pennsylvania are
using Facebook, this study utilized a qualitative methodology called comparative analysis. The
data was collected using online data collection, which was imperative not only because Facebook
33
O'Reilly, "What is Web 2.0.”
Breeding, “Libraries Face Online Social Networks,” 31; Jennings and Price, “'Be My Friend': Using Facebook in
Libraries,” Tennessee Libraries 58, no. 1 (2008): 2; Sekyere, "Too Much Hullabaloo About Facebook in Libraries!"
25; Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries," 114.
35
Alayo, “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook,” 96; Jennings and Price, “'Be My Friend,” 2; Thornton,
“Facebook for Libraries,” 114.
36
Jennings and Price, “'Be My Friend,” 2.
37
Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries,” 114.
34
8
itself is an online application, but also because the sample included a large number of
geographically dispersed libraries. Online data collection enhances the ability to sample a large
number of geographically dispersed participants in a time- and cost-efficient manner.38
The study utilized a full sample of Pennsylvania public libraries with Facebook pages.
The sample was drawn by searching for all 629 public libraries in Pennsylvania39 on Facebook
using the site's search feature. In the cases where a library was not found on Facebook, a
secondary search was conducted by examining the library's website for a Facebook profile link.
The final sample, representative of all Pennsylvania public libraries on Facebook as of March
2010, contained 184 public libraries or library systems. This study sought information on
Facebook profiles that existed for the library itself, as a whole. Therefore children's, Young
Adult, and other library departments' presences were excluded from the sample.
In order to bring coherence to the libraries' use of Facebook amidst its constant state of
change, it was necessary to constrain the data collection of this study to one month – March
2010. Since Facebook is constantly in flux, this study will not fully reflect activity since March
2010. However, it does provide the first look at Facebook activity in Pennsylvania public
libraries.
Profiles were analyzed to determine how many likes or members the library had, as well
as how many status updates the library posted during March 2010. Four specific types of status
updates were tracked: event promotion, book discussion or promotion, link sharing, and photo
sharing. These types of status updates were tracked because the literature suggested these might
38
Samuel Lefever, Michael Dal, and Asrun Matthiasdottir, "Online Data Collection in Academic Research:
Advantages and Limitations," British Journal of Educational Technology 38, no. 4 (July 2007): 575.
39
Institute of Museum and Library Services. "Library Statistics,"
http://harvester.census.gov/imls/search/library_list.asp?LibraryName&LibraryID&Address&City&State=PA&Zip&
Distance&County&PhoneAreaCode&Phone&Librarytype=BR&ResultSetNumber=1&LibTypes=CE%2CBR&State
SelectedIndex=39 (accessed October 10, 2010).
9
be the most useful ways for libraries to use Facebook, and it enables the researcher to determine
how libraries are using the site. The number of likes and comments was also collected.
Tracking these statistics allowed the researcher to gauge the library's level of interactivity with
users.
Cut-offs were created in order to group the libraries on Facebook into four usage
categories: high use, moderate use, low use, and zero use. These cut-offs were created by the
researcher, based on the data collected for the number of status updates posted by the public
libraries on Facebook during the study month. The high use category contains libraries that
posted nineteen or more status updates during the study month, meaning they posted every 1.6
days at the very least. The average
Facebook Usage Category Cut-Offs
for the high use category was 30.9
based on the number of status updates posted
during March 2010
status updates, which would equal
almost one per day in March 2010.
High Use
Highest
number
of status
updates
Lowest
number
of status
updates
Average
number
of status
updates
65
Moderate
Use
Low Use
17
7
Zero Use
The moderate use category contains
0
libraries that posted eight to
seventeen status updates during the
study month, meaning they posted
19
8
1
0
anywhere from once every 3.8 days
to once every 1.8 days. The average
30.9
11.4
3.4
0
for the moderate use category was
11.4 status updates, which would
equal about one every 2.8 days in March 2010. The low use category contained libraries that
posted one to seven status updates during the study month, meaning they posted anywhere from
10
once a month to once every 4.4 days. The average for the low use category was 3.4 status
updates, which would equal about one every ten days in March 2010. The zero use category
contains libraries that did not post any status updates during the study month, although some of
these libraries had posts by others on their walls during the study month. These groupings
facilitated analysis and comparison of Facebook activity.
According to the data collected for March 2010, out of 629 total public libraries in
Pennsylvania, 184 had a Facebook presence and
PA Public Libraries and
Facebook, March 2010
Have a
Facebook
presence (
Do not have
a Facebook
presence
445 did not have a Facebook presence. This
means that 29% of Pennsylvania public libraries
are on Facebook, and 71% are not. These
numbers suggest that Facebook is not yet being
used by libraries to the degree that it is being used
in mainstream culture. Perhaps time will change this situation, as it has only been three years
since pages were made available to organizations like libraries.
Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries with a Facebook presence, 176 of them are
pages and only 7 are groups. This underscores the notion that pages are the most widely used
and most effective method for creating a public library Facebook presence. One of the libraries,
a high use library, is set up as a personal profile, which violates Facebook's Terms of Use and
could be closed at any time.
Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries with a Facebook presence in March 2010, 16
were high users, with nineteen or more status updates posted during the month; 40 were
moderate users, with eight to seventeen status updates during the month; 85 were low users, with
one to seven status updates posted during the month; and 44 libraries had zero use, with no status
11
updates during the month.40 The low
Number of Libraries in Each Usage
Category
Number of Libraries in Each Usage Category
43
Facebook are posting to their page
from once a month to once every 4.4
16
High Use
number of libraries, so most
Pennsylvania public libraries on
85
40
use category contains the highest
Moderate Use
Low Use
Zero Use
days.
Cvetkovic41 has noted that
Library 2.0 technologies are very easy to use, and this is often cited as a positive feature of these
tools. However, it may be one of the reasons why so many of the Pennsylvania public libraries
on Facebook are in the zero and low use categories. Even though more than a quarter of all
Pennsylvania public libraries had a presence on Facebook in March 2010, 129 of those libraries
are in the combined zero and low use categories. Library staff may be taken aback by how much
time and effort it takes to maintain a profile and engage users because the initial set-up is often
so easy. Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries on Facebook, only 76.1% were active during
March 2010, which means that overall 7% of Pennsylvania public libraries were active on
Facebook during March 2010.
There is no correlation between library size, as indicated by the number of cataloged
items, and Facebook usage category. Libraries in the high usage category averaged 381,091
cataloged items. Libraries in the moderate usage category averaged of 101,065 cataloged items.
40
Of the libraries with zero use, some had higher use in the months following March 2010. There is an ebb and flow
to Facebook posting, as many accounts showed little or no activity during the snapshot month of this study, March
2010, but have had an increase in activity since.
41
Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work," 16.
12
Libraries in the low usage category averaged of 50,881 cataloged items. Libraries in the zero
usage category averaged 122,806 cataloged items.
Four types of status updates were tracked in order to ascertain how Pennsylvania public
libraries are using Facebook. The most common type of status update was the event promotion
type, which the researcher defined as a status update that promoted library events and programs
before or after they occurred. More than half of all the status updates posted by libraries in the
sample were event promotion (59%). The high use libraries posted 54% event promotion
updates; the moderate use libraries posted 59% event promotion updates, and the low use
libraries posted 39% event promotion updates.
Axelsson cautioned that libraries should humanize their social networking presences: "If
we want to use social community sites in a library context then we can’t be overly cautious.
People want to establish contact with other people – not with buildings."42 Using photos is an
easy way to humanize a library's presence by showcasing the people who work at the library.
However, 97% of Pennsylvania public libraries use a Facebook profile photo of a building, sign,
or logo, and only 3% use profile pictures that contain a human (and not always a contemporary
human – one profile uses a photo of long deceased Andrew Carnegie). Sharing photos in status
updates and wall posts is a more widely used method for humanizing the library. Of all the status
updates posted by Pennsylvania public libraries during March 2010, 19% contained photos.
Moderate and low use libraries posted the highest number of photos, each using photos in 24%
of their status updates. High use libraries posted photos less often, as only 11% of the updates
from these libraries contained photos.
Promoting books and sharing resources are traditional library roles. However, this role
does not seem to be a high priority for those Pennsylvania public libraries using Facebook. Only
42
Axelsson, “Libraries, Social Community Sites and Facebook," 19.
13
10% of all status updates posted by the entire sample during the study month were about books.
The researcher defined these status updates as those that promoted new books, incited discussion
about books, or mentioned a book in any way. The researcher discovered after data collection
was complete that some libraries utilize their page's discussion board to discuss books, rather
than their status updates, so discussion about books may be more prevalent than this research
shows. As a way to track resource sharing, the researcher tracked link sharing status updates,
which she defined as those that included a link to any site other than Facebook or the library's
own website. Link sharing status updates comprised 10% of all status updates by Pennsylvania
public libraries. High use libraries posted 10% link sharing status updates, moderate use libraries
posted 11% link sharing status updates, and low use libraries posted 8% link sharing status
updates.
If the libraries are publishing this content via their status updates, are their friends paying
attention to them? A news feed can be a very busy place if a profile is connected to a lot of
profiles, pages, and groups. According to Facebook, the average user is connected to 80 pages
and groups,43 in addition to the individual profiles they are connected to. Tracking the number of
likes during the study month is one indicator of the degree to which libraries are connecting with
their friends. Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries on Facebook, over half (100) of those
libraries did not receive a single like during March 2010, and 42 of those were zero use libraries.
Of those libraries with the ten highest number of likes,44 8 of the 10 most liked libraries are
moderate or high use libraries. One moderate use library with 26 likes received over half of
them on a single post regarding the commencement of a new library building project.
43
44
Facebook, "Statistics."
The 10 libraries with the highest number of likes had 115, 55, 29, 26, 21, 21, 21, 20, 18, and 17 likes.
14
The number of comments on a library's Facebook page is another indicator of the degree
to which libraries are connecting with their friends. Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries on
Facebook, again over half (116) of those libraries did not receive a single comment during March
2010, and 41 of those were zero use libraries. Of those libraries with the ten highest number of
comments,45 6 are high use libraries, 2 are moderate use libraries, and 2 are low use libraries.
Libraries should constantly strive to stay relevant and accessible via a variety of methods,
and Facebook is one method46 currently being used by about a quarter of all Pennsylvania public
libraries. The most popular way to use Facebook is to market events and programs through
status updates. In addition to manually posting status updates, it is possible to add an RSS feed
of a library's website or blog to a Facebook page so when the website or blog is updated, it
automatically shows up on the Facebook page and in the users' news feeds, putting the content
right where patrons are.47 "The point is that the access to the library takes place at the point of
the conversation."48
Since the researcher has finished her study, Facebook added a new and controversial
feature called Community Pages. Community pages are not created by anyone and cannot be
edited by anyone. Rather, they are container profiles that hold all status updates from all
Facebook users about a particular topic – like cooking - or about a particular organization – like
your library. Community pages also display applicable Wikipedia articles.49 These new pages
are controversial because they are a type of profile that cannot be controlled in any way by the
organization they represent.
45
The 10 libraries with the most number of comments had 64, 56, 23, 20, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 14 , and 6 comments.
Alayo, “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook,” 97.
47
Thornton, "Facebook for Libraries," 114.
48
Lankes, et al., "Participatory Networks," 28.
49
Facebook, "Community Pages and Profile Connections: Can I Edit the Content on a Community Page?"
http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=17112 (accessed November 23, 2010).
46
15
This study provides the first look at Facebook activity in Pennsylvania public libraries.
There are many areas for further research that could tell us more about how these libraries are
using Facebook. These areas for further research include: How much time and staff go into
maintaining the Facebook presence? What other Web 2.0 technologies are these libraries using?
How are these libraries using Facebook's integrated chat feature?
16
Bibliography
Abram, Stephen. “Social Libraries: The Librarian 2.0 Phenomenon.” Library Resources &
Technical Services 52, no. 2 (2008): 19-22.
Alexander, Bryan. “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?”
EDUCAUSE Review 41, no. 2 (April 2006): 32-44.
Alayo, Abimbota. “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook.” Impact: Journal of the Career
Development Group 12, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 96 - 97.
Alfino, Mark, and Linda Pierce. “The Social Nature of Information.” Library Trends 49, no. 3
(Winter 2001): 471-485.
Arrington, Michael. “Hitwise Says Facebook Most Popular U.S. Site.” TechCrunch, March 15,
2010. http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/15/hitwise-says-facebook-most-popular-u-s-site/
(accessed October 30, 2010).
Axelsson, Anna-Stina. “Libraries, Social Community Sites and Facebook: Do You Have a
Facebook?.” Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly, Theme: Social Technologies, no. 2
(2008): 17-18.
Barnett, Emma. “Americans Spend Most of Web Time on Facebook.” The Telegraph, July 15,
2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5833400/Americans-spend-mostof-web-time-on-Facebook.html (accessed October 30, 2010).
Breeding, Marshall. “Libraries Face Online Social Networks,” Computers in Libraries 27, no. 8
(September 2007): 30-32.
Casey, Michael E. and Laura C. Savastinuk. "Library 2.0." Library Journal (1976) 131, no. 14
(September 2006): 40-42.
17
Charnigo, Laurie, and Paula Barnett-Ellis. “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a
Digital Trend on Academic Libraries.” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 1
(March 2007): 23-34.
Chiarella, Deborah, Linda Hasman, Dean Hendrix, Sharon Murphy, and Michelle L. Zafron.
"Use of Facebook in Academic Health Sciences Libraries." Journal of the Medical
Library Association 97, no. 1 (January 2009): 43 – 46.
Chowdhury, Gobinda, Alan Poulter, and David McMenemy. “Public Library 2.0: Towards a
New Mission for Public Libraries as a 'Network of Community Knowledge'.” Online
Information Review 30, no. 4 (2006): 454-460.
Cvetkovic, Milica. “Making Web 2.0 Work: From "Librarian Habilis" to 'Librarian Sapiens'.”
Computers in Libraries 29, no. 9 (October 2009): 14-17.
Facebook. "Statistics." http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed November
24, 2010).
Facebook. ""Community Pages and Profile Connections: Can I Edit the Content on a Community
Page?" http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=17112 (accessed November 10, 2010).
Farkas, Meredith. “Going Where Patrons Are: Outreach in MySpace and Facebook.” American
Libraries 38, no. 4 (April 2007): 27.
Fernandez, Joe A. "SWOT Analysis for Social Media in Libraries." Online (Weston,Conn.) 33,
no. 5 (September/October 2009): 35-37.
Furner, Jonathan. “User Tagging of Library Resources: Toward a Framework for System
Evaluation.” International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control 37, no. 3 (September
2008): 47-51.
Institute of Museum and Library Services. "Library Statistics,"
http://harvester.census.gov/imls/search/library_list.asp?LibraryName&LibraryID&Addre
18
ss&City&State=PA&Zip&Distance&County&PhoneAreaCode&Phone&Librarytype=B
R&ResultSetNumber=1&LibTypes=CE%2CBR&StateSelectedIndex=39 (accessed
October 10, 2010).
Jennings, Susan, and Jamie Price. “'Be My Friend': Using Facebook in Libraries.” Tennessee
Libraries 58, no. 1 (2008): 1-3.
Jowitt, Angela L. "Creating Communities with Podcasting." Computers in Libraries 28, no. 4
(April 2008): 14-15, 54-56.
Kwanya, Tom, Christine Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood. "Library 2.0: Revolution or
Evolution?" South African Journal of Library & Information Science 75, no. 1 (2009):
70 – 75.
Lankes, David R., Joanne Silverstein, and Scott Nicholson. “Participatory Networks: The Library
as Conversation.” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 4 (December 2007): 1733.
Lefever, Samuel, Dal, Michael, and Matthiasdottir, Asrun. "Online Data Collection in Academic
Research: Advantages and Limitations." British Journal of Educational Technology 38,
no. 4 (July 2007): 574 - 582.
Lietzau, Zeth, "U.S. Public Libraries and Web 2.0: What's Really Happening?" Computers in
Libraries 29, no. 9 (October 2009): 6 - 10.
O'Reilly, Tim. “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation
of Software,” September 30, 2005. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
(accessed October 30, 2010).
19
Peltier-Davis, Cheryl. “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative
Services for Sustainable Libraries.” Computers in Libraries 29, no. 19 (November 2009):
16-21.
Rutherford, Louise L. “Building Participative Library Services: The Impact of Social Software
Use in Public Libraries.” Library Hi Tech 26, no. 3 (2008): 411-423.
Rutherford, Louise L. “Implementing Social Software in Public Libraries: An Exploration of the
Issues Confronting Public Library Adopters of Social Software.” Library Hi Tech 26, no.
2 (2008): 184-200.
Sekyere, Kwabena. "Too Much Hullabaloo About Facebook in Libraries! Is It Really Helping
Libraries?" Nebraska Library Association Quarterly 40, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 25 - 27.
Sodt, Jill M., and Terri Pederson Summey. “Beyond the Library's Walls: Using Library 2.0 Tools
to Reach Out to All Users.” Journal of Library Administration 49 (2009): 97-109.
Thornton, Lori. “Facebook for Libraries.” Christian Librarian 52, no. 3 (2009): 112-115.
Yang, Sharon Q., and Melissa A. Hofmann. "The Next Generation Library Catalog: A
Comparative Study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager." Information
Technology and Libraries 29, no. 3 (September 2010): 141-50.
Zellers, Jessica. "In Blog Heaven: A Painless New Approach to Readers' Advisory." Virginia
Libraries 53, no. 3 (July/August/September 2007): 23 – 24.
20