At the ALA Convention
McCormick Center, Room N228, 1:30-3:30 PM
Introductions. I've forgotten the names of the panelists already.
No difference between online reference and other reference ...
... except for the tools.
We look at some ref protocols.
Don't use too many scripts. Personalize.
Make the email ref form good.
Get the patron involved in the answering process.
Doors slamming. This session is not for everyone.
Everyone laughs at something I think is "wonder.com." "Google answers minus Google."
We will make mistakes.
Reference work as plastic surgery.
Someone in the audience is knitting.
Do we need all the bells and whistles? "IM works super."
Don't hide the ref links on the library page.
The guy next to me spills his drink on the carpet.
A Q/A session. (Ahoy!)
Staffing problems and bureaucracy.
"Accuracy is so 1996."
"Willingness to return" as an important ref evaluation stat.
The panel laughs at protocol 4.2: "...competent and complete."
Applause from a nearby room.
Roving techniques. Should ref librarians do it, or can the hired help?
Make the rovers approachable.
Quibbling with protocol 1.7. "Not that I'm quibbling ..."
Omnious rumbles from the ceiling.
Rovers can seem creepy.
More door slamming.
No one seems to like cobrowsing too much. Well, a couple people do.
"What a bunch of geeks we are."
"I always get the hardest questions when I rove."
Serious hating on librarians who won't get out of their chairs.
The goodness of following up.
A success story turns into a brag.
Approachability, approachability, approachability, and followups.
Model behavior assessment.
"Be nice, but not creepy."
Some practice with chat required.
A panelist says "sneakily," but quickly recants.
Training using role playing (which I personally hate).
We're running late.
The last Q/A.
I'm burned out. I don't understand what this guy is getting at.
Now off to get some more schwag.