Link Rot: Scourge of Modern Self-Educators

Spend nearly any amount of time on the Internet and you’ll run across what’s called a 404 error message–an HTTP standard response code that signifies the absence of a web page or, at least, an inability to access the server that hosts it–known to many simply as “oops” or, more commonly, as a number of profane remarks. It is the result of the ironically natural decomposition of the digital world–a process that results in the loss of a number of valuable LIS resources every year.

Just have a look at one of the LIS directories out there–I once came across a wonderful introduction to collection development hosted by the Arizona state library in the height of my initial, obsessive fervor. In my excitement, I managed to bookmark the site and proceeded to read about half of the short articles before I began drifting off (It was already late when I found the site) but, a day later, I clicked on the link only to find a soft 404 error message.

The difference between a true 404 error message and a “soft” 404 message lies in the level of communication. A true 404 error message comes from a server to a person’s browser in the form of a machine language–once the browser receives this code, it knows to display a pre-set page explaining that the site requested is unavailable for whatever reason. A “soft” 404 error message isn’t actually a 404 error at all–when the web master of a site no longer wants to host a specific page, he can make another page (a page that reads 200 OK in the machine language) that simply tells you directly in english (or, again, whatever other human language) that the article you requested isn’t available anymore. It is this “soft” 404 error message that makes automated clean up of link rot nearly impossible because, to a machine, the page that so artfully displays the responsible party’s apology appears to be just like any other functioning page.

Wake up! The boring part is over…

So how do we address this problem? To preserve a paper resource that may normally be discarded by the reader such as a journal or a newspaper, physical archives are created–the same can be done with web pages in a digital environment through web archiving. There are some formats that are more convenient than others and, when you get into matters of multimedia, there are some formats more capable of thorough preservation than others. The latter, however, is not typically required for the preservation of simple web pages. The most popular format choices are:

-HTML (HyperText Markup Language): Saves only that which is represented by HTML coding (Text, color, underlining, text size, etc).

-”Webpage, complete”: This option found on some computers using a windows operating system and also saves HTML but additionally saves images from the page in a separate but linked folder on your hard drive.

-MHTML (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions HTML): Also known on some windows computers as “Web Archive”, this format includes the images and attachments of a page like the “webpage, complete” does but instead of adding these images to a linked folder, it embeds them with the text thereby saving space and eliminating clutter on the drive.

-PDF (Portable Document Format): While not technically a format for saving web pages, a lot of sites link to information in this format and it is, at least for multi-page documents, very convenient saving the time of storing several individual pages.

The only other issue is the drive on which this information is saved. The hard drives built-in on the average computer have more than enough space but even the relatively cheap 1 GB flashdrives have many times the space that one person working on a amature basis will ever use. These types of drives typically fit into USB ports for convenience and have a data retention life somewhere around a decade so they’re a good investment for under twenty bucks a piece.

So I lied…the boring part wasn’t over but now it is–place a comment and put what you’ve learned into action!

The Librarian: A Social Animal

Going into your studies which, if you are lucky, may involve mentoring, implementation of your proposals and projects or even assignment of special duties, requires an understanding of the relevant aspects of library workplace psychology. That’s another way of saying “how to not piss everyone off”…

There are a number of difficult personalities that a MLUSers will encounter in the average library and they all require their own unique strategy to effectively remove them as obstacles. First, you have the true believer–this is the kind of guy or gal that organizes their DVD collection at home by alphabetical title (separated into sections based on their country of origin) and hoist signs at rallies when a new, ridiculous prevision to the Patriot Act is written into law. They love library work, they believe that library is an essential asset to the community and they would ordinarily encourage interest in LIS–if the MLUSer is careful with her wording.

These idealistic types will often take criticism of the MLS and the current system of LIS education as a criticism of the knowledge that *should* come with graduation from such a programs–the motivations of an MLUSer is directly contrary to this view but comments taken out of context can go a long way towards masking this fact. For instance, if a MLUSer were to say that a particular co-worker doesn’t need her MLS to do the job that she does, it could be seen as an insult to the library science that *should* be implemented in the co-worker’s position. Instead, if she must be criticized at all, one should focus comments on how this person isn’t living up to the potential of the position in question.

The antidote is simple: elaborate. For those who are quick to dismiss a person based on negative first impressions, it’s best to save your comments on related issues until you have time for a more in-depth discussion–not when you are both working the desk and are frequently interrupted by patrons. Remember: these people can be extremely valuable assets in your studies–don’t alienate them.

Then there are the two other groups: burn-outs and the corporate-types…

Library work can take a lot out of people if they’re trying to accomplish something amongst a number of difficult people and can burn them out–Don’t give up on them! These types span every level of library work from page to director for various reasons and the higher-up they are, the more difficult they are to work around. Sometimes all these people need is a show of interest to rekindle previously trampled passion. Ask their opinions, bring-up interesting thoughts that came to you as you were reading the previous night–a lot of people will respond to that sort of inclusive technique and you’ll find yourself another friend.

There are some corporate-minded types that, while not lacking motivation, have no concept of noble purpose and are just out for their own gain. This could mean anything from a lack of cooperative or team attitude to actively sabotaging other’s projects to make them appear superior. If you can’t get around them in any way, chances are that they’re doing themselves in–they keep going by hiding their discretions from their “superiors” but rarely their “subordinates” as a method of fear-based of control. Refusal to given in to such intimidation–especially from younger pages–is, itself, an intimidating act and will put these types off balance. But it is only through honest and uncensored expression of these individual’s actions on an appropriate level that they will lose their grip–not by trying to fighting fire with fire.

In the end, be kind to everyone that you come across–library science is a discipline that should serve the community and never individual ambition alone, don’t let frustration with these people get in the way of what she believes should be done.