The Player's Lounge

                 It is obvious to most who dare to venture into my blog, that I have quite an issue with condensing my thoughts.  I eagerly blog three times as many words as instructed to do so, suggesting that I myself will have an abundance of issues as a digital history player in presenting my historical research through the use of websites.  It is through this week’s readings that I have found inspiration to, well, not be so wordy!  Here goes!

                What stuck out to me more than any other piece of advice in our readings so far, is Cohen and Rosenzweig quote from Michael O’Mally in their work “Designing for the History Web” where O’Mally explains that the art of the site lends itself to the content of the site info itself.  I interpret this, though incorrect as I might be, that I should supplement a good portion of my words with visual representations.  Charles Joseph Minard’s map showing Napoleon’s failed expedition into Russia in the winter of 1812 exemplified all the information needed which could arguably take hundreds of words to explain.  Not only does this save space, it helps visual learners comprehend the content as well.  It is because of this, that I respectfully disagree with our authors that text gets points across quicker, though it is probably determined off of the learning style of the reader. 

                How does one go about marketing their work once the final project is ready to be presented?  In “Building an Audience”, the authors support the influence the news and media can have in reaching a broader range in audience; especially if your work is associated with an upcoming anniversary date or historically significant event.  More importantly for our authors, spend your time and energy on free publicity, not money on advertising, such as on the Google search engine.

                Stepping back a few strides, arts-humanities.net offers a multitude of advice in how to plan your website before you physically construct it.  This site offers examples of other projects’ approaches to their construction with the use of spelling out: their subject, place, time, meta-data, sources, type of access, data formats, meta-data standards as well as revisions to the project.  These models coincide with Cohen and Rosenzweig’s framework of how to lay out your website before you start the actual programming. 

                It was interesting to see how everything we’ve been reading applies to already existing digital archives.  ‘250+ Digital Archives and Libraries’ is a great site to visit to see all of the advice being implemented.  Though, disappointing to see such states as Rhode Island, which has a wealth of history and following, does not have an archive listed!  Saying that, I’d love to see Spokane listed as having their own archive with their rich historical background.  I know, I know, money is always the culprit!

                I hope that there isn’t a dying interest in sharing digital archives, however.  It appears that the site ‘A Compendium of Digital Collections’ lost its momentum in sharing various archives.  The last blog was in early 2009, with the exception of the 2011 entry where the site facilitator, University of New Hampshire Library, states they are no longer hosting the site.  Maybe there is more energy going into broader searches, such as Google searches; which is evident, has its own issues.

                Many commentators ding Google for their inability to provide relevant search results for topics of interest.  We have all had it happen before, we become puzzled and frustrated that what we’re searching for through the enormous search engine does not provide us with our desired feedback.  Cohen specifically argues, however, that Google can learn to rank search results without bibliometrics and text mining.  Instead, Google should study how historians rank and sort primary and secondary sources.  Cebula also comes to the defense of Google’s seemingly lacking search capabilities, by stating that many of the inconsistencies of Google searches are irrelevant to people’s searching anyhow.  For one, we already know what we’re looking for, it is just a minor blip if something with the wrong category shows up; and above all metadata can be fixed, that is why Google has options to leave feedback. 

                Time is paramount in historical research as well as digital construction.  Catone uses witty graphics to suggest ways to find what you’re looking for, while Tedesco does the same, suggesting time saving methods of research such as-my favorite-the control ‘f’ option to find a particular word or phrase in an article, saving me time from having to read the entire article. 

                When time is not of the essence, I very much enjoy such interactive sites, or mobile applications, such as Spokane Historical, or Cleveland and New Orleans’ historical applications, Cleveland Historical and New Orleans’ Historical, respectively.  I have been using the Spokane Historical app for some time now, always making a point to reference it when I am out and about.  This has prompted many of my friends and family members to download the same app.  It appears that other historic areas, e.g. Cleveland and New Orleans, implement the same methods of getting their community excited about their own history. 

The Spokane Historical app is fun to use just walking around town!  I would definitely recommend it when you're at a boring event out on the town and need some historical enrichment.

                Not only do I enjoy Spokane Historical, I enjoy reading about history of communities in general.  I didn’t find historypin.org as relevant to my interests, because I don’t care to see people’s random-non historical-pictures of their husbands and cars around the world.  However, I am excited to learn about and play around with the new app ‘Next Exit History’.  I am an ardent road tripper, so this tool will be by my side on every trip I take!  Can I suggest that this is something to be incorporated into the navigation systems in cars?  Just suggesting…

                We are all players in digital history; we all contribute in some way from either: publishing work, or looking it up or offering advice to others on how to do either.  I find that we would be hard pressed to discover a person not engaged in digital history.  This is suggesting that digital history is evolving into its own “science of the humanities.”

If anyone is still counting, I did a lot better on reducing my content.  But still much more to learn from this course!