Menu:
Interview: Library Journal WebWatch Editor Norman Oder
ICT: How has the WebWatch column evolved since its inception in 1996?
NO: WebWatch was inaugurated in February, 1996 by Boyd Collins, information technology librarian at Rutgers University. He gave up the column after January 1997, due to his increased workload. We didn't have a candidate to replace him, and, given that reviewing the web requires both web expertise and subject expertise, it didn't seem like we could or should find just one. So we've opened it up to any potential reviewers. I should note that I was not present at the inception. I joined LJ a few months after the column launched.
I took a look at one of the early columns: It had only 4 reviews! Now we include some 12-15 (sometimes more) reviews. The rationale is that there are many sites worth mentioning. Of course there's a tradeoff now, as the sites get less coverage. But I think it works reasonably well: usually there are about 4 main sites that get longer reviews, and the rest are alternates, usually grouped.
The early column included two features to make it easier reading: each column ended with a paragraph for Pros/Cons and one for Bottom Line. We cut the Pros/Cons because it often just repeated the review. Also, the original columns included a box to remind people of "website watchwords:" content, authority, organization, search engine, accessibility. That became superfluous after the web became more ubiquitous.
ICT: Do you see WebWatch as a good starting point for librarians that are new to publishing? Have you seen many WebWatch reviewers go on to publish other material?
NO: It's not the best starting point, because it's an 1800-1900 word column that goes through a couple of drafts. I prefer reviewers who have some experience writing, preferably for a more popular medium, rather than just academic work. A good way to start is to write short book (or web site) reviews. I also ask for a sample review, if they have nothing published.
ICT: What are the qualities you look for in a reviewer?
NO: I look for people who've demonstrated some understanding of the web, the subject, and -- this is often most elusive -- a critical sensibility. Librarians, I know, are professionally focused on "reasons to include" -- which may make them less inclined to be as critical and analytical as I'd like. I used to be a newspaper reporter, and I came to LJ after working for Publishers Weekly as a writer and reviewer, so I come this from a more journalistic/critical angle. (My mom was a librarian, though.)
ICT: What are some common mistakes made by potential WebWatch reviewers?
NO: See above. Also, some people have not read the column closely enough to understand our style and format. For example, they propose too many sites that are redundant (e.g., several gateways).
Also, they sometimes provide laundry lists of features/links without evaluating them, and uncritically adopt the promotional language of text at the sites. If something at the site -- or the background of the author -- is not clear, they shouldn't take it at face value; they can e-mail the site administrator and ask.
ICT: What suggestions would you have for those new to this style of writing?
NO: Write reviews -- of something: books, other media, etc. The challenge for WebWatch is melding a reviewer's sensibility with an understanding of the topic and the web, so the reviewer can explain what's important/useful about the sites, point out some caveats, and lead the reader through sometimes confusing design.
ICT: The WebWatch archives are accessible online from Library Journal's web site. Do you see a lot of visits to the archives? Does Library Journal receive any feedback on the usefulness of the WebWatch column?
NO: Frankly, we only get very infrequent feedback about the archives. As for the column, occasionally I hear from people at conferences -- or prospective reviewers say they like it. But I can't say we've been inundated.
ICT: How do reviews in WebWatch differ the large number of web site reviews that are available from other sources?
NO: I like to think that our reviewers are a little more analytical, both of the content and the design. The column format allows the reviewer to range around several aspects of a topic, and, ideally, to compare and contrast several sites within the column. This is aimed to help librarians both setting up links pages as well as using the column as a primer to help patrons (or, simply, to give to patrons).
ICT: Could you give an idea of the amount of work involved in writing a WebWatch column? How many times does a reviewer generally have to rewrite the column before it is suitable for publication?
NO: It can be a lot of work. WebWatch columns, especially the first one for a writer, require a lot of back-and-forth with me: deciding the scope of the topic, then the sites to review, then at least one rewrite. Developing the list of sites sometimes takes as long as the writing process. I find that many reviewers must be pushed to be more critical and analytical -- and to explicitly guide the reader through the site when it is confusing (web site design is hardly standardized). Some people enjoy the challenge and the rigor; others may find it a little wearying. Those who've done more than one column generally find the process less complicated -- and I do too.
ICT: WebWatch has covered quite a few topics over the years. Could you mention a couple of previous topics as examples, and explain what you are looking for in terms of topic breadth?
NO: November 1999: Reference
December 1999: UFOS
January 2000: Weddings
February 2000: Home Repair
March 2000: Taxes
April 2000: Cold War
May 2000: Gardening
June 2000: International
July 2000: Distance Ed
Aug 2000: Olympics
Sept. 2000: Disaster Relief
Oct. 2000: Privacy
Well, here's the list for the past year. There's a mix of practical, timely, entertaining, and even more academic topics. Generally, the challenge is finding a topic that is neither too broad nor too specialized: the Cold War, not War, for example.
Update: As of May, 2002 Norman Oder is no longer the WebWatch editor for LJ -- please do not contact him regarding this column.
Norman Oder was Library Journal's WebWatch editor. Visit the WebWatch archives.