The Great Debate: Goodreads vs Shelfari vs LibraryThing

Compare, compare, compare!  And still come up empty-handed? 

So over the past couple of weeks I have been exploring potential personal and educational uses of Goodreads, Shelfari, and LibraryThing.  My initial proposal did not include LibraryThing in this debate, but most of the research I read included these three tools in discussion of RA (readers' advisory) tools, so my hunt for the ideal tool quickly embraced all three.  I now have 5 new accounts, more book recommendations than could ever be explored by one human, and absolutely no idea which tool is the one for me!!!

Wyatt (2007) points out the benefits of increasing reader interactions in a library: "as the ultimate goal of RA service is to create, maintain, and increase all types of conversations about library material, incorporating readers' interactions into library catalogs and web sites pushes RA a giant step forward. Suddenly, we can help readers help one another, engage with RA services more deeply, and thus increase the serendipity of RA" (para 22).  As a librarian in a very small school, I like the idea of students being able to look for recommendations beyond their immediate peer group. 

Rapp (2011) examined LibraryThing, Goodreads, and Shelfari and found that these tools are most useful in a library when they combine the computer algorithm recommendations with the personal comments and connections:  "such one-on-one dialogs are the heart and soul of RA work, and they are getting more support than ever from book recommendation sites, which can also add complex algorithms to the mix, crunching the numbers on millions of user-provided book ratings.  This process moves beyond individual tags and reviews to provide a broad overview of opinion, and, done well, it can help provide ready-made recommendations for RA" (para 5-6). 

Although the research and experiences I have read do lead me to believe that at least one of these sites could be a useful tool, my experience with them has not convinced me that any of them will have immediate usefulness in my life.  I will explain my use of each tool in future posts, and will try and discover at least one way I can incorporate one of these tools into my personal or professional life. 

References

Rapp, D.  (2011). Crowdsourcing RA. Library Journal, 136(10), 56.

Wyatt, N.  (200). 2.0 for readers. Library Journal, 132(18), 30.