<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intuition-based librarianship?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/intuition-based-librarianship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/intuition-based-librarianship/</link>
	<description>Disclaimer: I'm not actually a robot.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:37:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jane Blumenthal</title>
		<link>http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/intuition-based-librarianship/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane Blumenthal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/intuition-based-librarianship/#comment-8</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I can&#039;t argue with a thing you&#039;ve said. I do find it frustrating, however, when the data shows patrons what/need/use one thing and the response is that we still have to keep collecting things they don&#039;t use because someone may want or use it someday, and that we have to keep providing services that they don&#039;t use because they SHOULD be using them. I.e., despite what you, our educated users think, we know better than you what you actually need.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t argue with a thing you&#8217;ve said. I do find it frustrating, however, when the data shows patrons what/need/use one thing and the response is that we still have to keep collecting things they don&#8217;t use because someone may want or use it someday, and that we have to keep providing services that they don&#8217;t use because they SHOULD be using them. I.e., despite what you, our educated users think, we know better than you what you actually need.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Booth</title>
		<link>http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/intuition-based-librarianship/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Booth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/intuition-based-librarianship/#comment-7</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I really appreciated your comment that &quot;We’re assuming that the 99.999% of users who never talk to a librarian (many of whom, in fact, never enter the library building) have the exact same needs and perspective as those who engage in reference interviews&quot; as it struck a resonant chord with me.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I have just submitted a regular feature to the Health Information &amp; Libraries Journal forthcoming issue which seeks to dispel the myth of the &quot;typical library user&quot;. It follows very similar lines to your own comments. I would be interested in your thoughts once it appears or will happily send you the proof version which I have just received.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really appreciated your comment that &#8220;We’re assuming that the 99.999% of users who never talk to a librarian (many of whom, in fact, never enter the library building) have the exact same needs and perspective as those who engage in reference interviews&#8221; as it struck a resonant chord with me.</p>

<p>I have just submitted a regular feature to the Health Information &amp; Libraries Journal forthcoming issue which seeks to dispel the myth of the &#8220;typical library user&#8221;. It follows very similar lines to your own comments. I would be interested in your thoughts once it appears or will happily send you the proof version which I have just received.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.568 seconds -->
