7 thoughts on “report spam?”

  1. Aaron: We reached out to become a beta test partner in Encore.

    No one could accuse Innovative the organization (West Coast though it is) of being cool; and the way that Gene Shimshock (who’s a genuinely nice guy, by the way) dated that email looks to me as though he were “wearing a tie” to introduce himself. All I can say from this distance, not knowing your priorities, or anyone else’s, is, suspend disbelief. I’m not speaking so much of Innovative the vendor of Encore, but Innovative as an example of a library vendor that’s easy to make fun of, to see as the overweight guy with the tie in the Microsoft/Apple ads.

    Our ILS is critical to our success, and we’ve decided to work in partnership with Innovative, as we have with other vendors for different elements of our business (and it is a business), because without them we’re dead. Darien Library is just a cute little library is southwestern Connecticut — there are lots of much bigger, higher-profile libraries that have a bigger footprint than we and can command more attention, — and I think it would be better if we all decided to work in tandem, and in partnership.

    I may being a little old school here, but if we want them to respect us, we need to respect them.

    Apologies if I have taken your comment too seriously.

  2. You’re not being old school. Respect is good. It is just that when I received the unsolicited email (not the best practice IMO) and then noticed the email dated (not a usual practice in my experience) it seemed slightly illustrative of the larger whole. It gave me the same feeling I get when librarians sign blog posts. I’ll admit that it is difficult for me to suspend belief about a company’s “social” product when they’re using email blasts and like you said, “wearing a tie.” Maybe I’m being to harsh or am already jaded! I hope for libaries’ sake that Encore is really social (what users want and expect) instead of vendor social (what vendors think users want and expect) or that John can work his magic otherwise.

    I’m not trying to rake a nice guy over the coals for something as innocuous as typing the date on an email. That’d be petty and I don’t want to pick on anyone. However, when coworkers have reported III being completely unresponsive to major issues with (one system’s instance of) their product, I see things through that lens.

    On a larger scale, it makes me wonder if organizations become out of touch because they are a conglomerate of many small mistakes, or the mistakes are symptoms. Probably both.

  3. Uh oh. Now wondering if I have signed some of my posts, and betting I have. Arrggghhhh!

    I’m real sure John’s going to work his magic, and some of we expect to be on Encore. But if not there, somewhere, since we and our patrons need it. RSN.

    Do you know the phrase, “Tough on the issues, soft on the people?” More and more I find myself getting back to that and trying to find a balance — especially since the immediacy of the web makes it so easy to be pretty abrupt. In the physical world, I remember it said that my freedom of expression ends right in front of someone’s nose. On the web, I think we punch right through to the back of the other person’s virtual skull.

    So while I agree “tough on the issues” calls out Innovative to be responsive to our needs, not just guided by theirs, “soft on the people” says I plan to take you and Gene out to lunch at the next conference where we find ourselves together.

  4. I came here to leave some “AHAHA!” comment since I read the post via RSS but since I’m here and I see all the nice tie-wearing discussion, I’ll just chime in. I get where you’re coming from Alan, respect is important. I know you and I know you’re a tie-wearing guy in every GOOD way, I suspect. I also think, if I were taking you to a pool party and you were still wearing that tie, as your friend I’d tell you to maybe loosen it up a little and get to know the people by the cabanas.

    I feel like there have been a lot of people telling our OPAC/ILS vendors that they’re not getting the web. We’ve shown them how and we’ve showed them people doing it better. I don’t really feel that those helpful “hey friend, you’ve got spinach in your teeth” comments have been taken to heart. I feel that there is a sometimes willful ignorance that they have moved into a culture that they don’t dominate. In a way it feels almost colonial.

    The Web had a culture before the vendors moved into it, it truly did. Many people have been politely trying to point this out, establishing best practices and good design and standards to be compliant with. I do not see certain companies making what seems to be any effort at all — besides bloggish lip service — to meeting and greeting the existing culture and finding ways to fit in as well as be able to do business. The most successful businesses in the past five years have been those who get the web.

    Sending out unsolicited email the way you’d send a press release to a newspaper (about library 2.0 no less) was outdated in 1998. Now, maybe they’re trying to meet the customer at their level; librarianship isn’t always overflowing with “with it” folks technologically but that is changing and changing fast. However I think they’re just going to steamroll ahead, doing business as they’ve always been doing it and assume that we’ll follow along as we’ve always done. I appreciate the tough choices you have to make at Dafrien, but for the libraries in my nexk of the woods, who haven’t even chosen their first OPAC yet, we’re not looking very seriously in III’s direction.

    I’m sure Gene is a peach and I know you two are, but while we can maintain a decent respectful tone, I think a polite “um, the party is over here” note is certainly okay.

  5. Wait! You don’t wear a tie to a pool party? That explains a lot of things in my life, way, way too late, sadly :-)

    Just to be clear. I’m not here to carry water for Innovative. They’re big people, and will stand or fall on their own.

    But the party is going to be over for us all, in Vermont, Oregon or Connecticut, if we don’t find a way to remake ourselves, and do it in a hurry. We are going to need to do that in partnership with vendors, many of whom don’t get it in Internet time, but as they say, “it’s not your fault, but it IS your responsibility.” Lots of places to concentrate on, some cool, some bedrock simple, but oh so critical.

    While the party’s going on over at the cabanas, maybe some of us better check in to make sure the food’s on its way, the plumbing is working, and the lifeguards are up on their training, ’cause someone’s going to fall in the pool for sure. Then maybe some of us with ties are going to get wet pulling them out.

  6. Dear ILS vendors: Please stop tossing around phrases like “discovery services platform” and “interactive and contextual learning experience” to describe your new catalog-plus interfaces. Really, just stop.

  7. WHY AM I GETTING ALL THEASE ATTACKS
    NEW ROUTER SAME AS OLD ONE.
    [admin login] from source 192.168.1.22, Thursday, March 26,2009 16:56:17
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.2] to MAC address 00:1b:b9:52:94:88, Thursday, March 26,2009 16:31:42
    [admin login] from source 192.168.1.22, Thursday, March 26,2009 16:26:46
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.22] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:72:1b:a3, Thursday, March 26,2009 15:52:27
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Thursday, March 26,2009 15:34:04
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:29:13
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:19:56
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:19:00
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.7] to MAC address 00:08:54:8a:64:5d, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:15:12
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:13:51
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:08:45
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 216.178.33.26, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 14:02:21
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:58:31
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 208.76.70.33, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:54:45
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:38:02
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 208.117.236.75, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:30:50
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.91.65.227, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:28:38
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:27:47
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.91.65.227, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:27:02
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:18:08
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.114, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 13:09:24
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 64.193.140.96, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 12:58:18
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.22] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:72:1b:a3, Thursday, March 26,2009 12:31:53
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Thursday, March 26,2009 11:46:45
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Thursday, March 26,2009 09:37:03
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Thursday, March 26,2009 08:52:08
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.22] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:72:1b:a3, Thursday, March 26,2009 08:39:54
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Thursday, March 26,2009 07:41:43
    [Internet connected] IP address: 173.89.34.207, Thursday, March 26,2009 06:31:20
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Thursday, March 26,2009 05:31:30
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.2] to MAC address 00:1b:b9:52:94:88, Thursday, March 26,2009 04:31:45
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Thursday, March 26,2009 03:10:16
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 207.241.148.80, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 03:04:03
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 207.241.148.80, port 80, Thursday, March 26,2009 03:03:23
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Thursday, March 26,2009 02:51:50
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Thursday, March 26,2009 02:23:15
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.7] to MAC address 00:08:54:8a:64:5d, Thursday, March 26,2009 00:15:24
    [Time synchronized with NTP server] Wednesday, March 25,2009 21:34:58
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Wednesday, March 25,2009 20:04:22
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.126, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 19:11:26
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 208.117.236.75, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 19:08:42
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 204.11.33.70, port 8000, Wednesday, March 25,2009 19:01:32
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.126, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 19:01:15
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 204.11.33.70, port 8000, Wednesday, March 25,2009 19:00:28
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.126, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 18:40:50
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 168.75.65.85, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 18:37:26
    [Internet connected] IP address: 173.89.34.207, Wednesday, March 25,2009 18:31:18
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.126, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 18:30:37
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Wednesday, March 25,2009 17:50:21
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 68.180.196.106, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 17:47:29
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 66.179.128.120, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 17:43:08
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Wednesday, March 25,2009 17:33:36
    [WLAN access rejected: incorrect security] from MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Wednesday, March 25,2009 17:00:04
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.2] to MAC address 00:1b:b9:52:94:88, Wednesday, March 25,2009 16:36:19
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Wednesday, March 25,2009 16:19:19
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.7] to MAC address 00:08:54:8a:64:5d, Wednesday, March 25,2009 15:51:23
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 65.55.197.254, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 14:26:01
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.22] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:72:1b:a3, Wednesday, March 25,2009 13:29:14
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Wednesday, March 25,2009 13:22:19
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Wednesday, March 25,2009 11:29:42
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Wednesday, March 25,2009 10:57:50
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 72.167.239.239, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 10:57:01
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Wednesday, March 25,2009 10:25:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 72.167.239.239, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 10:07:48
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.40, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:52:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.20, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:52:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.40, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:52:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.21, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:50:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.20, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:50:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.21, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:50:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 62.108.136.20, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:50:34
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 216.239.122.227, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:49:12
    [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 216.239.116.65, port 80, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:48:59
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:44:15
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.22] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:72:1b:a3, Wednesday, March 25,2009 09:20:50
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 76.13.209.35, port 10111, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:40:53
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:38:49
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:38:42
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:38:16
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:38:10
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:37:50
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:37:38
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:37:25
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:37:06
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:59
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:50
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:46
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:42
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:40
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:38
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:37
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.58, port 8087, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:36
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 10.4.28.71, port 8085, Wednesday, March 25,2009 08:36:35
    [Internet connected] IP address: 173.89.34.207, Wednesday, March 25,2009 06:31:18
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Wednesday, March 25,2009 06:01:42
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.2] to MAC address 00:1b:b9:52:94:88, Wednesday, March 25,2009 04:36:22
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.7] to MAC address 00:08:54:8a:64:5d, Wednesday, March 25,2009 03:51:24
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.6] to MAC address 00:0e:35:c4:14:5e, Wednesday, March 25,2009 03:22:45
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 38.96.148.16, port 8194, Tuesday, March 24,2009 21:43:24
    [DHCP IP: 192.168.1.3] to MAC address 00:e0:4d:6b:5f:d5, Tuesday, March 24,2009 21:36:30
    [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 208.80.52.80, port 80, Tuesday, March 24,2009 21:36:23
    [Time synchronized with NTP server] Tuesday, March 24,2009 21:34:57
    [Initialized, firmware version: V1.0.8_1.0.6] Tuesday, March 24,2009 21:34:57
    HOPE YOU CAN HELP

Leave a Reply