Go from Blog to Catablog and Make Your Collections Available Online

The HRC thanks Gail Wiese for serving as a guest author for the following entry. Gail is Assistant Archivist at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont. Her work in the Norwich University Archives has focused primarily on processing historical photograph collections and increasing the accessibility of archival collections. She also works part-time performing traditional cataloging of manuscript collections at the Vermont Historical Society in Barre, Vermont.
Would your institution like to make descriptions of its archival collections available online, but doesn't have the staff, time, or budget to maintain an archival management system? If so, a catablog might be the solution.
Creating a "catablog" Web site is an easy way to make your collections accessible on the internet. Literally, you are cataloging your collections using blogging software--creating an inexpensive online catalog of finding aids. Collection descriptions are published as blog posts while other information can be folded in using traditional static Web pages.
Robert Cox, head of Special Collections and University Archives at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, created the original catablog, UMarmot, with the idea that blog technology offered few barriers to adoption. A high level of technical expertise is not necessary to create and maintain a catablog and customization can be varied by an institution's needs, means, and skills. And higher levels of customization and complexity can be added at a later point. At the Norwich University Archives, most of our catablog's customization relates to overall appearance and alphabetization of posts.
Some of the strengths of catablogs include:
- Staff does not need advanced technology skills for successful implementation;
- Costs extend to labor (e.g. staff time) only, not to purchasing software;
- Collection descriptions can be quickly published, edited, and illustrated;
- The technology offers the potential for greater interaction with users. Anyone can add a comment to entries to ask questions or to share their own knowledge with others;
- Organizations can tag and categorize collection descriptions to facilitate the ease of cross-collection searches;
- Tags and categories can be customized to reflect your organization's specific discipline, collections, and users;
- The structure, content, and workflow of catablogs can conform to an organization's internal practices, budget and staffing support;
- Descriptions of collections can contain as little or as much detail as desired and can be easily edited and revised at any time;
- Additional blog plug-ins can be added at any point to enable or enhance a wide variety of functionality.
If I've piqued your interest in catablogs, click on the links below to look at some catablogs that are already in use:
- UMarmot (the original catablog)
- Norwich University (currently a soft launch)
- Drexel University
- Emma @ Brooklyn Historical Society
- Lawrence Public Library Special Collections





What Are People Saying About This Post?
This is a very intriguing approach and I found a lot of information included in the item or collection descriptions that seemed over and above what I might expect to find in a catalog entry. I can also see the benefit of being able to, in effect, have several organizational schemes coexisting and even being created ad hoc - that is, without an organization plan but just as they are needed.
But I did not see any of the extra bits of data usually included in a catalog - such as identification number, location, date and source of acquisition and so on. Is this data present but somehow hidden in the background?
Are there any examples online of straightforward museum collections of primarily objects and visual material with some paper items and few books? I did not see a lot of examples of objects which are often described to the point of lifelessness in normal museum methodologies and I wondered how they would be handled in this type of catalog.
Or do you consider this approach to be well-suited only for certain types of collections? Could you or anyone else comment on the situations or collection types where this approach is most beneficial - and those where it may not be?