Medlibs Round 1.8 at Highlight Health

14 11 2009

For those that haven’t yet seen it:

The MedLib’s Round, the monthly blog carnival that highlights some of the best writing on medical librarianship, encompassing all stages in the publication and dissemination of medical information: writing, publishing, searching, citing, managing and social networking is up at Highlight Health (link).

The theme of this incredible 8th edition is: Finding Credible Health Information Online.

Walter Jessen introduces the round as follows:

There’s a revolution occurring on the Web: those “authoritative” articles written on traditional, static websites are being replaced with blogs, wikis and online social networks. In the sphere of health, medicine and information technology, this “real-time Web” consists of many who are experts in the field; these are their posts listed below.
In the digital age, these are the characteristics of new media: recent, relevant, reachable and reliable.

Subjects: “Searching the Web for health information”, “Biomedical research”, “Web 2.0 tools”, “PubMed Redesigned” and “Social media and participatory medicine” with contributions of Women’s Health News, Our Bodies Our Blog [@rachel_w]* Emerging Technologies Librarian [@pfanderson] Musings of a Distractible Mind [@doc_rob] Laika’s MedLibLog [@ericrumsey, Janet Wale, @Laikas], Significant Science [@hleman], Websearch Guide Internet News [Gwen Harris], Alisha764’s Blog [@alisha764] Next Generation Science [@NextGenScience], Dr Shock MD Ph [@DrShock], Life in the Fast Lane [@sandnsurf], Knowledge beyond words [@novoseek on Twitter], Eagle Dawg Blog [@eagledawg], The Search Principle blog [@giustini], Krafty Librarian [@Krafty], Dose of Digital [@jonmrich], e-Patients.net [@SusannahFox] and Highlight HEALTH [@HighlightHEALTH].

Walter Jessen [wjjessen] concluded the blog carnival with a great presentation of Kevin Clauson [@kevinclauson] on the role of Facebook and Twitter in pharmacy and the development of participatory medicine. Since I intended to show this presentation anyway, I might as well place it here 😉 :

Please enjoy reading the blog carnival at Highlight Health.

The host of the next edition of MedLib’s Round will be Knowledge Beyond Words (http://blog.novoseek.com). Valentin of Novoseek invites you to start submitting through this form http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_6092.html

Past and future hosts can be found on the Medlib’s Archive.

*links refer to the Twitter addresses.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements




Laika’s #FollowFriday #FF Twitter List

13 11 2009

In my post Twitter’s #FollowFriday #FF – Over the Top. Literally I explained what Twitter’s FollowFriday or FF means, how this Twitter meme started and how FollowFriday should and shouldn’t be used.

In short, FollowFriday is a way to recommend a few people to your Twitter-followers. For at least 2 reasons: to acknowledge those favorite tweeters and make it easier for your followers to find new interesting people.

However, many people don’t use the FollowFriday correctly. For instance, they spend several tweets just mentioning dozens of @people and they repeat the tweets (retweet) about each recommendation they get @themselves. That is annoying for people seeing these tweets appearing in their timeline.

In this FollowFriday post I suggested some Twitter Etiquette Rules as well as some alternatives for the FollowFriday approach.

Now there is another alternative, which can either be used alone or as an adjunct to the normal FollowFriday-tweets:

Twitterlists!

The Twitter List feature is designed to make following and suggesting groups of tweeters easier. Everyone on Twitter can create up to 20 lists with a maximum of 500 Twitter people each. Others can follow these lists as well. So instead of FollowFridays you could construct lists of your favorite Twitter people for others to follow. There is one disadvantage of this approach: context is lost. You can only put people on a list without any further explanation why. Of course, you can create separate lists of categories of people, in my case librarians, doctors and funny people for instance, so others have an idea what to expect.

Some people think Twitterlists make FollowFridays obsolete. However Twitterlists and FollowFridays could reinforce each other. At least that’s what I will try using the following approach.

I will construct a FollowFriday Twitter list on basis of my FollowFriday-tweets. They provide the context. Because Tweets get lost, I will gather those tweets on a separate page, so you can always find my elaborated FF-recommendations there.

For Twitter-newcomers, who know me, but find it difficult to find interesting people to follow, this may be a useful starting point.

In selective cases I also plan to write a #FF post to put someone in the limelight. I intend to do the same with bloggers.

By the way I only include people with useful tweets on the lists, so people with great blogs but with not so interesting or very infrequent tweets won’t be included.
As time goes, I may also prune the list, because the number or quality of the tweets or my preference may change.

What is a good tweet? That is personal, but I think that people should be original, helpful, social and up to date and provide good information (with links) .

When you’re on Twitter you like you can follow my FF-list here:
http://twitter.com/laikas/followfridays-ff/

The Following people are included on my FF-list (listed chronologically according my tweet-timeline)
** means that I often have a chitchat or social talk with that person and/or that he/she is very helpful).

  1. @allergynotes , currently @drves (doctor, immunology, health 2.0, **) 2x
  2. @berci (doctor, scientist, **)
  3. @conorato (health 2.0)
  4. @shamsha (medlib, **)    3x
  5. @amcunningam (doctor, education, skeptic, **)  2x
  6. @pudliszek (medlib, **) 2x
  7. @eagledawg (medlib, **)  2x
  8. @pfanderson (medlib, geek, **)
  9. @digicmb (medlib, geek, NL, **)  2x
  10. @sarchet62 (lib, med. anthropologist, geek)
  11. @dreamingspires (publishing, Aussie, **)
  12. @staticnrg (survivor, health 2.0, science, **)
  13. @bonnycastle (education, **)
  14. @andrewspong (publishing, skeptic)
  15. @DrShock (doctor, psychi, NL, **)
  16. @aarontay (lib, geek)
  17. @MarilynMann (science, cancer survivor, lawyer, skeptic, pharma)
    Following tweets could not be traced back:
  18. @flutesUD (scientist, PhD-student, **)
  19. @palmdoc (doctor, geek)
  20. @doctorblogs (doctor, EBM, health 2.0)
  21. @bgaustin (EBM)
  22. @northerndoctor (doctor, GP, EBM, Skeptic)
  23. @Blue_Wode (EBM, Skeptic)
  24. @precordialthump (doctor, ICU, Aussie, **)
  25. @sandnsurf (doctor, ICU, Aussie, **)
  26. @bitethedust (Remote Pharmacist, Aussie, Art, **)
  27. @giustini (medlib, web 2.0)
  28. @jstaaks (lib, psycho, UBA, bieptweet, NL, **)
  29. @ENTHouse (doc, ENT, **)

Based on the Next #FollowFriday recommendations (as far as I could trace them back):





Cochrane 2.0 Workshop at the Cochrane Colloquium #CC2009

12 10 2009

Today Chris Mavergames and I held a workshop at the Cochrane Colloquium, entitled:  Web 2.0 for Cochrane (see previous post and abstract of the workshop)

First I gave an introduction into Medicine 2.0 and (thus) Web 2.0. Chris, Web Operations Manager and Information Architect of the Cochrane Collaboration, talked more about which Web 2.0 tools were already used by the Cochrane Collaboration and which Web 2.0 might be useful as such.

We had half an hour for discussion which was easily filled. There was no doubt about the usefulness of Web 2.0 for the Cochrane in this group. Therefore, there was ample room for discussing technical aspects, like:

  • Can you load your RSS feed of a PubMed search in Reference Manager? (According to Chris you can)
  • How can you deal with this lot of information (by following a specific subject, or not too much people – not many updates on a daily basis; you don’t have to follow it all, just pick up the headlines, when you can)
  • Are you involved in a Wiki that is successful? (it appears very difficult to involve people)
  • What happens if people comment or upload picture on facebook (of the Cochrane collaboration) in an appropriate way (Chris: didn’t happen, but you have to check and remove them)
  • How do you follow tweets (we showed Tweetdeckhashtags # and #followfridays)
  • What is the worst thing that happened to you (regarding web 2.0)? Chris and I thought a long time. Chris: that I revealed something that wasn’t officially public yet (though appeared to be o.k.). Me: spam (but I remove it/don’t approve it).
    Later I remembered two better (worse) examples, like the “Clinical Reader” social misbehaviour, a good example of how “branding” should not be done, and sites that publish top 50 and 100 list of bloggers just to get more traffic to their spam websites

Below is my presentation on Slideshare.

The (awful) green blackgound color indicates I went “live” on the web. As a reminder of what I did, I included some screendumps.

The current workshop was just meant to introduce and discuss Medicine 2.0 and Cochrane 2.0.

I hope we have a vivid discussion Wednesday when the plenary lectures deal with Cochrane 2.0.

The answers to my question on Twitter

  1. Why Web 2.0 is useful? (or not)
  2. Why we need Cochrane 2.0? (or not)

can be found on Visibletweets (temporary) and saved as: Quoteurl.com/sggq0 (permanent selection).

I think it would be good when these points are taken into account during the Cochrane 2.0 plenary discussions.

* possible WIKI (+ links) might appear at http://medicine20.wetpaint.com/page/Cochrane+2.0

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Beware of Top 50 “Great Tools to Double Check your Doctor” or whatever Lists.

1 09 2009

Just the other week I wrote a post “Vanity is the Quicksand of Reasoning: Beware of Top 100 and 50 lists!”

In short this post describes that (some) Top 100 etc lists may not be as useful or innocent as they seem. Some of these lists are created by real scam-sites, who’s only goal is to make money via click-troughs and to get as much traffic as possible, via YOU (and me)!

The scam appears in many guises.

  1. As submissions for a  blog carnival, i.e. 100-weight-loss-tips-tricks.
  2. An offer of a health care student who asks you to do a guest post (you only have to link back to his/her site).
  3. In the form of a mail, dropping you a quick line that you’re included in a top 100 list, possibly worth mentioning to your audience.
  4. You just noticed a top 100 list with excellent sites, worth mentioning on Twitter or Friendfeed, so your followers become aware of the sites and pass the message.

The first two are pretty obvious scam. The latter two are more difficult to see through.

Why do I write another post? Because it happened again, today. And I think I should bring the message home more clearly.

Below you see what happens. Berci has found a list with 50 great tools to “Double check your Doctor”. He tweets the link to what he considers a great resource list, and in no time the message and the link are tweeted several times. Some people also post a link on their blog.

  1. Bertalan Meskó
    Berci 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor http://ff.im/-7q7DA
  2. Liza Sisler
    lizasisler Good resource list RT @Berci 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor http://ff.im/-7q7DA
  3. Bart Collet
    bart RT @Berci: 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor http://ff.im/-7q7DA
  4. Guy Therrien
    gtherrien RT @bart: 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor – Online Nursing Classes http://ff.im/-7q9pK
  5. zorgbeheer
    zorgbeheer DELI 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor – Online Nursing Classes: You probably know that Googling yo.. http://bit.ly/n1NXc
  6. ekettell
    ekettell RT@Berci 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor http://ff.im/-7q7DA
  7. Robert L. Oakes
    RobertLOakes RT @Berci: 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor http://ff.im/-7q7DA (via @ahier)
  8. dr. Horváth Tamás
    ENTHouse RT @Berci 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor http://ff.im/-7q7DA
  9. Sagar Satapathy
    sagar13d 50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor. URL: http://tinyurl.com/mlmf47

this quote was brought to you by quoteurl

Finally this will result in more traffic to the website onlinenursingclasses and a higher rank in Google.

Indeed 12 hours after Berci’s tweet, searching for “50 Great Tools to Double Check Your Doctor” (between quotes) gives just 21 hits (similar hits not shown), many of which can be traced back to the twitter posts.
All but one are positive: the last hit is my warning, which was only received by ahier and TheSofa. Ahier deleted his original positive tweet from Twitter.

Also worrying is that the spam site was bookmarked by various Stumble upon visitors. And that the one person that made the Stumble upon review also “liked” similar sites, like Online Classes and Learn Gasms. So probably a whole team takes care that the site is socially bookmarked. When several people “like” a site others may be attracted to the site as well. That is the principle of social bookmarking sites. And you and I do the rest….

1-9-2009 0-55-13 Google results 50 great tools

Why is this bad? You can read more in my previous post or in the post “Affiliate sites” at Ellie ❤ Libraries.
In addition, Shamsha brought another post to my attention, again from a librarian:

Top 100 Librarian Friendfeeds to follow at cheapie online degrees com at Tame the Web.com.

which refers to

http://www.librarian.net/stax/2970/why-i-dont-accept-guest-posts-from-spammers-or-link-to-them/

Tame the web gives some very good advice

I sometimes see other libloggers linking to sites like these and I have a word of advice: don’t. When we link to low-content sites from our high-content sites, we are telling Google and everyone that we think that the site we are linking to is in some way authoritative, even if we’re saying they’re dirty scammers. We’re helping their page rank and we’re slowly, infinitesimally almost, decreasing the value of Google and polluting the Internet pool in which we frequently swim. Don’t link to spammers.

How do you know that you can’t trust that particular site?

Well here are some features I’ve noticed (for the spam sites in “my”field)

  • All the sites that publicized such list were educational, mostly directed at nurses or other health practitioners. Some even end at org. Examples:
    • nursingschools.net
    • associatedegree.org
    • rncentral.com
    • Learn-gasm
    • onlineclasses.org
    • onlinenursepractitionerschools.com
    • searchenginecollege.com
    • collegedegree.com
    • ultrasoundtechnicianschools.org
    • phlebotomytechnicianschools.com
    • MiracleFruitPlus.com.
  • All sites have a Quick-degree, nursing degree, technician school etc finder. Mostly it is the only information at the ABOUT-section (?!)
  • The home page often contains prominent links (clicks) to Kaplan University, University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and/or others.
  • People behind the site often approach you actively (below are some examples) to gain your interest.
  • It is unclear how the lists are made and who is behind it.
  • There is no real information, only lists and degree finders.

So spread the word! Be careful with those list. DON’T LINK TO THEM! And if you see a possible interesting list, first CHECK the site: WHO, WHY, WHAT, WHERE AND WHEN. Once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all!

31-8-2009 21-23-07 online nursing

The degree finder at the about page

1-9-2009 1-32-11 about 100 list

Prominent links to some Universities

1-9-2009 2-30-23 universities online nursing

An example of a letter drawing your attention to a list

1-9-2009 2-56-49 hi we just posted an articleAn example of a letter asking to write a guest post.

31-8-2009 23-56-03 guest post

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




An Online Birthday Party!

15 06 2009

15-6-2009 18-05-22 BD poes kaart kleinToday is my birthday. And although I stayed home with a headache and other small complaints, and although I don’t really celebrate it any longer (except for the real round figures, like 50-60), the day started out pretty bright just around midnight with all kinds of virtual birthday wishes.

It started with an e-card (left) from Ramona Bates, plastic surgeon and quilter from the USA (hence her blog Suture for a Living), followed by many other birthday wishes.

Robin of Survive the Journey was so kind to send a song via blip.fm and then to organize a “twitter-party” by using the twitter-tool QuoteURL I had just reviewed on my blog (see here).

The start of the Twitter party  is shown below. Here is the link: http://www.quoteurl.com/r1e27

Suture for a Living

  1. rlbates
  2. drval
    drval Happy Birthday to @laikas, our favorite Dutch medical librarian. 🙂
  3. Ves Dimov, M.D.
  4. Deirdre
  5. Vijay
    scanman @laikas Happy Birthday Jacqueline 🙂
  6. Laika (Jacqueline)
    laikas @scanman: @laikas Happy Birthday Jacqueline 🙂 Thanks vijay. Wish we could have a Twitter birthday party with cake or so.
  7. Marilyn Mann
  8. Laika (Jacqueline)
    laikas @MarilynMann thanks Marilyn. It is very nice to begin your birthday with all those kind birthday-twishes.
  9. Robin
    staticnrg @Laikas Oh, happy birthday!! Hope it is a wonderful one!! ♫ http://blip.fm/~88du0
  10. Laika (Jacqueline)
    laikas @staticnrg: “@Laikas Oh, happy birthday!! Hope it is a wonderful one!!” – Well the start is all right – thnx! ♫ http://blip.fm/~88e8a

this quote was brought to you by quoteurl (pity that WordPress transforms the style)

Later I received more birthday and get-well wishes from Twitter, Hyves, Facebook, and Fabulously 40 (and beyond). I even received a e-card with “happy birthday” in Chinese!happy-birthday in chinese

Although my friends are virtual (?) and the cards and wishes are virtual, it feels like I’m having a real birthday party with real friends. The only thing that was missing was real coffee, cake or wine. 😉

15-6-2009 18-29-23 tweet rlbates





Visualization of Twitter Networks: Mailana

26 03 2009

Twitter is a free social messaging utility for staying connected in real-time. It has become my major social networking and information tool.

There are many Twitter Tools and API’s around. Many can be regarded as gadgets, nice to use, once, twice, thrice and ….then to forget. Some of the tools that I’ve bookmarked:

Some of these tools are just for fun, others (the last 3 for instance) tell you something about somebody’s twitter network or tweets.
In the last category a new tool has just been launched: Top Twitter Friends on http://twitter.mailana.com/. It is meant to answer the questions: Who do you talk to most often on Twitter? Who are your closest friends (BFF’s)? and What does your social network look like? But it gives also tips on who you should follow, how to find friends in your neighborhood (not successful in my hands) and to find a network of people talking about a certain topic.

optionsI like this tool very much, because it visualizes the network of your relevant contacts and their contacts. My present network looks like this:

laikas-network1

I’m automatically in the center. The thicker the threads with people, the more conversations you had with them. DM’s (direct messages) are excluded. When you pass your mouse over a portrait all rays starting from there color red. Within your network, other networks may be visible. For instance, in my network you see a “Dutch community” (wowter, gbierens, essen2punt0 etc) and an Australian one (@dreamingspires, @sandnsurf, bitethedust). Some people are pivots themselves: like @mikehawker and @scanman.
You can see anyone’s network by clicking a portrait or typing a name.

A list of your 10 closest “friends” is also shown. My closest “friend” is symtym, runners up are the librarians @pudliszek and @shamsha. And there is a list of 10 suggestions as well.

Finally you can make a map of conversations. The following map was created by searching for the hashtag #zorg20 (a dutch health 2.0 meeting). It will be no surprise that the organizer @zorg2.0 is almost in the center.

zorg-20

This tool looks really awesome.
However, it makes you realize that all your tweets and follows are charted. Can this be used to pick up people’s conversation at certain topics? Can it be misused?
I just wondered when I noticed that this system is driven by Mailana social network analysis system (see demo here). This system enables companies to find out valuable hidden information in company e-mails. As shown in the demo, you can search for a company name in Mailana and find which employees mail most about it. You even get a wordcloud on basis of which you can decide who gives you the most valuable information. It is easy to see how that can be used and misused in a company. Would you like your email to become searchable? I wouldn’t! Twitter is an open communication network, but still…..

In this respect it is interesting that according Danielle of the Health Informaticist:

….while the ‘laypeople’ are chattering away (…) a company called Salesforce.com has launched a product to allow “companies to search, monitor and join conversations taking place on Twitter directly in the Service Cloud.”(for more details see post here).

Gives me a bit uncomfortable feeling.

HATTIP: @drval (





Wouter’s Request: the 6 W’s of this blog

2 10 2008

Wowter asked appr. 90 dutch library bloggers, including me, to write about our motives for blogging, who whe reach, whether we succeed in building a community, which posts we like most etc. A carnival of excerpts will be presented at a Dutch congres on Library 2.0 (OCN2008).

Of course I will accept his invitation, because:

  • When Wowter (one of the most well known Dutch librarybloggers and an advocate of library 2.0) asks you something, you do it (albeit late)
  • Wowter (and Dymphie) were the first non-Spoetnik-course members responding to my posts, giving tips (making lists is one of them 😉 ) and encouraging me to keep on and to look further than your own blog.
  • Wowter was the 10.000st visitor of this blog
  • foremost: it is good to ponder from time to time why and how you do the things you do.

Thus, here are the 5W’s (well 6) of this blog:

WHY?

This blog was started as part of the course SPOETNIK on NEW internet communication methods for librarians. I found many of the web 2.0 tools very useful, especially RSS. Blogging itself was FUN, so I spend most of the course time on blogging. There was a small group of active Spoetnik bloggers who responded to each other. Most of the posts were about the course exercises, or we were just kidding with each other. That was great. But as the course proceeded, I realized that if I was to continue blogging, I should write about other subjects as well and I should build another community. I started to write about….

WHAT?…

Medical librarianship, because that is where my heart is. In fact, that is a mixture of two subjects already: medicine and librarianship. I’m specialized in Evidence Based Medicine and Searching: those are the main topics. I worked for more than 15 years as a scientists: science (and especially immunology, genetics, cancer, nutrition) is a favorite subject as well. I have (secondary) Addison’s Disease, so that inspires me to write about patient-related matter. Furthermore I like to continue writing about web 2.0 tools. Seldomly I will blog about real personal things. But I do plan to write about certain things that happened, little stories, that relate to my life as a scientist, librarian or patient. For instance “the radioactive rat” will be an upcoming story.
My posts are mostly of the “review kind”, they are quite long, go in depth and are “cramped with visuals” according to some and “as easy to skip as to read it all”.
WHO?
My first public consisted of Spoetnik collegues and some interested Dutch librarians 2.0: Dymphie and Wowter. In the beginning I felt like Berci expressed in his slide “Once upon a time on WordPress.com”: very lonely. Similar to Berci, this situation changed when I started to write in English. Till recently I wrote both in English and Dutch, but from now on I will concentrate on English: it costs too much time, most Dutch read English, and since the Spoetnik Cours is over, I get few Dutch responses anyway.
Since I write about many topics I get a broad public. This blog does well in the ratings. It is in the Top 50 Health 2.0 Blogs list ( see here), was high in the Medblog top 25, got a very good critique from the Library + Information Gazette“ (see this post) and a high technorati ranking (up to 43, now 41).

But does this mean I have build up a community? Not necessarily. Although people link to my blog, I don’t get many comments and there aren’t many feed subscribers. That is possibly the consequence of writing in depth about many specialistic topics. For people just interested in either medicine, library or web 2.0 tools there may be too many posts about trivial things (the other subjects). Furthermore, although I do participate in medicine blog carnivals, I think that it is hard for a medical librarian to become part of the medical community.

Similar to many other blogs, the audience of this blog are mainly other bloggers (in the health field), as well as non-blogging medical librarians (including colleagues) and people googling. Many Dutch colleagues read my blog, but few have an RSS-feed or participate in blog discussions. However,that may be general for bloggers: they tend to link more than discuss.
In the first months I got a maximum of 30-50 visitors per day, and sometimes 2-5 during the weekend. Now I regularly get 100 visitors a day and in the weekend no less than 30. My top day was in June: 192 visitors.

WHICH?

Which posts are most successful and which one is my favorite? I guess I like the mixture the most.
If I have to choose I prefer those posts that discuss in depths the ins and outs of a topic (be it health, library or science-related), especially if they make a difficult health subject understandable to many, e.g. “The best study design… for dummies” and “The (un)usefulness of regular breast exam.”
The series about the PubMed: Past, Present And Future, was the most visited, with PART II being viewed 388 times and PART I: 200 times
WHERE?

About 95% of my posts are written at home. I do consult Twitter and the statistictics of my blog regularly, also at work.

WHEN?
Most posts take a lot of time. Keeping up with your sources, browsing, sifting ideas, reading more about the subject, writing, putting figures in the posts (not easy in WordPress), making links, translating into Dutch. It takes me 1 hour – 1 day for one post. I spend 10-20 hours per week on blogging (in the broad sense of the word)

WHY Continue?

  • I like writing
  • I hope to stir up some discussion (but I’m happy with people reading or linking)
  • I learn a lot of other bloggers, microblogging (twitter), RSS-feeds (also of Journals). Since I blog/RSS I keep much better informed and it inspires me to come up with new ideas.
  • By (micro)blogging I keep in touch with other bloggers
  • Some things need to be criticised.
  • Some things are good to call attention to.
  • Ideally, I would like to mix the knowledge and tips gathered elsewhere with my own knowledge and pass it through in a digestible way to others: doctors, nurses, patients, scientists, libarians, teachers
  • I hope that by blogging about health 2.0 I can enthuse non-blogging health- or library experts for web 2.0. Eventually I may even want to give courses on medicine 2.0 or to use web 2.0 tools for education (medical students, staff)

(possibly I’m too late for the carnival, but this post was written under harsh condition. Lying sideways on a sofa in a public room, somewhere in Germany, because there is no wifi at my room, and the batteries only hold for 15 minutes, and the large wooden table is too far from the electric point. Well the musing was useful anyway…)