My immediate reaction to that was “what? Where’s it gone?” which sent me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole on classification systems.
I may be some time.
8 Likes
Don’t get me wrong – I love books. And despite the proliferation of digital media, print isn’t going anywhere. It will always be popular. What I can’t stand are the people who would faint at very the idea of throwing away a book or using it for a craft project – which is why I describe it as “fetishizing” instead of “appreciating”.
(No one in this thread has taken that stance, but it is one that often pops up in discussions like these and should, IMO, be met with eye-rolls and sarcasm)
4 Likes
Arguably, the ‘zOMG digitize all the things!!!’ people were more sympathetic in the early days than they are now.
If you look at digitization as the successor to microfilm/microfiche(which, while a trifle clunky, had performed with distinction in high-density storage of relatively esoteric material; or archives of stuff so cheaply printed that paper copies were basically ephemeral, like newspapers); it is pretty easy to be optimistic about it. Same basic virtues, even higher density, much easier to search, etc.
Unfortunately, what technology giveth, intellectual property law taketh away; and it has become increasingly clear that (if the publishers have anything to say about it) ‘digitization’ is largely going to involve the elimination of pesky freedoms that non-DRMed artifacts unfortunately enable; ever more finely tuned “it costs as much as we think you are able to pay” pricing, pervasive surveillance of readers and enforcement of crippled client software; and more precarious archival situations where works can just disappear because of rightsholder spats or lapsed subscriptions or whatever.
For relatively frequently used material, printed paper is cheap, mature, durable, and has remained stubbornly adequate-or-superior in the face of various attempts to build more pleasant computer reading systems for some decades now. For deep reference material, where storage and logistics start to weigh much heavier; and readers are few enough that ‘OK, just print-on-demand if they want a hard copy’ becomes viable; digitization could be a really compelling option; if some benevolent Michael Hart type were calling the shots. If “Adobe Digital Editions” or its ilk becomes involved, run away screaming.
15 Likes
Oh no, you expressed yourself clearly and I agree. I’ve spent probably too long trying to figure out though if the endless rabbit hole of clicking is as useful a tool for browsing as colocated physical items.
1 Like
Don’t forget shrinking resources making any kind of in-house operation problematic.
Wait, are you suggesting surrendering your archived materials to a private company for digitization, who then host the files for you off-site, could somehow go wrong? 
4 Likes
Of course not! Managed Solutions are always better because they allow you to get rid of all that pesky in-house expertise that clutters up payroll by putting yourself at the mercy of an opaque 3rd party. If you can arrange it so that you have to pay various licensing fees just to look at what you used to own, that’s even better; because robust IP incentivizes innovation among digital stakeholders; and, um, stuff.
In the glorious future, accessing library materials will be just as cost effective and user friendly as cable TV!
13 Likes
Oh, thanks for the chuckle! 
1 Like
Are people trying to sneak books from the dumpsters back into the libraries?
5 Likes
No, but they do rifle through the trash and then go to city council meetings or the newspaper to decry the tragically wasteful and incompetent policies of the library.
10 Likes
The grim part is that there are probably people in positions of greater power and influence than me who could say that with a straight face because they believe it.
4 Likes
I hate this policy so much! At my public library here in LI,NY this happens a lot with DVD movies, and they sell them to the patrons for a few bucks. Criterion copy of Louis Malle’s Elevator to the Gallows (1958), Godfrey Reggio’s Qatsi Trilogy parts 2 (1988) and 3 (2002), Sidney Lumet’s Death Trap (1982), to name a few.
Ok. They’re not stunners. And, I’m not sure how a patron would come to discover Death Trap. It has enjoyable performances by Christopher Reeves and what’s his name, but it’s not a film a patron is likely to seek out, unless they’re watching everything what’s his name has done. But the repartee and mystery is darn right entertaining.
The Qatsi Trilogy’s on the other hand has a musical score which is fantastic. As a protest film on the now ever present destruction of our planet, it boggles the mind why they would chuc it.
Whatever you might want to say about French films from 195os, it’s very likely a budding cinefile would find the Criterion copy of Malle’s film informative and educational. Not to mention the sound track by that other guy, what’s his name.
The librarian’s say they only divest items which are in the collection of other in-system libraries. And WorldCat will get any film for you (I requested Rossellini’s Journey to Italy (1954) and it arrived from OR in about a month) And, to my local branch’s credit, they will purchase DVDs if you request them. (I for one am arguing for local copies of the basic fan films–for the children. I had to request Blade Runner (1982)–sheesh!).
Clearly nobody is asking me what I think we should keep! I just wish there was a Juke Box on demand DVD burner that would make copies for patrons on the spot. No more holding onto scratched copies too long. It would solve a lot of problems, but mostly the space problem.
3 Likes
There are. 
Strange choices to ditch. Just being part of the Criterion collection will attract people’s attention, so I would think EttG would get checked out. Deathtrap was quite popular when new (not that long ago really) and stars Michael Caine, who is still well known and acclaimed. The Qatsi films are a bit more obscure, but hardly unknown. Must not be many cinephiles in the area (or the library).
My local libraries would order books from anywhere in the continental US, but you could only get movies from other branches of the local public library. 
3 Likes
For once I couldn’t agree with you more on this. Data like this should be used as a signal rather than an unerring commandment. All to often now I see people relying on data like this alone rather than using that in combination with experience and sound judgment. Also the data itself isn’t always correct, either.
“Our telemetry shows we rarely crash” oh… because it crashes before it can generate those telemetry events. Oops!
6 Likes
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
3 Likes
You can only cram so many books into a building before it becomes a fire hazard.
4 Likes
So, so true. In my previous place of regulatory work we did a study that showed certain types of computer simulations were pretty crappy for what upper management (and industry) wanted. A research study might be useful here to show one way or the other, but I wouldn’t know how to begin.
3 Likes
I guess I am a bit confused. What books are we talking about? Fiction? Non fiction? If no one is checking the book out in say 5 years, maybe it is time to get a different book to take its place. Did I miss the part in the article on WHY they were doing this? The only thing I saw were " because he knew that these books would come back into vogue and that his library would have to spend extra money re-purchasing them later." Uh - well, maybe. But maybe you are also using up resources for something that will not be back in vogue.
I really can’t see the point of keeping fiction books that are unpopular. IIRC, can’t most books like that be requested from other libraries? Also unpopular fiction books are all over the internet and cheap.
Now non-fiction books I can see some hesitancy. But lets remember, time marches on. A 20, 10, even in some cases a 5 year old book can be grossly outdated on a subject. (I have a few space exploration books from the 50s and they are both awesome and useless.)
A few examples I saw were human sexuality and LGBTQ issues. That people might not be checking out said books, but still reading them. Hell any reference type book could be like that. But in that case, I still don’t think that getting rid of an old book is bad, as long as there are still books in that category. For the nonfiction section, I think they should have books covering the various topics, regardless of the frequency of check out. So in a few specific examples of certain segments of the dewey decimal system, an override might be warranted.
BUT - you know, maybe if a LGBTQ is nixed from lack of check out, then it affords the opportunity to find a new and even better book.
Also, maybe instead of getting rid of an unpopular book permanently, it could be warehoused and later requested in the future? Also I know a lot of times one can request just about any book from library network.
1 Like
Well, we’re talking about not letting datification control our access to information by marching along to the Pied Piper’s tune of ‘objective’ algorithms. But since it happened in a public library books are getting mixed up in it.
Or, given the current unpopularity of funding libraries, it gives the opportunity to not have those books.
How do you think there are libraries that have these books?
6 Likes
Well, again, I don’t know what exactly the librarians are trying to protect. Your example I saw early on is a good one, but is that what is actually being weed it out? It is 10 year old fiction that might come back en vogue? Niche hobbies?
That is why I would agree some topics might afford special protection, but I can’t imagine most of the books on the list being controversial. But maybe they are, like I said, the article doesn’t really make it clear what we are dealing with.
If no one is accessing that information, I am afraid I don’t see it importance, given libraries have limited space.
Well if they aren’t having new books come in, there isn’t a need to get rid of old books, is there?
Book faeries.
1 Like
