3 ms·
I briefly worked in a public library and the problem they had was that there's no practical way to maintain sufficient numbers and depth of subject-matter exper
by dingaling 11y ago
I briefly worked in a public library and the problem they had was that there's no practical way to maintain sufficient numbers and depth of subject-matter experts who can answer the subjective assessment such as you list.
Ideally one or two shallow-SMEs in each field would be maintained over a region, but that will never happen.
So you end-up with librarians making retention decisions based on what publications tell them are the "most useful" books in a topic area and trying to correlate that with check-out frequency. But those topic areas are coarse-grained like 'history of aviation' or 'web programming'. It's a crap-shoot and unfortunately a lot of good books are weeded instead of the dross.
My cheap solution: non-fiction is retained until a updated edition is purchased ( or forever if that doesn't occur ), non-curriculum fiction is weeded after 50 loans regardless of replacement. Curriculum fiction such as Shakespeare probably shouldn't be weeded, just replaced.
- stephaniepier 11y agoRight - "subjective assessment" being the key here. Hopefully each criteria is considered at least a little bit, but even experts are going to disagree on what's worthwhile to keep. Beyond that, many libraries out there have very limited time/resources to make weeding decisions.
- zipwitch 11y agoBut with your cheap solution, how do you avoid running out of space? (And if your space can grow, don't you still end up needing more hours of work to manage the ever-growing collection and more money to just physically maintain the larger speace?)