4 ms·

One of my local libraries recently threw out a dumpster full of books. There was a minor public outcry at the desecration of literature. The books in the dumpst

One of my local libraries recently threw out a dumpster full of books. There was a minor public outcry at the desecration of literature. The books in the dumpster had all been on sale for the last year, priced at 10p (13 cents) each. Most of them hadn't been checked out for over a decade and some hadn't been checked out since the 1970s. Sending books to be pulped is always sad, but the truth is that there are just too many books. A researcher doesn't gain a great deal of benefit from seeing an original paper copy; in most cases, they'd prefer a digital copy. Preserving paper is inherently more expensive than preserving microfiche or digital scans. Librarians love books, that's why they became librarians, but sometimes it's just not possible to justify the shelf space for something that nobody is ever likely to read.

sevensor 8y ago
You can't have an up-to-date library without pruning. I'm given to understand it's seen as an essential part of maintenace by librarians. Some time ago I recall having a discussion on this site about it -- I think somebody had posted a link to a set of guidelines for pruning.
- kaybe 8y ago
  Is there any chance you could find that link again?
  - sanpan 8y ago
    Not a librarian, but I like finding things https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002419
    - sevensor 8y ago
      Thanks for finding that! I thought it was fascinating at the time and clearly it stuck with me.
394549 8y ago
> Sending books to be pulped is always sad, but the truth is that there are just too many books. Often it's not obsolete books that are destroyed, where there might be 1,000 other copies out there, but one-of-a-kind archival records: >> The core of the book recounts Baker's attempt, in 1999, to persuade the British Library not to junk more than 2,000 bound volumes of American newspapers - the last remaining copies in the world - including a complete run of the Chicago Tribune from 1888 to 1958 and hundreds of editions of Joseph Pulitzer's ground-breaking colour broadsheet of the 1890s, the New York World. > A researcher doesn't gain a great deal of benefit from seeing an original paper copy; in most cases, they'd prefer a digital copy. Preserving paper is inherently more expensive than preserving microfiche or digital scans. Maybe now, but preservation isn't about now, it's about the distant future. Paper is one of the few storage mediums that has proven longevity and also requires no special reading hardware. Microfiche is probably OK (there was an article recently that stated it could lat 500 years), but I'd dispute strongly that "preserving paper is inherently more expensive than preserving ... digital scans." Digital data requires massive amounts of infrastructure to be usable (hardware, software, storage media, and reading hardware), and the rapid pace of change of that infrastructure means that enormous, continuous efforts must be made to keep it readable in the future. Seal a newspaper up in a wall and it'll still be readable in 100 years. If you stop your digital preservation efforts for that long, you've lost everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  I agree with this - I think there is a lot of value in having hard-copies, if just for the ability to walk through the shelves and pick something up. I know most people don't do this, I know it's not cost effective, but I have walked through my University's library and picked up a random book here and there. It's kind of the same with pictures. Most of the people I know have thousands of pictures on their phone - most of which they will never, ever look through.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  To what degree is preservation the responsibility of a local lending library? (As opposed to an archive; a museum; the Library of Congress; county courthouses; etc?)
totalZero 8y ago
They should try to give the books away for free before chucking them out, no? The word "free" eliminates an irrational roadblock (13c is basically free but still offers a hurdle) and if one person reads something interesting as a result, then it's a win. Also, they could box them up and offer each box off for 25c, thus offloading the responsibility of discarding the books onto individuals and preserving the notion of a library as a sanctuary for books.
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  >They should try to give the books away for free before chucking them out, no? The local library where I grew up tried this. It also doesn't really solve the problem of too many books. They would first put up surplus/old books for sale for a quarter or less, and twice a year would hold an event where they put the stock outside on tables and people could just take them for free. They were always left with tons of books even after all that. It's sad to see books destroyed but they literally can't give them all away, and each building only has so much space.
- Timpy 8y ago
  It's a nice idea, but the library is the place I go when I have books I would rather give away for free before chucking them out. What do I do with the free books I took when I'm done with them/can no longer accommodate them?
- Area12 8y ago
  Free books are never 100% free ... because bookcases cost money and even if you pile books up on the floor, that is expensive real estate you now can't easily use for another purpose. Hoarders forget that the opportunity cost of storage drives most of their possessions into negative net worth. Source: I have hoarder tendencies.
emodendroket 8y ago
Frankly, if you go look at these stacks of books it is often no mystery why they don't sell.
ateesdalejr 8y ago
> in most cases, they'd prefer a digital copy. How can you verify that there were no changes made during the scanning process? This is one reason I would think that a researcher would prefer a hard copy and not digital.

sevensor 8y ago

You can't have an up-to-date library without pruning. I'm given to understand it's seen as an essential part of maintenace by librarians. Some time ago I recall having a discussion on this site about it -- I think somebody had posted a link to a set of guidelines for pruning.

kaybe 8y ago
Is there any chance you could find that link again?
- sanpan 8y ago
  Not a librarian, but I like finding things https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002419
  - sevensor 8y ago
    Thanks for finding that! I thought it was fascinating at the time and clearly it stuck with me.

394549 8y ago

> Sending books to be pulped is always sad, but the truth is that there are just too many books. Often it's not obsolete books that are destroyed, where there might be 1,000 other copies out there, but one-of-a-kind archival records: >> The core of the book recounts Baker's attempt, in 1999, to persuade the British Library not to junk more than 2,000 bound volumes of American newspapers - the last remaining copies in the world - including a complete run of the Chicago Tribune from 1888 to 1958 and hundreds of editions of Joseph Pulitzer's ground-breaking colour broadsheet of the 1890s, the New York World. > A researcher doesn't gain a great deal of benefit from seeing an original paper copy; in most cases, they'd prefer a digital copy. Preserving paper is inherently more expensive than preserving microfiche or digital scans. Maybe now, but preservation isn't about now, it's about the distant future. Paper is one of the few storage mediums that has proven longevity and also requires no special reading hardware. Microfiche is probably OK (there was an article recently that stated it could lat 500 years), but I'd dispute strongly that "preserving paper is inherently more expensive than preserving ... digital scans." Digital data requires massive amounts of infrastructure to be usable (hardware, software, storage media, and reading hardware), and the rapid pace of change of that infrastructure means that enormous, continuous efforts must be made to keep it readable in the future. Seal a newspaper up in a wall and it'll still be readable in 100 years. If you stop your digital preservation efforts for that long, you've lost everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation

madeuptempacct 8y ago
I agree with this - I think there is a lot of value in having hard-copies, if just for the ability to walk through the shelves and pick something up. I know most people don't do this, I know it's not cost effective, but I have walked through my University's library and picked up a random book here and there. It's kind of the same with pictures. Most of the people I know have thousands of pictures on their phone - most of which they will never, ever look through.
cimmanom 8y ago
To what degree is preservation the responsibility of a local lending library? (As opposed to an archive; a museum; the Library of Congress; county courthouses; etc?)

totalZero 8y ago

They should try to give the books away for free before chucking them out, no? The word "free" eliminates an irrational roadblock (13c is basically free but still offers a hurdle) and if one person reads something interesting as a result, then it's a win. Also, they could box them up and offer each box off for 25c, thus offloading the responsibility of discarding the books onto individuals and preserving the notion of a library as a sanctuary for books.

Sangermaine 8y ago
>They should try to give the books away for free before chucking them out, no? The local library where I grew up tried this. It also doesn't really solve the problem of too many books. They would first put up surplus/old books for sale for a quarter or less, and twice a year would hold an event where they put the stock outside on tables and people could just take them for free. They were always left with tons of books even after all that. It's sad to see books destroyed but they literally can't give them all away, and each building only has so much space.
Timpy 8y ago
It's a nice idea, but the library is the place I go when I have books I would rather give away for free before chucking them out. What do I do with the free books I took when I'm done with them/can no longer accommodate them?
Area12 8y ago
Free books are never 100% free ... because bookcases cost money and even if you pile books up on the floor, that is expensive real estate you now can't easily use for another purpose. Hoarders forget that the opportunity cost of storage drives most of their possessions into negative net worth. Source: I have hoarder tendencies.

emodendroket 8y ago

Frankly, if you go look at these stacks of books it is often no mystery why they don't sell.

ateesdalejr 8y ago

> in most cases, they'd prefer a digital copy. How can you verify that there were no changes made during the scanning process? This is one reason I would think that a researcher would prefer a hard copy and not digital.