> And then the librarian who wrote "this change is a real downgrade", their reason for why its a downgrade didn't make this blog post. Why not? Maybe because th

> And then the librarian who wrote "this change is a real downgrade", their reason for why its a downgrade didn't make this blog post. Why not? Maybe because the reason why they felt that way was "For one, there is no way for libraries to see which patron clicked Notify Me for which title." Good! I don't necessarily want librarians to know "John Smith wants a copy of whatever", all they should know is that someone wants that book It did make it into the blog post, it's literally the rest of the paragraph after that quote. I guess I can ignore everything else you're saying the to criticize the blog post because you made this one mistake. > But the author makes it sound like the only way for a library to know what books are being requested is by the Advantage program, which by their own sources isn't true! No, the author explicitly mention that the new change, read the paragraph above the paragraph where the Advantage Program is described. > If their real concern was that we should have access to pricing data they should have actually included such a concept in their post, because they pretty much never do other than state libraries need to buy an Advantage subscription, which isn't true. No the real concern, which you conveniently repeatedly fail to address, is that this is a monopoly, owned by a notoriously unscrupulous private equity firm, that holds the future of library patronage in its hands. At this point, you're not adding any value to the discussion. You're just incorrectly nitpicking the article when you haven't bothered to read it closely enough to do so with any accuracy.