Comments on: First They Came for the Children

By: Betsy

Betsy — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:45:27 +0000

You’re right. The heinous Hitler analogy is WAY over the top. What happened to professional courtesy? If we don’t respect each other, who will? An apology is in order to your colleagues who implemented this idea. Hitler, really?
Do you remember how earthshaking it was when “How Baltimore Chooses” was published regarding public libraries? It was supposed to be the death of all standards.
I don’t know if I agree with the bookstore model for schools, either, but what’s wrong with experimentation? And information literacy teaching will have to tackle the user-friendly interface that all students will be navigating in the years to come.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:12:10 +0000

The books are still classified. They are just shelved in a way that makes more sense to the typical library customer and also conforms to how resources are organized in the many other ways people search for books, both physically and virtually. Librarians and advanced searchers are free to use the OPAC and ddc internally; that is a separate issue from how they are shelved.

Nobody does local cataloging anymore, and OCLC Worldcat lists both dewey and lc. Interestingly, Worldcat local doesn’t. Might be a trend. Anyway, everyone (especially those with an MLS, if they were paying attention) knows that DDC isn’t really a very good classification system today. We use it because it’s entrenched. Everyone also knows that faceted classification is a better way to do things. But it’s not entrenched.

Since public libraries don’t use LC classification, universities have to reteach them anyway. But studies overwhelmingly show that students prefer to search books on Amazon or Googlebooks, even if they will go to their academic library to retrieve them.

This is all much ado about nothing. Or everything. Times change. Libraries should too.

By: KidLib

KidLib — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:48:43 +0000

Gads, this is such a stupid fad. Library books are already arranged conveniently for browsing–put up a sign saying “Science” or “Literature,” and you’re done–plus adding the value of making it possible to retrieve a certain book.

Basically, what libraries who do this are saying is, “Our patrons are too stupid to count.” Sorry, but that’s not my view.

By: katmae24

katmae24 — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:41:08 +0000

Well, if this becomes a popular school library trend – we are going to need a lot more universities offering more librarian instruction 101 classes than they already do – and make them all required (versus some optional!) Which in turn, could mean that maybe I’d have a better chance at finding that library job after spending $60,000 to get the MLIS!!! I still think ditching a library classification system is a horrible idea.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:43:57 +0000

The point about B&N is actually Tisdale’s not Dilevkos. Dilevko’s point is about objective analysis of collection practices and diversity of resources, or lack thereof, a point that is hard to argue against.

By: Joneser

Joneser — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:53:49 +0000

That is old data, from the prosperous 1990s, pre-ebooks. Now Borders has closed. I wonder if B&N’s business plan re availability of print books from small/independent presses has changed.

Too often we look to what has happened in the past to point our way to the future.

Dilevko has never worked in a public library, and has some major axes to grind.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:23:12 +0000

Oh, and did I forget to mention Dilevko, J., & Hayman, A. (2000). Collection development patterns of fiction titles in public libraries: The place of independent and small presses. Library & Information Science Research, 22(1), 35-59.

“Tisdale (1997) has controversially argued that the local Barnes & Noble store of the late 1990s resembles more of what a public library should be than does the local public library itself. The evidence put forward in the present article suggests that, from the perspective of supplying a broad and diverse array of titles published by numerous small and independent presses,
Barnes & Noble is, in fact, doing a better job than the public library.”

Peer reviewed, of course.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:00:49 +0000

Suzanne here’s a lit review, as far as your ‘says who’ question. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Bailey, A., & Bak, G. (2004). libX – A firefox extension for enhanced library access. Library Hi Tech, 24(2), 290-304.
Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.
Beheshti, J. (1992). Browsing through public access catalogs. Information Technology & Libraries, 11(3), 220-228.
Björneborn, L. (2008). Serendipity dimensions and users’ information behaviour in the physical library interface. Information Research, 13(4), 38-38.
Bodoff, D. (2006). Relevance for browsing, relevance for searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 69-86.
Chan, L. M. (1990). The library of congress classification system in an online environment. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 11(1), 7.
Coleman, J. (2007). Browsing 101: How do you find a good book? Library Media Connection, 25(4), 42-43.
Cooper, J. W., & Prager, J. M. (2000). Anti-serendipity: Finding useless documents and similar documents. System Sciences, 2000. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 8 pp. vol.1.
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321-340.
Griffiths, Jillian and Brophy, Peter. (2005). Student searching behavior and the web: Use of academic resources and Google. Library Trends, 53(4), 539-554.
Gup, T. (1997, November 21). Point of view; the end of serendipity. Chronicle of Higher Education,
Koch, T., Golub, K., & Ardo, A. (2006). Users browsing behaviour in a DDC-based web service: A log analysis. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 42(3/4), n.
Matsuda, C. (2003). Browsing behavior in information seeking process: On the basis of observation of information-seeking behavior in libraries and bookstores. (english). Library & Information Science, (49), 1-31.
McDonald, D. M., & Chen, H. (2006). Summary in context: Searching versus browsing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 24(1), 111-141.
Pollard, R.A hypertext-based thesaurus as a subject browsing aid for bibliographic databases. Information Processing & Management, 29(3), 345-357.
Reitz, J. M. (2004). Dictionary for library and information science. Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.
Rorvig, M. E. (1988). How do you browse? Library Journal, 113(1), 61.
Sathe, N., Grady, J., & Guise, N. (2002). Print versus electronic journals: A preliminary investigation into the effect of journal format on research processes. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(2), 235-243.
Singer, R. (2008). In search of a really “next generation” catalog. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 20(3), 139.
Tam, W., Cox, A., & Bussey, A.Student user preferences for features of next-generation OPACs: A case study of University of Sheffield international students. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 43(4), 349-374. doi:10.1108/00330330910998020
Trant, J. (2009). Studying social tagging and folksonomy: A review and framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1)
Vizine-Goetz, D. (2006). Dewey browser. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 42(3), 213.
Westcott, J., Chappel, A., & Lebel, C. (2009). LibraryThing for libraries at Claremont. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 78-81. doi:10.1108/07378830910942937
Yu, H., & Young, M. (2004). The impact of web search engines on subject searching in OPAC. Information Technology and LIbraries, 23(4), 168-180.

By: Anita Miller

Anita Miller — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:51:29 +0000

Perhaps your state does not have school librarians that are certified. I have spent my 20+ years of teaching library education to help students become self-sufficient and life long learners. A person who understands the DDC system, can find what he/she needs without your help, thus allowing them to become self-sufficient lifelong users of information. As my students come to understand the system, they find it gratifying to be able to information by themselves.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:42:23 +0000

On what are you basing your statements, anonymous? Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

Yes, bookstores under THEIR customers. They understand, as Spencer points out, how to arrange books in order to sell something — anything. They do not arrange books in an order that permits users to find specific materials on specific topics. They don’t even organize them in order for users to browse for materials on specific topics.

DDC and LCC are not only for “physical search.” They both organize materials in a subject hierarchy which moves from broad, general works on a topic through to increasingly more specific works on the same topic. This makes it possible not only to find a specific work on a specific topic, by looking it up in the OPAC, but also to browse topics more effectively. And any decent OPAC will also offer search by DDC or LCC number, so anyone can browse through the shelves virtually.

“Browse” can mean to wander aimlessly, picking up items at random, or to skim titles within a subject hoping to find something of interest, or it can mean a more structured search, looking at the range of available materials on a given topic. Libraries support all types. Bookstores support only the first two.