« Sacramento Public Library Librarians say "no" to popular materials | Main | Dance Dance Revolution Game Night 101 »
May 31, 2007
Library opening with no classification system
The new Perry Branch of the Maricopa County Library District is set to open without any classification system for its books. Books will be arranged in neighborhoods (like Gardening), and then sub-sections within those neighborhoods, but the library will not be using Dewey, LC, or any other classification system to organize books. The example they give is "a book on the Civil War would be in the history neighborhood and in the U.S. section." Umm, doesn't that sound like Dewey, basically, just lacking the location specificity?
What bothers me isn't that it's a library patterning itself after a bookstore (generally I think that's a good idea in a lot of areas). But what bothers me is that it's being a bookstore at the cost of your users' ability to find specific items easily. Have you ever tried to find something in a bookstore? You end up trolling shelf after shelf, trying to figure out if there is any kind of order at all, and then eventually asking for help at the service desk, only to go back with that person to troll the shelves again, and find out that the book just isn't there after all. Not fun.
Bookstores are largely browsing places, whereas libraries are both browsing and finding places (usually more finding than browsing). A combination of Dewey locations and good subject-based signage on the bookshelves (Cookbooks, Computer How-To Manuals, Mysteries A-G, etc.) will work to provide that subject-browsing ability without sacrificing specificity. That's what libraries should be doing. No one knows what 641.5 is for gosh sake (except your prolific shelvers and catalogers). And they shouldn't have to know that. So, add some good subject signage, add some marketplace designed browsing shelves at the front of the library for your browsing fiends, and you're good to go.
Good for them to be willing to try something new, but this was probably not the "new" thing to try. I'm afraid that it's a disaster waiting to happen. I think they're hoping that being bookstore-ish will bring in more users, but if the people can't find the items they want, will they come back? Probably not.
May 31, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e550652fd98834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Library opening with no classification system:
» DeweyDecimation from The Letter Z
Well, even though this was the topic of the day two days ago, I think its still worth writing about. When the new Perry branch of the Maricopa County Public Library, in Gilbert, AZ, opens next month, its collection will not be classified using... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 1, 2007 9:09:09 PM
Comments
I'm hopping into this exchange because we are a small Tennessee library that has switched its collection to a "merchandised" or bookstore arrangement. A new library building to open Gatlinburg in 2008 is being designed as a "bookstore" style library. Not aware of BISAC 2 years ago, we modeled our subject categories on some libraries in Columbus Ohio that were trying the bookstore concept. I have then adapted good old Dewey into categories and re cataloged, meaning I changed Dewey numbers on books to where I thought the books would be most easily found. I'm hoping to be offering the browsing of a bookstore with the specificity of Dewey.
We're also going to have a coffee shop.
Not all new things happen in California!
Posted by: Kenton Temple | July12, 2007
This is a bit late, but it seems to me that a few different issues have been conflated in this discussion.
First is the problem of inappropriate communications shutting down meaningful dialogue. I think we can all agree, not good - still it's always a work in progress.
Second is the debate around whether libraries should be 'corporatized' like a bookstore by using terms such as customer and marketing and considering how those concepts impact public library services.
Third is the techie or 'modernization' of the library debate. Library 2.0 is there to be used by libraries according to library values - for public service or to serve 'customers'.
Clearly what I'm getting at in particular is the danger of conflating the last two. The question we need to ask ourselves is what is a library for, for whom, and how is that best achieved? My thinking is that the 'customer' centered 'give the public what they want' mentality does not equate to public service. However 'give them what we want' or 'what we deem is the best' isn't good public service either. 'Customer' implies a relationship between library users and the library that is misleading. Customer service is about providing choice and responding to demand. Public service is about democratic participation, public dialogue and considering more than what is 'your choice'. Public service demands thinking beyond the needs of the individual and thinking about community.
So in a public library, the technology question must rest on the values that come from a public service model - supplementing and enhancing what public libraries already do well, being driven by public input, participation and open dialogue. Public libraries do not exist to respond to 'customer demands' nor at the expense of providing library tools and services that support public service - like catalogues, books, classification, research materials, civic space, AND entertainment (but 30 copies of Jackass 2? wouldn't one or two meet a public service mandate? it needs to be available, but not 'on demand').
Posted by: Paula | June27, 2007
I always find browsing... more surprising in a Dewey ordered library. But I like that the system is in place because it means I can go straight to the proper shelf and grab the book I need. (At least, in theory. :P)
The idea of neighbourhood groupings is interesting, but I'd get frustrated trying to decide if, say, Ivan Illich's Limits To Medicine is in the health care neighbourhood or a shelving community of rogue Catholic priests. I often 'browse' bookstores exactly because I don't know how they've classified this author or that book. I'm happier when there's an explicit shelving system to fall back on.
Posted by: Wendell Dryden | June 3, 2007
If it were possible for me to insinuate a *suggestion* into people's minds, it would be that a patron should use the location of a book to see what other books were to the left and right of the first book they were looking for.
How do you explain to people that a Dewey number is totally different from a telephone number? People know instinctively that if they misdial they won't get the person they want. We're not helping them enough with the like-ness reason for classification instead of the exact precision needed for a phone.
Sarah and others who comment on stack labeling have it exactly right. Look at how Oakland Public Library does it - they use icons on endcaps at the main library. Would that work elsewhere?
Posted by: Jim | June 2, 2007
Borders uses sub-category numbers and location codes which are printed on their barcoded price labels. Whenever I go to Borders looking for a specific title, I can never find it on the shelves until I deciphered their codes printed below the price. Category and numerical subcodes correspond to the shelf dividers and labels (which have corresponding shelf numbers in small print). It may not be Dewey...I guess it's Borders classification.
Posted by: Steve Carr | June 2, 2007
Well, Bo, I say that libraries are more finding places than browsing places because that has been my observation while working children, teen, and adult reference desks. Dewey isn't bad, in and of itself, for browsing... But you have to tell people what the Dewey numbers mean. And that does not mean a chart somewhere in the library showing all the subject headings. Stacks labelers, as well as overall guides, are essential to making Dewey work for browsing. And most libraries just haven't bothered to do that, which is really sad.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | June 1, 2007
An article in Library Journal yesterday went into a little more detail about how this is all going to work.
They will be using BISAC subject headings, as K.G. guessed. The catalog will list books by subject headings and then alphabetically by author. While this probably won't be as specific as Dewey, in theory books should be just as findable.
I was struck by your comment that libraries are more finding places than browsing places. I'm curious why you think this is true. Do you really think people are more likely to go into a bookstore with no idea what they want, and more likely to go into a library with a particular title in mind? And if that really is the case, I wonder if it's because they've given up on Dewey for browsing.
Posted by: bokinney | June 1, 2007
This is just an experiment. Maricopa County is the leader in this sort of thing. I doubt they stay with it in its purest opening day form. I would see a merger of the bookstore and dewey at the end of the day. Great time to experiment with a new library and an opening day collection (which is usually small). If things go horribly wrong, I predict it will be easy to correct. I know Marshall Shore, so this has a lot to do with publicity. Maricopa County is in a pinch right now anyway since many of the municipalities they serve no longer require county services.
Posted by: Jeff | June 1, 2007
They are using a classification system? I must have missed that part of the story.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | June 1, 2007
They ARE using a classification system -- it's just not Dewey. Dollars to donuts they are using BISAC codes for the books.
Posted by: K.G. Schneider | June 1, 2007
