Sarah, the Librarian in Black, had a post a bit ago on how she's "breaking up with" ebooks, which she argues have been like a bad boyfriend/girlfriend for libraries: promising more than is delivered, ignoring our needs, acting all charming to win us over and then turning into a jerk, etc.
She makes the argument that 'we in libraries are actually doing a disservice by offering what’s "barely good enough." We give people the false impression that they can get their eBooks through their libraries.'
This is an interesting point. If all we can offer is a bad ebook service, maybe we're better off not even saying "we have ebooks!" at all--it's not as if that money couldn't be spent elsewhere.
And it's true that libraries can't offer every format for everything. We can lend movies, but (in most cases) not in the 35 mm reels you'd need to project them in your private large-screen theater.
Maybe we could likewise just say, we lend books, but not in the electronic format you'd need to read them on your tablet.
There's a difference, obviously, in that most people have no desire to borrow 35 mm film canisters, while many people probably would like to borrow ebooks, but hey--if the publishers won't grant licenses libraries can work with, what can we do?
As I've noted before, the library where I work has stayed mainly out of the ebook fray by purchasing items you read online at the publisher's website, rather than ones that are downloaded to some other server or device, but it sounds as if that model is a lot more available for academic texts than popular works, so is not a viable option for public libraries trying to make sure everyone who wants it gets the latest bestseller in a timely fashion.
We could call it the "only offer ebooks no one wants to read" approach?
But that's not fair to our perfectly nice electronic titles: it's not that no one wants to read them (well, it probably is for some of them), just that they have a very specific and fairly small audience compared to popular novels and such.
In any case, I could certainly see how breaking up with ebooks could be an unfortunate, not-especially-crowd-pleasing option that would nevertheless be the best move for a library.
Showing posts with label library business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label library business. Show all posts
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Repurposing = Awesome!
The Krafty Librarian has presented a very crafty idea, using old unbound journal holders and brightly colored paper labeling to make booklike shapes that sit on the shelf with the print books in a certain subject, highlighting the existence of ebooks on the same subject.
I like it! Partly because we have stacks and stacks of unbound journal holders where I work, too, and I always like to reuse things, so the idea of getting some use out of them now that we have hardly any unbound journals left is appealing.
Also, we are always trying to promote our ebooks.
However, Krafty uses QR codes, with a "scan this code to see ebooks on this topic" message, and I'm not sure about that part. I don't sense a whole lot of excitement around QR codes in our user population. Not that I exactly have my finger on the pulse of what's cool with that population or anything, but the one time someone used a QR code (to promote a workshop), I never saw anyone actually scanning it.
In fact, the main topic of Krafty's post is actually how one generates interest in QR codes, rather than how awesome it is to recycle journal holders.
Given our extremely limited but unpromising experience, I don't really have any advice on how to generate interest in QR codes, hence my focus on the crafts part of the piece. I'm wondering if it might not just be useful to put those up as a reminder that the ebooks are there, because it's true that not everyone thinks to look.
Maybe we could steal the booklike shapes idea, and just put a note on the label to "see our ebooks page for online titles on this subject," with a short URL. (We'd have to actually make short URLs for our ebooks based on subject for this to work, but...I'm supposed to be learning to code, I could figure it out. Or steal it from someone.)
And maybe a QR code too, I'm not opposed to QR codes, I'm just not particularly excited about them, but maybe simply putting them out there would encourage their use. Anyway, they look kind of cool and decorative, so what's the harm?
On the other hand, we're pretty desperate for shelf space right now, so taking up room with this sort of placeholder might not fly.
I like it! Partly because we have stacks and stacks of unbound journal holders where I work, too, and I always like to reuse things, so the idea of getting some use out of them now that we have hardly any unbound journals left is appealing.
Also, we are always trying to promote our ebooks.
However, Krafty uses QR codes, with a "scan this code to see ebooks on this topic" message, and I'm not sure about that part. I don't sense a whole lot of excitement around QR codes in our user population. Not that I exactly have my finger on the pulse of what's cool with that population or anything, but the one time someone used a QR code (to promote a workshop), I never saw anyone actually scanning it.
In fact, the main topic of Krafty's post is actually how one generates interest in QR codes, rather than how awesome it is to recycle journal holders.
Given our extremely limited but unpromising experience, I don't really have any advice on how to generate interest in QR codes, hence my focus on the crafts part of the piece. I'm wondering if it might not just be useful to put those up as a reminder that the ebooks are there, because it's true that not everyone thinks to look.
Maybe we could steal the booklike shapes idea, and just put a note on the label to "see our ebooks page for online titles on this subject," with a short URL. (We'd have to actually make short URLs for our ebooks based on subject for this to work, but...I'm supposed to be learning to code, I could figure it out. Or steal it from someone.)
And maybe a QR code too, I'm not opposed to QR codes, I'm just not particularly excited about them, but maybe simply putting them out there would encourage their use. Anyway, they look kind of cool and decorative, so what's the harm?
On the other hand, we're pretty desperate for shelf space right now, so taking up room with this sort of placeholder might not fly.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Using Power For...Something
I always start to feel both wildly powerful and semi-incompetent doing original cataloging. It's a heady combination.
We don't do much of it, basically just once a year for the dental school theses, and invariably while I'm doing call numbers there will be a few for which the classification just stalls me.
I mean, if the title is "Evaluation of three types of commerically available dental porcelain," no problem. I can stick that in WU 190 for "Dental materials (General or not elsewhere classified)" without even blinking. Other than to moisten my eyeballs, as one does.
But if it's something like "N-glycosylation of E-cadherin regulation as it impacts cytoskeletal dynamics" I just have to say..."buh?"
So you poke around and try to find something along the same lines that someone else has classified as something, and see if that makes any sense, and eventually you just sort of take a stab at it and figure the important thing is, it's going to be on the shelf somewhere if someone is looking for it.
Oh yes it will. And you know where on the shelf it's going to be?
Wherever I decide to put it, that's where! (Assuming the next people to get it shelve it appropriately according to call number.)
So, not knowing exactly what's going on, but with the power to shape the very shelflist of the library according to my whim? Like I said, it's a heady combination.
We don't do much of it, basically just once a year for the dental school theses, and invariably while I'm doing call numbers there will be a few for which the classification just stalls me.
I mean, if the title is "Evaluation of three types of commerically available dental porcelain," no problem. I can stick that in WU 190 for "Dental materials (General or not elsewhere classified)" without even blinking. Other than to moisten my eyeballs, as one does.
But if it's something like "N-glycosylation of E-cadherin regulation as it impacts cytoskeletal dynamics" I just have to say..."buh?"
So you poke around and try to find something along the same lines that someone else has classified as something, and see if that makes any sense, and eventually you just sort of take a stab at it and figure the important thing is, it's going to be on the shelf somewhere if someone is looking for it.
Oh yes it will. And you know where on the shelf it's going to be?
Wherever I decide to put it, that's where! (Assuming the next people to get it shelve it appropriately according to call number.)
So, not knowing exactly what's going on, but with the power to shape the very shelflist of the library according to my whim? Like I said, it's a heady combination.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Latest Exciting Challenge
I'm thoroughly engrossed in the richly rewarding pastime of translating our library website's current Cold Fusion pages into PHP. (We have our own website, because we don't want to cede control of our pages to a centralized institutional Web Office, to which we'd have to submit requests to get anything done. As a result, any of the librarians can make important updates, and also could completely wreck the site at any moment, on a whim! That's power.)
It's a project that was begun some time ago by a departed web librarian whose shoes have not been filled (I tried, but my feet are bigger than hers!), so the code is basically all written, it's just a matter of plugging the right information in in the right places. Thankfully, since otherwise we would be pretty much be left looking at the current version of the site forever.
So there's a lot of copying and pasting and refreshing to make sure it looks right. And if I can't figure out how to replicate some effect, I go find a completed page that does the same thing, and copy the code from there.
There's no plagiarism in web development!
I have to remind myself that even though it takes a stupidly long time to get the simplest thing done, I shouldn't worry about it. Take the time, figure it out, and gradually it starts to take a less long time, and I'll remember how x problem was solved and can go right to the solution next time instead of spending an hour on it, and eventually I may even sort of know what I'm doing.
It's kind of fun, and keeps the ol' brain on its figurative toes.Which is good, since it wouldn't do to have that slippery deceptive organ getting all complacent and having time to make up false memories or anything.
On this topic, I recommend the much-recommended Code Year (I saw it all over Twitter, so I can't salute any one person), from Codecademy: sign up and get free lessons emailed to you every week in 2012!
So far they're doing JavaScript, which is not immediately relevant to my thoroughly engrossing task, but from what little I've observed, coding languages tend to work in similar ways, even if they use different terms or symbols to do things, so it's good background.
Farhad Manjoo on Slate makes a strong argument for why people should learn to code, and also recommends Code Year, so it's not just me and some people I can't name on Twitter. You should totally check it out.
Remember: If your brain isn't busy learning, it's probably busy plotting against you. Because brains cannot be trusted.
.
It's a project that was begun some time ago by a departed web librarian whose shoes have not been filled (I tried, but my feet are bigger than hers!), so the code is basically all written, it's just a matter of plugging the right information in in the right places. Thankfully, since otherwise we would be pretty much be left looking at the current version of the site forever.
So there's a lot of copying and pasting and refreshing to make sure it looks right. And if I can't figure out how to replicate some effect, I go find a completed page that does the same thing, and copy the code from there.
There's no plagiarism in web development!
I have to remind myself that even though it takes a stupidly long time to get the simplest thing done, I shouldn't worry about it. Take the time, figure it out, and gradually it starts to take a less long time, and I'll remember how x problem was solved and can go right to the solution next time instead of spending an hour on it, and eventually I may even sort of know what I'm doing.
It's kind of fun, and keeps the ol' brain on its figurative toes.Which is good, since it wouldn't do to have that slippery deceptive organ getting all complacent and having time to make up false memories or anything.
On this topic, I recommend the much-recommended Code Year (I saw it all over Twitter, so I can't salute any one person), from Codecademy: sign up and get free lessons emailed to you every week in 2012!
So far they're doing JavaScript, which is not immediately relevant to my thoroughly engrossing task, but from what little I've observed, coding languages tend to work in similar ways, even if they use different terms or symbols to do things, so it's good background.
Farhad Manjoo on Slate makes a strong argument for why people should learn to code, and also recommends Code Year, so it's not just me and some people I can't name on Twitter. You should totally check it out.
Remember: If your brain isn't busy learning, it's probably busy plotting against you. Because brains cannot be trusted.
.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Always Use Correct Terminology
MeSH updates for 2012 have been out for a while, so it's time to correct all the subject headings in our OPAC records. Yes! New terms!
We've heard rumors that there may be some way, in some system, to make this happen automatically, but we don't know what it is, in my library, so what this really means is that it's time for me to ask someone else to search for all the old, changed or deleted descriptors (like Indigotindisulfonate Sodium) one by one, and replace them with the shiny new descriptors (like Indigo Carmine).
Someone else will really enjoy that project.
While we're not sure about the existence of a way to have our OPAC talk to MeSH and update the 650 x2 fields automatically, we know there is actually a way to do a sort of 'find and replace' within the catalog that would at least correct multiple records at once, but to be honest we're kind of afraid of it.
What if we changed something in 50 records and then it was the wrong thing? And what if we couldn't just change it back? We could conceivably spend hours disentangling things. And we'd have to figure this out ourselves, because no one else knows how to do it either.
So it's kind of easier to have someone else do it the long way. Sometimes the thing that's technically more efficient is not actually the thing that makes the best use of available resources, that's what I tell myself.
Besides, we're getting a whole new ILS next year, so figuring out the cool tricks in Millennium at this late date isn't really going to help us in the long term. Therefore, heck with 'em.
We've heard rumors that there may be some way, in some system, to make this happen automatically, but we don't know what it is, in my library, so what this really means is that it's time for me to ask someone else to search for all the old, changed or deleted descriptors (like Indigotindisulfonate Sodium) one by one, and replace them with the shiny new descriptors (like Indigo Carmine).
Someone else will really enjoy that project.
While we're not sure about the existence of a way to have our OPAC talk to MeSH and update the 650 x2 fields automatically, we know there is actually a way to do a sort of 'find and replace' within the catalog that would at least correct multiple records at once, but to be honest we're kind of afraid of it.
What if we changed something in 50 records and then it was the wrong thing? And what if we couldn't just change it back? We could conceivably spend hours disentangling things. And we'd have to figure this out ourselves, because no one else knows how to do it either.
So it's kind of easier to have someone else do it the long way. Sometimes the thing that's technically more efficient is not actually the thing that makes the best use of available resources, that's what I tell myself.
Besides, we're getting a whole new ILS next year, so figuring out the cool tricks in Millennium at this late date isn't really going to help us in the long term. Therefore, heck with 'em.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Keeping Busy
This week in work, I'm occupied with urgently locating and marking for discard a number of volumes of print journals in advance of a whole-floor renovation that was initially anticipated to be half the floor; working on a fascinating problem of location codes in catalog records in advance of the implementation of an entirely new catalog system; and determining how we 're going to process anatomical models for circulation in advance of people being able to check them out.
I also had a researcher come in to look at some material from the archive, and of course there are reference shifts to cover.
These are exciting times, and don't let anyone tell you different.
I also had a researcher come in to look at some material from the archive, and of course there are reference shifts to cover.
These are exciting times, and don't let anyone tell you different.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Borrowing Ebooks
We don't really have popular books at my library, so we've been spared all the worry about whether and how to lend ebooks or ebook readers., It's certainly a subject worth keeping an eye on, though, so I appreciated this post on librarian.net giving a borrower's perspective on the new Amazon Kindle 'lending library.'
I especially like the description "a wolf in book's clothing," although it's more poetic than accurate since the piece unfortunately doesn't have a wolf leaping out of a Kindle to attack the reader's sheep (because that would be an exciting story!--although I'd feel bad about the sheep).
Summary: the borrower wasn't too psyched about the whole thing.
I think for now we'll probably just keep on staying out of that whole discussion where I work.
I especially like the description "a wolf in book's clothing," although it's more poetic than accurate since the piece unfortunately doesn't have a wolf leaping out of a Kindle to attack the reader's sheep (because that would be an exciting story!--although I'd feel bad about the sheep).
Summary: the borrower wasn't too psyched about the whole thing.
I think for now we'll probably just keep on staying out of that whole discussion where I work.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
I AM THE ALL-EXPERT! (Not really)
I know and appreciate that all librarians are assumed to know all things, but I think it's funny how apparently randomly people sometimes select my library (and presumably yours as well) as a resource for their particular question.
For example, I work at a small academic medical library associated with a specific school, in Massachusetts. I'm really not sure why someone with no apparent connection to the school picked us as the lucky recipient of a general question on "is there a [specific health-related thing] in Massachusetts?"
I mean, I can look it up, but we don't speak for Massachusetts where I work, nor are we really experts on state policy. Maybe you want to ask the State Library of Massachusetts or some other specifically-Massachusetts institution? Just a thought.
These very general questions also always make me wonder how much time I should spend on the answer, because I wonder "did he also send this same message to 20 other libraries in Massachusetts?"
And if we're all carefully answering the question, well, that is not economy of scale.
But if no one else answers the question because we all think it's generic and someone else will get it, the poor questioner may wind up with no response at all, and I don't want that.
I am a librarian! I want people to get their answers! I just want it to happen in the most efficient manner possible, and sometimes, that means I really shouldn't be the one giving the answer.
So I try to write a quick, general answer that suggests possible (possibly more appropriate) resources for similar future questions, and it always winds up taking longer than I expect, so I just hope for the sake of economies of scale that anyone else who received that particular question ignored it.
Let's not duplicate effort here.
For example, I work at a small academic medical library associated with a specific school, in Massachusetts. I'm really not sure why someone with no apparent connection to the school picked us as the lucky recipient of a general question on "is there a [specific health-related thing] in Massachusetts?"
I mean, I can look it up, but we don't speak for Massachusetts where I work, nor are we really experts on state policy. Maybe you want to ask the State Library of Massachusetts or some other specifically-Massachusetts institution? Just a thought.
These very general questions also always make me wonder how much time I should spend on the answer, because I wonder "did he also send this same message to 20 other libraries in Massachusetts?"
And if we're all carefully answering the question, well, that is not economy of scale.
But if no one else answers the question because we all think it's generic and someone else will get it, the poor questioner may wind up with no response at all, and I don't want that.
I am a librarian! I want people to get their answers! I just want it to happen in the most efficient manner possible, and sometimes, that means I really shouldn't be the one giving the answer.
So I try to write a quick, general answer that suggests possible (possibly more appropriate) resources for similar future questions, and it always winds up taking longer than I expect, so I just hope for the sake of economies of scale that anyone else who received that particular question ignored it.
Let's not duplicate effort here.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Keep It Coming...
I will say about Elsevier that they know how to bribe a librarian.
I mean, win a librarian's heart. Because the way to a librarian's heart is with a good bribe.
In celebration of National Medical Librarians Month, they've sent out postcards with codes you can redeem for either chocolate or coffee. I picked chocolate, but the results show coffee currently in the lead with 58% of the vote.
I imagine coffee gets some votes for its legendary ability to make coherent thought possible first thing in the morning. Me, I drink green tea, so coffee has little hold over me.
Chocolate, on the other hand...
Bribery aside, I should note that having entered about a million of them into the catalog, I do quite like Elsevier's ScienceDirect interface to e-journals.
I mean, win a librarian's heart. Because the way to a librarian's heart is with a good bribe.
In celebration of National Medical Librarians Month, they've sent out postcards with codes you can redeem for either chocolate or coffee. I picked chocolate, but the results show coffee currently in the lead with 58% of the vote.
I imagine coffee gets some votes for its legendary ability to make coherent thought possible first thing in the morning. Me, I drink green tea, so coffee has little hold over me.
Chocolate, on the other hand...
Bribery aside, I should note that having entered about a million of them into the catalog, I do quite like Elsevier's ScienceDirect interface to e-journals.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Rejoice!
Good news, everyone!
Not only do I have a luxurious quantity and variety of fresh vegetables at my disposal (although no handfuls of raw beets...this time), but the library has also acquired a number of online backfiles for some dental journals.
I made a snarky comment when I found that eight out of 21 titles were all title changes to one journal, because snarking about serial title changes is what catalogers do, but in fact this is good news. Our holdings for dental journals aren't as extensive as for the biomedical subjects (though this is partly because there just aren't as many dental journals out there), so we always like to extend our coverage.
And this archival purchase pushed our electronic holdings for several titles back even beyond our existing print coverage. So we have more articles online, which the students like, and more articles total, which everyone can enjoy.
Let us now dance the merry dance of vegetables and journals.
.
Not only do I have a luxurious quantity and variety of fresh vegetables at my disposal (although no handfuls of raw beets...this time), but the library has also acquired a number of online backfiles for some dental journals.
I made a snarky comment when I found that eight out of 21 titles were all title changes to one journal, because snarking about serial title changes is what catalogers do, but in fact this is good news. Our holdings for dental journals aren't as extensive as for the biomedical subjects (though this is partly because there just aren't as many dental journals out there), so we always like to extend our coverage.
And this archival purchase pushed our electronic holdings for several titles back even beyond our existing print coverage. So we have more articles online, which the students like, and more articles total, which everyone can enjoy.
Let us now dance the merry dance of vegetables and journals.
.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Booooooor-ing
So, today I sat at my desk and added about 80 e-books to the catalog while listening to the Moody Blues streamed from Google Music.
I have basically factory standard ears, but after several hours the earbuds got uncomfortable even for me, so I switched to restful silence.
Also, I ate a lot of fruit, because it's the season to buy luscious cherries and peaches and blueberries.
And...that was my day.
Some days are less brimful of drama than others.
.
I have basically factory standard ears, but after several hours the earbuds got uncomfortable even for me, so I switched to restful silence.
Also, I ate a lot of fruit, because it's the season to buy luscious cherries and peaches and blueberries.
And...that was my day.
Some days are less brimful of drama than others.
.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Shuffling Through
Do you sometimes have those days where you have an event offsite first thing in the morning, and then it takes an hour to get to the office, and by the time you get there all you can manage to do is answer a few emails and call it a day (because, not having a smartphone, you were obviously not able to answer any emails while traveling)?
Some days my productivity is less immediately evident than others.
On the plus side, bagels at the Ebooks and ILL Symposium at Brandeis University!
The symposium was also interesting. Representatives from JSTOR, Springer, Project Muse, and Oxford University Press talked about their interlibrary loan policies for ebooks.
The short version: chapters are OK, whole books are not really because they don't have the technology in place to make them 'time out' and ensure that what's offered really is short term access equivalent to 'lending' rather than just giving the ebook to anyone who asks for it.
These technological issues were also discussed, though there seem to be far more questions than answers. Why can't we 'time out' books, maybe by providing access through limited-time links or file sharing? Why do ILL folks have to print out and scan chapters (or articles) instead of just being able to email directly?
Somebody needs to work on an e-resource ILL app!
.
Some days my productivity is less immediately evident than others.
On the plus side, bagels at the Ebooks and ILL Symposium at Brandeis University!
The symposium was also interesting. Representatives from JSTOR, Springer, Project Muse, and Oxford University Press talked about their interlibrary loan policies for ebooks.
The short version: chapters are OK, whole books are not really because they don't have the technology in place to make them 'time out' and ensure that what's offered really is short term access equivalent to 'lending' rather than just giving the ebook to anyone who asks for it.
These technological issues were also discussed, though there seem to be far more questions than answers. Why can't we 'time out' books, maybe by providing access through limited-time links or file sharing? Why do ILL folks have to print out and scan chapters (or articles) instead of just being able to email directly?
Somebody needs to work on an e-resource ILL app!
.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Speaking of Electronic and Paper...
You know, although I was just trying to comfort myself yesterday, I think it's actually true that splitting up a bunch of conjoined records will be less work than merging a bunch of single records, if only because it will be easier to find them first.
Since paper and electronic books are currently sharing a single record, obviously I only have to find that single record--then make two.
Whereas if I were joining paper and electronic journals into one record, I would have to locate both of them first.
What with the way our OPAC search works, it's easier to specify "give me all the bibliographic records that have both a print and an electronic monograph holding attached" than to say "give me all the bibliographic records for print serial titles that are the same as bibliographic records for electronic serial titles."
The latter is actually not easy at all, as far as I can tell, especially since on occasion we might even have slightly different versions of the title on the record for paper as on electronic. I mean, we shouldn't, but it's hard to be sure, right?
So, yeah, I got the better end of the deal.
It does occur to me that I should put some sort of note in the item record once I split the books, though, the better to de-duplicate for those organizations that ask for statistics on the number of titles held, as opposed to the number of items held.
My work is complex and fascinating, and don't you forget it.
.
Since paper and electronic books are currently sharing a single record, obviously I only have to find that single record--then make two.
Whereas if I were joining paper and electronic journals into one record, I would have to locate both of them first.
What with the way our OPAC search works, it's easier to specify "give me all the bibliographic records that have both a print and an electronic monograph holding attached" than to say "give me all the bibliographic records for print serial titles that are the same as bibliographic records for electronic serial titles."
The latter is actually not easy at all, as far as I can tell, especially since on occasion we might even have slightly different versions of the title on the record for paper as on electronic. I mean, we shouldn't, but it's hard to be sure, right?
So, yeah, I got the better end of the deal.
It does occur to me that I should put some sort of note in the item record once I split the books, though, the better to de-duplicate for those organizations that ask for statistics on the number of titles held, as opposed to the number of items held.
My work is complex and fascinating, and don't you forget it.
.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Electronic Does Not Equal Paper
For years, and for no reason that I know of, my library chose to catalog electronic books on the same record as the print version, if we had both, but cataloged electronic and paper versions of journals on different records.
Mostly.
There were always exceptions, so I've always occasionally had to separate a pair of conjoined journals, or squash a pair of books together. For consistency, you know.
As I say, I'm not sure what the original reasoning was behind this policy. I'm sure there was some. Possibly it had to do with counting...for questions asking how many individual titles we have, keeping ebooks and paper books together makes sense. You count the bibliographic records, and you're good.
Why this doesn't make sense for journals, I don't know. We always have to de-duplicate those for the 'unique title' questions.
It matters little, though, because policy is policy. And now, policy is changing: it has been at last decided that system-wide, we're going with separate records all the way!
So now at some point, when I have the time, I'm going to have to track down every book title that we hold both electronically and in paper, and split them up.
I guess it was either that or find all the journals, and put them together. I actually not sure which would involve more work. I'll imagine it's the one I'm not doing, to comfort myself.
I tell you all this because I know you care very deeply.
Also, mostly, because it's what I'm thinking about right now.
.
Mostly.
There were always exceptions, so I've always occasionally had to separate a pair of conjoined journals, or squash a pair of books together. For consistency, you know.
As I say, I'm not sure what the original reasoning was behind this policy. I'm sure there was some. Possibly it had to do with counting...for questions asking how many individual titles we have, keeping ebooks and paper books together makes sense. You count the bibliographic records, and you're good.
Why this doesn't make sense for journals, I don't know. We always have to de-duplicate those for the 'unique title' questions.
It matters little, though, because policy is policy. And now, policy is changing: it has been at last decided that system-wide, we're going with separate records all the way!
So now at some point, when I have the time, I'm going to have to track down every book title that we hold both electronically and in paper, and split them up.
I guess it was either that or find all the journals, and put them together. I actually not sure which would involve more work. I'll imagine it's the one I'm not doing, to comfort myself.
I tell you all this because I know you care very deeply.
Also, mostly, because it's what I'm thinking about right now.
.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
DigiClutter
We just purchased a lot of online back files for various journal titles. I get these tidy lists of all the titles so I can update our website, catalog, DOCLINE holdings (for interlibrary loan) and WorldCat holdings.
They start out nice and orderly, and then within days I've broken them into various subsets. One list for titles that we hold in print. One list for titles that are only online. One for titles where the backfiles collection extends current holdings, and one for where they represent completely new titles (as will often happen if we get the full run of something that has changed titles one or more times over the years).
Lists for the different floors on which the print version is located.
Before I know it, my desktop is cluttered with versions, each of which may also contain several different sheets, and can I remember which of these documents has what in it? Sometimes.
Then I start to wonder, can I be quite sure that everything from that first list wound up on one of those other lists and was appropriately dealt with? Nah. Embrace the uncertainty, I say.
.
They start out nice and orderly, and then within days I've broken them into various subsets. One list for titles that we hold in print. One list for titles that are only online. One for titles where the backfiles collection extends current holdings, and one for where they represent completely new titles (as will often happen if we get the full run of something that has changed titles one or more times over the years).
Lists for the different floors on which the print version is located.
Before I know it, my desktop is cluttered with versions, each of which may also contain several different sheets, and can I remember which of these documents has what in it? Sometimes.
Then I start to wonder, can I be quite sure that everything from that first list wound up on one of those other lists and was appropriately dealt with? Nah. Embrace the uncertainty, I say.
.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Further Thoughts
Just as the jobs of midwife and undertaker for human beings can get messy, so too can the jobs of technical services. And just as weeding a garden often results in one becoming gray with dirt, so too does weeding a collection.
My computer keyboard is new sprinkled with bits of decayed library glue, and my hands are grimy and lined with toil. At least I didn't wear a white shirt today, as I often seem to do on days when it turns out I'm going to be heaving dusty volumes around.
It is the circle of life, after all. The gritty, sweaty, sneeze-inducing, paper-cut-filled, filthy, filthy circle of life.
.
My computer keyboard is new sprinkled with bits of decayed library glue, and my hands are grimy and lined with toil. At least I didn't wear a white shirt today, as I often seem to do on days when it turns out I'm going to be heaving dusty volumes around.
It is the circle of life, after all. The gritty, sweaty, sneeze-inducing, paper-cut-filled, filthy, filthy circle of life.
.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
A Pause for Somber Contemplation
The Weeding Season has begun. Heavily laden carts make their way back into the Technical Services area, bearing their cargo of condemned books.
It's like harvest season for us back here, if you assume that what's harvested is "lots of work." Which is ever the case.
For the removal from the shelf is only the first step in this hallowed process. Now the titles must be removed from the catalog, and from our WorldCat holdings, and only then can the books finally be laid to rest in the recycling bins and go on to that sweet afterlife of whatever happens to recycled paper.
It really makes you think. About how long it's been since our collection was weeded, and therefore how very many books are no longer needed.
Also about the opposite of data entry, which I suppose would be data removal.
These things shall cease to exist for us. Nevermore darken my OPAC search results, outdated oral surgery textbook!
We put books into the catalog. We take them out of the catalog. We see them when they are shiny and brand new, with all their pages clean and their binding sound, and we see them when they are feeble, frail, and barely held together with disintegrating tape.
We are both midwife and undertaker to the books.
That's why Tech Services is awesome.
.
It's like harvest season for us back here, if you assume that what's harvested is "lots of work." Which is ever the case.
For the removal from the shelf is only the first step in this hallowed process. Now the titles must be removed from the catalog, and from our WorldCat holdings, and only then can the books finally be laid to rest in the recycling bins and go on to that sweet afterlife of whatever happens to recycled paper.
It really makes you think. About how long it's been since our collection was weeded, and therefore how very many books are no longer needed.
Also about the opposite of data entry, which I suppose would be data removal.
These things shall cease to exist for us. Nevermore darken my OPAC search results, outdated oral surgery textbook!
We put books into the catalog. We take them out of the catalog. We see them when they are shiny and brand new, with all their pages clean and their binding sound, and we see them when they are feeble, frail, and barely held together with disintegrating tape.
We are both midwife and undertaker to the books.
That's why Tech Services is awesome.
.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
I Do It For The Love
It's been a busy week, but I did get a couple of nice compliments. Ah, the lifeblood of my fragile self-esteem!
Or, alternatively, of my vast and swollen ego!
One student said that she'd heard from some friends that I was their favorite librarian. (Awww!)
She said the description was "the tall thin woman with the short red hair."
I was a little taken aback, although the description is accurate. I'm just still not used to it, I guess, because ever since forever, until not that ago, it would have been "the tall thin woman with the freakishly long red hair."
It takes a few years to shed that identity. Even after you've shed the hair.
Then another student said everyone keeps telling her about how great the librarians are in our library, and how we're all so helpful and everything. (Awww!)
Being anecdotal, this is not A-level evidence of my awesomeness. You will also note that both of these comments were second hand, so it's possible both of the students who told me were, themselves, horribly disappointed in their library experiences.
Nevertheless, I'll take it.
.
Or, alternatively, of my vast and swollen ego!
One student said that she'd heard from some friends that I was their favorite librarian. (Awww!)
She said the description was "the tall thin woman with the short red hair."
I was a little taken aback, although the description is accurate. I'm just still not used to it, I guess, because ever since forever, until not that ago, it would have been "the tall thin woman with the freakishly long red hair."
It takes a few years to shed that identity. Even after you've shed the hair.
Then another student said everyone keeps telling her about how great the librarians are in our library, and how we're all so helpful and everything. (Awww!)
Being anecdotal, this is not A-level evidence of my awesomeness. You will also note that both of these comments were second hand, so it's possible both of the students who told me were, themselves, horribly disappointed in their library experiences.
Nevertheless, I'll take it.
.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
But What If Someone Wants It?
I frequently run into the sad fact that the books people don't use are in better shape than the ones they do. I have these internal dialogues.
Why weed this text? It's in great shape! Sound binding, clean pages, nothing scuffed or missing.
Only, it's 35 years old and the science of dental implants has perhaps advanced somewhat in the decades since it was published? Also, no one has checked it out since 1994?
I don't care! I am leaving this book on the shelf until it's tattered and worn out and looks like something that should be weeded!
Just kidding. I weed it. But it's unfortunate that the condition and sturdiness of the information inside cannot match the outer package. The information container, and the information itself, should match up. Yet they do not. It torments me.
Meanwhile, the new editions that people consult all the time are falling to pieces. Partly because of paperback, I think--most of the older ones are hardcover, which holds up slightly better. Also, we have a lot more students these days, which means a lot more people looking at books.
.
Why weed this text? It's in great shape! Sound binding, clean pages, nothing scuffed or missing.
Only, it's 35 years old and the science of dental implants has perhaps advanced somewhat in the decades since it was published? Also, no one has checked it out since 1994?
I don't care! I am leaving this book on the shelf until it's tattered and worn out and looks like something that should be weeded!
Just kidding. I weed it. But it's unfortunate that the condition and sturdiness of the information inside cannot match the outer package. The information container, and the information itself, should match up. Yet they do not. It torments me.
Meanwhile, the new editions that people consult all the time are falling to pieces. Partly because of paperback, I think--most of the older ones are hardcover, which holds up slightly better. Also, we have a lot more students these days, which means a lot more people looking at books.
.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Other Peoples' Statistics
I was sympathetic to the news in this article, San Francisco Library Doesn’t Know How Many Books it Has.
Because you know, it's surprisingly hard to get a count for that. The story says that the San Francisco Public Library can provide a number for how many titles they hold, but not how many specific items, and I myself have wrestled with this little distinction.
We don't have nearly as many books as the SFPL where I work, and it's still hard to get a good number. I was especially sympathetic when I learned that SFPL is using Millennium, which is the system we use for our OPAC. Ah, Millennium.
Hearken to these quoted words from a library spokesperson, who reports that Millennium is a "clunky system that works great for circulation but it's hard to pull out metrics that are newsworthy."
Yeah, that sounds about right. Except I can't speak to its efficacy for circulation, since I don't work on that aspect of things myself. Clunky, though, I can attest.
Now I can count items, because our Millennium gives us a Bibliographic record (a description of a specific title, edition, etc.) and an Item record (saying that we have a specific individual copy of said title, edition, etc.).
So I can run a list to pull all of the Item records that have our library's code in them (to differentiate them from all the items that might be in other libraries within the university system), and get a number that way.
But sometimes you might want to include also the number of bound volumes of old journals that you have, and there's no item for that, and sometimes you might want to count, or not count, electronic versions of titles, and there's an item for that but it's not easy to separate them out, and sometimes we forget to include our library code in the correct format (I'm sorry, but it happens), and sometimes depending on the definition you might want to include or not include titles available in other parts of the library system, and it all gets very confusing.
So I'm not sure exactly what issues the SFPL faces in coming up with a specific number of items, but I am sympathetic.
Also, I bet it's a lot. Just go with that, SFPL. "A whole lot."
I saw this on a roundup at This Ain't Livin'.
.
Because you know, it's surprisingly hard to get a count for that. The story says that the San Francisco Public Library can provide a number for how many titles they hold, but not how many specific items, and I myself have wrestled with this little distinction.
We don't have nearly as many books as the SFPL where I work, and it's still hard to get a good number. I was especially sympathetic when I learned that SFPL is using Millennium, which is the system we use for our OPAC. Ah, Millennium.
Hearken to these quoted words from a library spokesperson, who reports that Millennium is a "clunky system that works great for circulation but it's hard to pull out metrics that are newsworthy."
Yeah, that sounds about right. Except I can't speak to its efficacy for circulation, since I don't work on that aspect of things myself. Clunky, though, I can attest.
Now I can count items, because our Millennium gives us a Bibliographic record (a description of a specific title, edition, etc.) and an Item record (saying that we have a specific individual copy of said title, edition, etc.).
So I can run a list to pull all of the Item records that have our library's code in them (to differentiate them from all the items that might be in other libraries within the university system), and get a number that way.
But sometimes you might want to include also the number of bound volumes of old journals that you have, and there's no item for that, and sometimes you might want to count, or not count, electronic versions of titles, and there's an item for that but it's not easy to separate them out, and sometimes we forget to include our library code in the correct format (I'm sorry, but it happens), and sometimes depending on the definition you might want to include or not include titles available in other parts of the library system, and it all gets very confusing.
So I'm not sure exactly what issues the SFPL faces in coming up with a specific number of items, but I am sympathetic.
Also, I bet it's a lot. Just go with that, SFPL. "A whole lot."
I saw this on a roundup at This Ain't Livin'.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)