Fiction_L Archives Weeding Fiction - Statistics Dates: 2/16/05,10:21 PM  through  2/17/05,9:15 PM  (5 postings) Search for: Select one or more indexes to search: 2011-current     2009-2010     2004-2008    1995-2003    (Matches from each index will be displayed separately in the results page.) Return to February 2005 thread menu   |    Fiction_L Archives Menu

Postings are in chronological order (as received by the list server), with the original posting at the top of the page.

FROM: [removed]@emich.edu
REC'D: 2/16/05, 10:21 PM

>While we're on the topic of weeding - Has anyone tracked the impact of
>weeding on their circulation stats? I recently spoke to a librarian who
>indicated that after weeding his collection, his library experienced an
82%
>increase in circ over three years.

When I see statistics like this, I always wonder:

1. Were there variables other than weeding which might have affected
the numbers? For example, did the three years studied include other
variables like a change in management, improved readers' advisory
service, increased attention to collection
development, increased publicity, or significant growth in the number
of library users? One should consider the possibility that simply
having the staff examine the fiction collection as part of a weeding
project, or for any other purpose, may have an indirect effect on
circulation as staff become more aware of titles to recommend or
display.

2. How was the reported increase measured? In total usage, or in
usage-per-item? It's sort of a statistical truism that if you remove
the items with lower circulation numbers from your collection, the
remaining items will, by definition, have higher average circulation
numbers than before. That doesn't automatically mean improved overall
service, or even increased total circulation.

To rhetorically illustrate the mischief achievable with unwary use of
circulation numbers: consider a hypothetical "library" composed of
nothing but copies of "The Da Vinci Code" and, perhaps, a few Harry
Potter books. Very high circ numbers per item, but not exactly a
well-balanced collection, nor one likely to satisfy any but the
least frequent users.

To express my doubts in another way: sensible weeding is obviously
necessary in most library collections other than a few research-level
institutions, but claims or expectations that drastic, purely numbers-
based weeding is a "magic bullet" that singlehandedly dramatically
improves library service in the absence of good collection development
and knowledgeable readers' advisory service -- INCLUDING knowledge of
older titles worth retaining and recommending to a new generation of
readers -- strikes me as a dangerous myth.

Bradley A. Scott
Boomer librarian

FROM: [removed]@emich.edu
REC'D: 2/16/05, 10:27 PM

The message I just sent (Re: Weeding Fiction - Statistics) was a draft
response to a long-ago Fiction-L query which was sent accidentally while
I was going through said draft folder, looking for material to delete.

I suppose if others find it interesting, so much to the good; however,
it's not a response to a currently active question.

Bradley A. Scott
(who clearly needs to get more sleep)

FROM: "Aaron Smith" <[removed]@oplin.org>
REC'D: 2/17/05, 6:54 AM

May my drafts have half the cogency and good sense of yours ... Thanks for
all you do in your list interactions, which benefit us all!

Regards,
Aaron Smith
Clermont County Public Library, Ohio
[removed]@oplin.org

[removed]@emich.edu writes:

> The message I just sent (Re: Weeding Fiction - Statistics) was a draft
> response to a long-ago Fiction-L query which was sent accidentally while
> I was going through said draft folder, looking for material to delete.
>
> I suppose if others find it interesting, so much to the good; however,
> it's not a response to a currently active question.

FROM: "christine jeffords" <[removed]@hotmail.com>
REC'D: 2/17/05, 3:42 PM

>From: [removed]@emich.edu
>Reply-To: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@maillist.webrary.org>
>To: Fiction_L <[removed]@maillist.webrary.org>
>Subject: Re: Weeding Fiction - Statistics
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:19:30 -0500
>
>
>To express my doubts in another way: sensible weeding is obviously
>necessary in most library collections other than a few research-level
>institutions, but claims or expectations that drastic, purely numbers-
>based weeding is a "magic bullet" that singlehandedly dramatically
>improves library service in the absence of good collection development
>and knowledgeable readers' advisory service -- INCLUDING knowledge of
>older titles worth retaining and recommending to a new generation of
>readers -- strikes me as a dangerous myth.
>

I agree 100%! I know that as a library *patron*, it irks me extremely when
I can't find a book I know the library *used* to have, and figure they
probably got rid of it because it was "too old."

FROM: "Nigel Brown" <[removed]@timdc.govt.nz>
REC'D: 2/17/05, 9:15 PM

I am currently doing a weed of our fiction collection but there are various ways of checking how useful a book is before withdrawing it from stock
- I use a print out from our database which produces a list for books that are not circulating from a certain point of time eg they haven't been issued for 3 years,
I then access the author to see if its worth keeping the book either on the open shelves or in our stack, or is it time to say goodbye.
I also use the expertise of other staff who give advice.
The other way is of course condition of the book - can it be mended or is past it's life span.
We are lucky to have a national database of Library's holdings which then (if we don't hold the book anymore) can be inter-library loaned for a borrower if they are asking for it.

My fiction were full and I have had several comments form borrowers saying that is off-putting trying to browse for books, since I have begun weeding I have had positive comments about how good the shelves look and you know that books are circulating because there are gaps there.

Nigel Brown
Reader Services Librarian
Timaru District Library
P.O. Box 228
56 Sophia Street
Timaru
New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: [removed]@maillist.webrary.org
[[removed]@maillist.webrary.org]On Behalf Of christine jeffords
Sent: Friday, 18 February 2005 10:36 a.m.
To: Fiction_L
Subject: Re: Weeding Fiction - Statistics

>From: [removed]@emich.edu
>Reply-To: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@maillist.webrary.org>
>To: Fiction_L <[removed]@maillist.webrary.org>
>Subject: Re: Weeding Fiction - Statistics
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:19:30 -0500
>
>
>To express my doubts in another way: sensible weeding is obviously
>necessary in most library collections other than a few research-level
>institutions, but claims or expectations that drastic, purely numbers-
>based weeding is a "magic bullet" that singlehandedly dramatically
>improves library service in the absence of good collection development
>and knowledgeable readers' advisory service -- INCLUDING knowledge of
>older titles worth retaining and recommending to a new generation of
>readers -- strikes me as a dangerous myth.
>

I agree 100%! I know that as a library *patron*, it irks me extremely when
I can't find a book I know the library *used* to have, and figure they
probably got rid of it because it was "too old."

Return to February 2005 thread menu   |    Fiction_L Archives Menu

The Webrary® and Fiction_L are services of the Morton Grove Public Library "Webrary" is a registered trademark of the Morton Grove Public Library. All rights reserved. Copyright of Fiction_L postings belongs to their respective authors; postings may only be reused with the author's permission. Compiled lists (compilations of titles or authors from earlier postings on a particular topic) may not be reused for commercial purposes. To use a compiled list for non-commercial purposes, please credit "Subscribers of the Fiction_L mailing list." All other content is ©2012 Morton Grove Public Library, 6140 Lincoln Ave., Morton Grove, IL 60053-2989, (847) 965-4220.