[Publib] Re: Dewey or Don't We

[Andy Barnett]

I see this as an issue of granularity vs. critical mass.

Dewey provides great granularity. There is a number for growing roses and 
all your rose growing books should be there. There is a number for ethnic 
cooking, German cooking and Bavarian cooking.

Display collections require a degree of critical mass, as per Richmond 
Public Library's many programs. If you are displaying your cookbooks, you 
need about 200 of them. Fewer than that and you don't have enough to 
attract attention and reward continued visits.

Libraries have competing needs  the ability to find a particular item 
(granularity) and ease of browsing (critical mass). If you have a small 
collection, browsing will and should win. For larger collections, 
granularity will and should win. Just how often you send books to other 
libraries (we do A LOT) matters too. But what about those of us who don't 
have huge collections but have more than can be comfortably browsed?

Our take has been along the lines of yes/both. Our new books (last 12+ 
months) are displayed in categories (17 non-fiction and 11 fiction 
categories). This promotes browsing and attains critical mass. Plus these 
are the books most likely to be used, even if they were mixed with the 
older titles. Thus all craft titles are together, no matter what their 
Dewey. The same with all autobiographies, religion, etc. These collections 
are heavily browsed.

After a while, they age out of the display collections and move to the 
stacks, where Dewey (and granularity) rules. Not just handicrafts, not just 
woodworking, but routers (684.083). People who use the stacks are not 
browsing, but looking for something in particular (lathes, diabetes, cross 
stitching). Also, many of these books are not as attractive as the newer 
titles.

BISAC has about 50 top categories and over 3000 total subcategories. For 
many libraries, 50 categories would be insufficient to divide up their 
collection, but 3000 would drive them crazy. I applaud those who are 
adapting BISAC to library use. When such a compromise system is developed 
and implemented, it will have value, but now it is true cutting edge. A 
library could spend two years making the transition and find that they need 
to make major adjustments that will eat up another two years.

While I agree that most people entering a bookstore find something, I don't 
think that they internalize the structure. All Barnes & Noble may use 
BISAC, but the next store will use the same categories and have the books 
arranged very differently. The structure of stores is sufficiently good to 
create enough satisfaction. Satisficing

Three bottom lines for libraries:
1.      If someone walks in and wants to just wander around, will they be 
able to find something, not all the lathe or diabetes books, but something 
that they will value without needing assistance? Is there enough that is 
obvious, well signed and recent to encourage them to come back?
2.      If someone wants something specific (bankruptcy, OCD, selling a 
house), are all or almost all those titles in one place, near items on 
related subjects. Not just within one collection, but in one place.
3.      Can staff find a particular title without having to hunt for it. If 
an item is in, does it have one (or maybe two if it is on display) place 
where it lives when it is at home.

I see no reason a BISAC based system can't meet these criteria. I just 
haven't seen one that does so yet. Good luck to Pierre and others trying to 
make it work.



Andy Barnett, Asst. Director            McMillan Memorial Library
490 East Grand Ave. Wisconsin Rapids, WI  54494
                 www.mcmillanlibrary.org
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that 
matter.  -  Martin Luther King, Jr.