Comments on: Buzzkill 2.0

By: Connecting Librarian » Blog Archive » Connecting Librarian from Blogspot.com

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:43:15 +0000

[…] fun, then here are my picks for the Carnival. Great post from John Blyberg at Blyberg.net entitled Buzzkill 2.0 - I’ll let you read it to find out more. I loved Karen Schneider’s post at Free Range […]

By: M. Moriconi

M. Moriconi — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:48:35 +0000

Let’s try to keep in mind that some number (perhaps a significant portion) of the persons who signed the petition were patrons. And as a librarian I tend to agree with the comment about librarians knowing the deficiencies in their collections and knowing what materials patrons consistently ask for that we do not have. Let’s try to remember that another perfectly valid portion of the public is not the vocal majority but perhaps a more cerebral, and less vocal, minority. I’m not insinuating that cerebral patrons have more right to use the library - I only suggest that they have as much right. Surely they deserve to find some of what they are looking for at the public library even if it means that we can only purchase ten copies of the latest hit films rather than twelve? What’s worse, having to wait a few days for something, or being told that the only option is ILL which often doesn’t work at all for new materials?

By: john

john — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:33:26 +0000

We’re already planning to have many large plasma displays in our new library in Darien. And I really like the idea of lounge chairs and pretzels–really I do. Beer and wine should be an option as well, for a number of high-end functions held at the library.

Yes, let’s be a place people want to go to.

By: Karl Miller

Karl Miller — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:34:20 +0000

Books by and about Paris Hilton belong on the shelves of every library. No doubt some faculty member at Stanford is contemplating a course like, “Paris Hilton, a new paradigm for American Culture.” For that matter, I have been very frustrated that I can’t find newspapers like the Weekly World News, or the National Enquirer at my local public library. I mean, if you are going to give the people what they want, why not lounge chairs, beer and pretzels and big screen TVs.

What does it all comes down to…namely, the top library administrator reports to bean counters. The higher the bean count, the more the Board or governing agency appreciates the library administrator. If the bean count is on the rise, the Board is happy, and the administrator gets a raise. So, ultimately, who suffers…

By: Sonny Crawford

Sonny Crawford — Thu, 31 May 2007 02:46:02 +0000

I am also from sacramento, and an elementary school teacher. I feel, unfortunately, the media once again jumped on one hot button issue in a much bigger problem. I was at the board meeting and was able to read, and sign, the petition, and the collection development part was only the tip of the iceberg. No, the staff and community presenting the petition didn’t want Anne Marie to resign over 10 Jackass videos or Paris Hilton books. There were MANY other issues involved, including a massive amount of money (500,000) spent on consultants, primarily used in administration, while the central library reference budget gets cut to 25,000 for the WHOLE FISCAL YEAR. Hundreds of popular magazine and newspaper subscriptions were cut system wide, again. Security issues, overly high vacancy rate among all staff classifications, friends of the library money misused, etc…. All issues that were raised many times, and ignored in the past by Management. The “no confidence” goes much deeper. This is not about stuffy librarians that fear or fight change, it’s about simple balance. If the public wants popular Barnes and Noble / Blockbuster type things, go for it. But if it interferes with my students getting their homework assignments done because of weak research materials, then yes, it’s a problem.

I was also surprised to see that after the community addressed these issues, the next agenda item was a closed room meeting about adminstration’s raises. This board obviously has no clue.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:39:55 +0000

2 holds on the Paris Hilton book is your definition of popular? Also - is it a good use of taxpayers money to purchase items that will be immediately stolen? How cost effective is that?
Libraries do not have the resources to be solely popular collections - we cannot meet the demand. Also, bookstores have the luxury of returning titles that don’t sell back to publishers. We need to redefine ourselves for the future, not fall on the tired “be more like a bookstore” canard. The issues here are complicated. Simply labeling staff “idiots” adds nothing to the debate.

By: The Invisible Library » Blog Archive » Season 3 of Home Improvment Was Already Out

Tue, 29 May 2007 23:42:03 +0000

[…] because their shelves contain 10 copies of Jackass 2 and 6 of the Paris Hilton biography. But, as John Blyburg points out, all those copies are either checked out, on order or missing, meaning that they don’t have […]

By: Bo Kinney

Bo Kinney — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:16:21 +0000

John, I think you’re mistaken in suggesting that collecting popular materials is primarily about serving user needs. I think it has more to do with a business-centered model of public librarianship, that sees high circulation counts as a mark of success.

Charlie Robinson, who directed the Baltimore County Public Library in the 90s, and who was one of the fiercest proponents of this model (he called it “Give ‘Em What They Want!”), didn’t care all that much about lofty things like getting materials to those who couldn’t afford them; he called the public library an “almost exclusively middle class” institution.

The model of centralized collection management, and collection-building based on user requests, is one that is focused on saving money, not on best serving users, and it looks good because the circulation numbers are high. But it’s a strategy that’s bereft of any sort of principle–Robinson, in fact, derided librarians who cared about “doing good,” and wrote that it was “damaging to…the institution of truly cost-effective services.”

It also completely denies librarians the ability to make suggestions and give advice to lead users to different material from what they come in for, which, despite your unwillingness to “place value on content,” is an important job that librarians are charged with. This, I think, is what the librarians in Sacramento are most upset about–the denigration of them as professionals who might be able to use their professional skills and knowledge to help create a quality collection.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Tue, 29 May 2007 13:54:56 +0000

This is so clearly not about collections but about management, yet the dispute leverages most folks’ unfamiliarity with how collections are built in the first place. it’s a debate by proxy.

By: Strategy without philosophy « The Letter Z

Strategy without philosophy « The Letter Z — Tue, 29 May 2007 06:33:48 +0000

[…] “I am *so* not in the same profession as these librarians,” and John Blyberg writes, in a post tagged with idiocy, “So we’re in the business of placing value on content, now. Great, I love the idea of […]

By: Emily

Emily — Tue, 29 May 2007 00:19:24 +0000

That’s ridiculous. And yet, I know plenty of librarians who resent being told what materials and services they should provide by mere patrons. There are some people who are so threatened by the idea of change that they never will. I’ve come to terms with that… I hope they can come to terms with the fact that in a few years I’ll still have a job and they won’t.

By: john

john — Mon, 28 May 2007 09:58:39 +0000

Quite simply, if you want to know what your users want, look at your hold and circulation statistics. That’s an empirical indication of what they’re checking out and what they’re willing to wait for. The reason I linked to both titles in question was to illustrate that, right now, they are not on the shelf–they’re circulating.

I can completely understand the logic behind centralizing these purchasing decisions because they are largely based upon statistical analysis of raw data. We can also anticipate how popular an item is going to be before we even order material because, by and large, the marketplace will almost always betray its anticipation–think Harry Potter, for example. Purchasing in reaction to what is guaranteed to circulate is a smart move and it’s a business strategy not intended to insult the librarian, but instead benefit the patron–which it does.

But you do make a good point, which is, how can a collection be further enriched by the input of the librarians on staff? There is an intrinsic value to knowing your collection has it’s own unique fingerprint. So librarian input is critical and libraries much facilitate that. But there needs to be an understanding that librarian input supplements the core purchasing strategy and isn’t the strategy itself.