This is a message from CTLS-L. Selecting "Reply" will send a message to the originator. Selecting "Reply to All" will send a message to the entire list. ---------------------------------------------------------
Hi: We've been struggling with this issue for some time, and if there was a magic bullet, you'd think Barnes and Nobles and other bookstores would have the algorithm figured out-- maybe they do. We've been going through the weeding process heavily and noticing what WASN'T circulating. I raised the question to staff if it wasn't better to review printouts in our subject areas (several staff members select materials in different areas) to see what is GOING OUT instead. Not sure we are doing that routinely or if it addresses the issue. But it might. And it is overwhelming, too, to digest all that info (we'll circulate almost 700,000 items this year). I'm not sure about the demographic issues. When you read of library bonds passing in blue collar areas and failing in wealthier white collar areas, traditional demographics of race, income, and age, and our assumptions about how different demographic groups may use us, may not be as relevant as they once were (if they ever really were). Personal access to the internet really does affect us in terms of reference and non-fiction usage, at a minimum. And, if people are spending more time on the internet, then they also have less time to read recreational material as well. We're even talking about stopping growth of the monographic budget in favor of the av budget (all forms of av) as these areas have routinely circulated at a higher rate of use over monographs. I don't know if I'd take a lot of stock in customer requests as a guide to developing the entire collection. We have 45,000 registered customers, who have used us in the past 2 years. We get requests from maybe 200 unique customers (not 200 requests, but 200 individuals making requests) on a regular basis, and some of those are for their special interests or hobbies. It may really be the case that we need to review what is moving, particularly in areas that are NOT moving as well. It would probably be unnecessary to review heavily moving collections such as children's and av-- just those areas where statistics say we're stagnant or losing circulation. Dale Ricklefs Round Rock
