[Web4lib] Why don't bookstores use Dewey or LC? Was: NYT article onDewey-less Arizona public library

[Robert L. Balliot]

The books are not bought to be retained as an interrelated collection.  They
are bought to be sold.

*************************************************
Robert L. Balliot
1-401-421-5763
Skype: RBalliot
Bristol, Rhode Island
http://oceanstatelibrarian.com/contact.htm
*************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:05 PM
To: web4lib at webjunction.org; lita-l at ala.org
Subject: [Web4lib] Why don't bookstores use Dewey or LC? Was: NYT article
onDewey-less Arizona public library


After hearing some people tout the advantages of library-based methods of
organizing collections I find myself wondering: Why don't Borders, Barnes &
Noble, etc., use Dewey or LC?

Did bookstores start out with library classification systems and find them
lacking? Or did it never cross the minds of bookstore owners to incorporate
a tried-and-true system into their operations?

Note: this is not a facetious question...I really am curious about it. Why
do bookstores today not use library-based methods like Dewey or LC?

Bernie Sloan

 
       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
spyware protection. 
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/