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

[Karen Coyle]

Remember, Bernie, they are selling books, not lending them. Books are 
supposed to LEAVE a bookstore, not stay on a shelf. So the individual 
item (the book) is transitory. How would you determine the level of 
classification detail needed from the context of a constantly changing 
collection? Or, actually, from a rather random non-collection, since 
bookstores carry what is available for sale, not a calculated chunk of 
knowledge that they've pulled from all time and most space. You'd have 
glaring gaps, and even more unevenness in terms of level of coverage of 
topics in a bookstore than you have in a library. Under those 
circumstances, classification beyond the broad headings of the bookstore 
just might not be useful.

kc

B.G. Sloan wrote:
>
> 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 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48226/*http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php> 
> and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. 

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------