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

[Richard Wiggins]

Well, there's new bookstores, and there's used bookstores. An old friend,
Sue Davidsen, helped build a pioneering attempt to organize Internet
resources.  It was called Go-Mlink and it categorized resources found on the
Internet Gopher.  As I recall she employed the "used bookstore" model of
classification.

You raise an interesting point, Karen.  No doubt the list of current best
sellers changes frequently.  But I wonder if the breakdown of titles by
subject changes all that much, or that fast. My guess is that most new book
sales are driven by author or title, not subject, eg the latest John Grisham
thriller.  No doubt the list of current best sellers is a classic Zipf
distribution, with a small number of titles accounting for a huge percentage
of sales.  Bookstores in airports must pay dearly per square foot, but they
don't have to stock a deep selection of English lit.

Do legendary large book stores (new or used) like the Tattered Cover use
more library-like classification schemes?  Has anyone ever calculated, or
conjectured, at what size a collection of objects requires a special
taxonomy?

/rich


On 7/17/07, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> ------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>