I was more than a little disturbed to read that the Gilbert Public Library will open next month and become the first library in the nation to no longer use the Dewey Decimal Classification System. They will, instead, group their material by topic and interests similar to the way it is done in many popular book stores (as well as in the Library of Congress). According to the library: "A lot of times, patrons feel like they're going to a library and admitting defeat because they don't understand Dewey Decimal and can't find the book they're looking for."
Personally, I don't see much of a difference between looking up a book and getting the URL of "621.123a" versus the URL of "SCIENCE PHYSICS PARTICLE" ... it's kind of the difference between using "216.109.112.135" versus "yahoo.com".
That aside, I took the time to read up on the different pros and cons of continuing with the antiquated DDCS and have to agree: Dewey is dead. The decimal triage approach limits the top level classification to only ten categories ... more than enough 100 years ago, but hardly the thing for all the newer science and technology divisions that exist today. The LOC approach (subsetted by Border's and Barnes & Nobles) is more open-ended and user-friendly (just like using "yahoo.com" instead of remembering its IP address).
So maybe doing away with the Dewey Decimal Classification System is not such a bad thing ... after all, if the patrons can't find the books they want, what good is a library in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I saw this story in several places this week, and I don't know what I think about it. I understand that the DDS is probably inadequate for our needs now (things have changed in the last century), but I also know how difficult it is to categorize books by subject. We've been in this house for more than five years now, and we still haven't arranged our books in any rational order.
ReplyDeleteArranging by subject (like bookstores do and I think the way the Library of Congress does also, although with greater granularity than the DDS) is fine if you aren't looking for a specific book, but maybe no one does that anymore in libraries. I guess there are other ways to find those books (they seem to be able to find a specific book for me at bookstores -- using the computer and then taking me to the specific section), but I suspect in a public library it may be more important to group books by interest area -- American history, self-help, romance novels -- than it is by some mysterious classification system that uses numbers and the alphabet.
Which brings me to my recent observation that alphabetical order seems to be disappearing and with it, the ability to put things in that order. Yeah, yeah, I still use a telephone book, but I can bet you that no one under 25 does. They search the online white pages, and when they add things to their contact list, the phone or PDA alphabetizes it for them. Is alphabetization going the way of the record player and b&w TV?
Well I think it's dumb. The decimal system is addresses for books. Blundering around looking through subjects is difficult and confusing and doesn't allow for the simple ease of going to an "address".
ReplyDeleteAlso you wanted me to join this but you aren't keeping up! For shame!