• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Dumping Dewey decimal-the new trend

Should we replace the Dewey decimal system?

  • Yes-It's archaic, everyone browses anyway

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • No-History is in the 600 section thank you. ;)

    Votes: 8 61.5%

  • Libraries are still around?

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
SFG75

SFG75

Well-Known Member
I attended an interesting meeting at work, which was a first.:p Our librarian asked about whether or not we should keep the Dewey decimal system. :eek: More than a few eyebrow was raised upon the specter of getting rid of such an archaic, but long-standing system. What would replace it would be some sort of bookstore arrangement-books divided by genre and alphabetized by author's name. This trend started with a library in Arizona that dumped Dewey. There has been some interesting internecine fighting among librarians as to whether or not Dewey should be dropped. The new arrangement is disparagingly referred to as the "googlization" or "Barnes & Nobling" of classification.

Be honest, when you go to the library, do you really use Dewey? Don't you browse anyway? Have you seen kids from elementary to college use Dewey? If so, I'd imagine the number is rare.

So, should we dump Dewey and accept the "Barnes & Nobling" system?:D
 
Ok,
I am the Director of a very small town Library. And the people who started the Library (from all evidence) didn't know jack about Dewey. They have a major part of the books in browsing genre. And a small part in Dewey with no catalog. Go figure.
I am currantly rearranging into all browsing by genre, because thats what will work for us. So I guess I am for the browsing method.
Great topic.
 
I think books should be arranged by height and smell.

The only time I've used the Dewey system is when I'm in the reference section.
 
SFG75 said:
I attended an interesting meeting at work, which was a first.:p Our librarian asked about whether or not we should keep the Dewey decimal system. :eek: More than a few eyebrow was raised upon the specter of getting rid of such an archaic, but long-standing system. What would replace it would be some sort of bookstore arrangement-books divided by genre and alphabetized by author's name. This trend started with a library in Arizona that dumped Dewey. There has been some interesting internecine fighting among librarians as to whether or not Dewey should be dropped. The new arrangement is disparagingly referred to as the "googlization" or "Barnes & Nobling" of classification.

Be honest, when you go to the library, do you really use Dewey? Don't you browse anyway? Have you seen kids from elementary to college use Dewey? If so, I'd imagine the number is rare.

So, should we dump Dewey and accept the "Barnes & Nobling" system?:D
Click to expand...

is it meant as a joke to call the dewey decimal system archaic, since it is more chiefly an archival system? By choosing the less proper adjective from an array, you could intend that the chiefer adjective leap to mind, in this case demonstrating a phonetic/orthographic repetition through the readers own device of recollection.

(A), the rhetorical structure of [to do conj.] + person, is repeated in paragraph 2, and the word Dewey is also repeated, which is phoneticly equal to a conjugation of (A), and therefore allowing a repetition 4A to be understood from a non grammatical inventory of the phonetic resulting of paragraph 2.

were you aware of these?
 
I used to browse by Dewey decimal. If I wanted to read a book about Astronomy, it's easier to go over to 520 and browse there than search through the card catalog to find something that might be interesting. If I wanted to find something about mammalian paleontology that I haven't read, or heard of, I would check out 569.

I say used instead of use because I have not been to a library since college. Anymore, I just buy the damned thing.

Also, History is 900. 600 is technology.
 
sparkchaser said:
I used to browse by Dewey decimal. If I wanted to read a book about Astronomy, it's easier to go over to 520 and browse there than search through the card catalog to find something that might be interesting. If I wanted to find something about mammalian paleontology that I haven't read, or heard of, I would check out 569.

I say used instead of use because I have not been to a library since college. Anymore, I just buy the damned thing.

Also, History is 900. 600 is technology.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Now that I think about it, I did utilize the card catalog(via computer) quite a bit. Once you are out of school, it becomes something that you forget about.

Oh yeah, it was decided to keep Dewey, so all of the old timers got their way.;)
 
SFG75, in reference to post 5# pending response, word usage should be a legitamate question here at B.&R. of all places. I'm not trying to insult you through it. In fact, the reason it's easy for you to 'ignore' post #5 is that it wasn't intended in any ill manner at all, but was only slightly askew from the topic. I can only think that, by posting askew of the topic, I perhaps offended you..... slightly, slightly, slightly....by implying (without intent, mind you) that your topic of the Dewey Drop(a rhetorical structure in itself) had a lesser momentum. But I say, this would be on the contrary, SFG75, because I am fascinated by it, and I only post a question of word usage here because your post was examplary of rhetorical structure.
 
helgi said:
If a Google system was infact employed, and the name Google replaced Dewey, then an instructive librarian would be agog.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking, and I don't mean to impose upon the real thrust of the thread, but I was just thinking that the above entendre is enabled by the one word be, in an instance where spanish would dictate ser for one entendre and estar for the other. So I suppose the generality of the english to be may favor word play substancially, since to be is such a common word.
 
I'm all for browsing. The adult fiction section used to be divided into genres until they decided to alphabetize them all together. I liked it before when all the fantasy and science fiction were together... it made it so much easier to find something interesting to read instead of traversing the entire stacks in search of a book.
 
I would rather keep dewey, at least for nonfiction. Most libraries around here have their adult fiction separated by genre, or at least partially so, depending on available space. For some reason my local library has SF planted over in the Young Adult section. What can I say, they need to expand their building....but that's a whole nuther thread topic;)
 
Sure Dewey isn't perfect (what classification system is?) but at least it is easier to understand than the Library of Congress Classification.
 
The first half of the library should be alphabetised with each author's work in chronological or set order. The high up shelves should be boring books and duplicates. The stuff on the bottom should be heavy text books or just especially tall books. The second half of the library should be a little bit alphabetised, but also have piles of books that were bought after the original organisation took place, books that were somewhere else in the house at the time, books that were taken from the organised shelves and never put back and lots of Lego models that have nowhere else to go.

That's how it's done in my house and I don't see any need, or room, for improvement.
 
sparkchaser said:
Sure Dewey isn't perfect (what classification system is?) but at least it is easier to understand than the Library of Congress Classification.
Click to expand...


Actually, I thought LC made more sense and was more precise than Dewey. Of course, I was a lot younger when I encountered it and learning it was easier than it might be for me now. The problem with LC is that the average public library patron has not dealt with it at all, and would be lost if forced to switch.
 
Litany said:
The first half of the library should be alphabetised with each author's work in chronological or set order. The high up shelves should be boring books and duplicates. The stuff on the bottom should be heavy text books or just especially tall books. The second half of the library should be a little bit alphabetised, but also have piles of books that were bought after the original organisation took place, books that were somewhere else in the house at the time, books that were taken from the organised shelves and never put back and lots of Lego models that have nowhere else to go.

That's how it's done in my house and I don't see any need, or room, for improvement.
Click to expand...

Your system sounds a lot like my favorite used bookstore. They do have stuff arranged by genre, but all the new books get housed up front by the desk like your home library.
 
SFG75 said:
I attended an interesting meeting at work, which was a first.:p Our librarian asked about whether or not we should keep the Dewey decimal system. :eek: More than a few eyebrow was raised upon the specter of getting rid of such an archaic, but long-standing system. What would replace it would be some sort of bookstore arrangement-books divided by genre and alphabetized by author's name. This trend started with a library in Arizona that dumped Dewey. There has been some interesting internecine fighting among librarians as to whether or not Dewey should be dropped. The new arrangement is disparagingly referred to as the "googlization" or "Barnes & Nobling" of classification.

Be honest, when you go to the library, do you really use Dewey? Don't you browse anyway? Have you seen kids from elementary to college use Dewey? If so, I'd imagine the number is rare.

So, should we dump Dewey and accept the "Barnes & Nobling" system?:D
Click to expand...

helgi said:
is it meant as a joke to call the dewey decimal system archaic, since it is more chiefly an archival system? By choosing the less proper adjective from an array, you could intend that the chiefer adjective leap to mind, in this case demonstrating a phonetic/orthographic repetition through the readers own device of recollection.

(A), the rhetorical structure of [to do conj.] + person, is repeated in paragraph 2, and the word Dewey is also repeated, which is phoneticly equal to a conjugation of (A), and therefore allowing a repetition 4A to be understood from a non grammatical inventory of the phonetic resulting of paragraph 2.

were you aware of these?
Click to expand...

helgi said:
SFG75, in reference to post 5# pending response, word usage should be a legitamate question here at B.&R. of all places. I'm not trying to insult you through it. In fact, the reason it's easy for you to 'ignore' post #5 is that it wasn't intended in any ill manner at all, but was only slightly askew from the topic. I can only think that, by posting askew of the topic, I perhaps offended you..... slightly, slightly, slightly....by implying (without intent, mind you) that your topic of the Dewey Drop(a rhetorical structure in itself) had a lesser momentum. But I say, this would be on the contrary, SFG75, because I am fascinated by it, and I only post a question of word usage here because your post was examplary of rhetorical structure.
Click to expand...

were you aware of the micro rhetorical structures in your post? I'm interested to know whether they occur automatically, or if you bother to contrive them. don't resent my curiouisty.

also, I forgot to mention in post 5 how archaic but long-standing is conspicouse choice of words. I am wondering if it intentional
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top