Emptying Library Shelves Because of “Browsing Fatigue”

There’s a new trend in libraries and I’m not sure I approve.  It stems from the idea that libraries need to market their materials much like stores do.  Their funding, after all, is often tied to circulation numbers.  If they can entice more patrons to check out more materials, perhaps their funding will increase–or at least not decrease.  Part of the advice being offered to circulate more materials is to reduce “browsing fatigue,” the feeling of being overwhelmed by looking at rows and rows of books and not knowing which one to pick.  To do this, libraries are advised to weed (take out of circulation) books until their shelves are only halfway to two-thirds full.  The remaining space is then used to place books face out on display.  The books on display are supposed to be more eye-catching, causing patrons to grab them for check out, without feeling like they have to look through all the titles on the shelf.

What I do not like about this advice is that it assumes that there is one primary type of library patron and that libraries exist primarily to serve that one type of patron.  The library patron being assumed is that of the browser, a person who does not come to the library knowing what they want and who must be guided to the right books as a result.  To help streamline this process, the library must initially lose one-third to one-half of their collection and then keep weeding aggressively to keep their shelves half-bare.  As a result, the library is not necessarily serving another type of patron: the one who knows what they want before they walk in.

Patrons who research books before stepping through the doors of a library often assume the library will have specific titles because they envision the library as serving as a sort of repository of knowledge.  It has accumulated books over the years and has carefully guarded them for future readers.  But the new marketing model means that they have a smaller chance of finding what they want unless it happens to be popular or otherwise deemed of value by the librarians (this could mean books of local interest, books that are diverse, books on specialized topics, or books that otherwise fill in a gap in the collection).  If they are looking for a mid-list book or a book published years ago, and the circulation numbers have not justified keeping it, they may not find it at all.  They will have to try interlibrary loan or perhaps attempt to purchase it.

Weeding half of the library’s collection seems like a pretty drastic measure to take when there are so many other ways to guide patrons who may be suffering from browsing fatigue.  Libraries routinely put books on display, provide lists of recommended titles for various age groups and genres, get patrons to write out reviews and do reader advisories, and make librarians available to guide patrons who have questions like, “What can my son read after Rick Riordan?” or “Do you have more books like Tolkien?”  And, yes, many already place books face out on their shelves when they have some extra space.  Because there are so many options available to guide patrons through the shelves, and because most libraries do already weed their collections anyway, I just do not see why librarians now think they must save the poor readers from all those books.

At the heart of this debate lies the fundamental question of what role the library serves.  I like to think that the library is serving as a repository of knowledge and that it will still house that semi-obscure or somewhat niche title I want to read.  I do not want to see my local library turn into an Amazon store imitator, so desperate to increase circulation that it must lose half its collection.  Libraries feel the need to change, the need to do anything to get people in the door and to get them to check materials out once they’re there.  I understand that.  But it also feels like libraries that weed half their books are losing half their souls.

*Note: I am not arguing against the general practice of weeding in the library.  I understand that librarians routinely weed books that are in poor condition or that have not circulated.  I also understand that books determined to be of value in some way are often saved even if they are not circulating.  My post is not a criticism of weeding in general but about the practice of weeding one-third to one-half of a collection at once because librarians assume books full of shelves are automatically overwhelming.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “Emptying Library Shelves Because of “Browsing Fatigue”

  1. Kim @ Traveling in Books says:

    Yeesh… I can’t picture what my library would look like if they pulled out so many of their books! The ‘New Releases’ shelves are for the books facing outwards. And sure, old and damaged books are pulled and so are the ones that don’t get checked out, but the shelves are still overflowing with titles, with little to nothing facing outwards. Just the spines showing. Another reason to love my local library system, since they don’t seem to fall prey to funding cuts and trends like this.

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      It does feel very much like a trend and I guess we will have to wait and see how many libraries keep doing this once the trend is over. I just don’t understand it. Stores don’t keep half their shelves empty. They rely on displays just like libraries do. And my library shelves tend to empty naturally during certain parts of the year, like summer. There would be NO home on the shelves in July if my library seeded half their collection now!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Briana | Pages Unbound says:

    My old library did this with the picture books. The picture book shelves were so crammed that the books didn’t actually fit and taking one out or, worse, trying to put it back was a nightmare, so weeding was reasonable. But the goal was specially to have 50% of each shelf empty. Um, no. It looked bad, as if there were no books. The books that were there kept falling over. And anyone who works in a library knows that empty space is an invitation for people to put random books or even junk on the shelf. I did not think it was a good move.

    Many people don’t look for specific picture books, though, and a lot of people will just pick a random handful and call it a day, so here at least there was less of a chance that weeding so aggressively would get rid of books people “wanted.” This idea would be even worse in other areas of the library. They were weeding other areas, however, so they could do things like leave the top and bottom shelves on every bookcase empty because no one looks there anyway. (Which, well, is true.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Krysta says:

      Yeah, sometimes space opens up on shelves and people immediately throw their garbage in. I can imagine this would become a bigger issue if the shelves were emptier. Also, for the room to look good, the library workers would have to keep replenishing the displays. This doesn’t happen often at my library, so the shelves would really just look barren.

      And I do think weeding aggressively can work for some areas. It looks like my library recently got rid of six shelves of early readers. That’s fine because early readers tend to be commissioned by publishing houses. And, aside from series like Piggie & Elephant, most people aren’t looking for specific titles.

      Like

  3. Davida Chazan says:

    I see your point. It seems to me that a library where the shelves are half full or even a third empty might feel… sad. And if it is a sad place to visit, why would I want to go there? At least that’s how I see it.

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      I think it would look sad and under-funded! Also, people leave trash in the gaps in shelves in my library, like if space opens when someone checks out a whole series. A bunch of empty space would probably turn the library into a garbage can, sadly.

      Like

  4. Aislynn d'Merricksson says:

    Dude, that is the silliest assumption I’ve ever heard… Half the joy of my childhood was browsing through all the books. It’s not fair to take two-thirds of the choices away. Kinda makes me feel libraries want to pander to the short attention span, rush-rush-rush mentalities that seem more and more prevalent…

    Like

  5. ireadthatinabook says:

    Getting rid of 33-50% of the books really seems like overdoing it. I have occasionally been tempted by a book on display in a library so I do see the value in leaving some shelf-space for displays but certainly 10-20% is enough if they are exchanged frequently? I have also seen clever displays on the short end of bookshelves which I find a very good use of that space.

    Like

  6. Sionna (Books in Her Eyes) says:

    50% might be a touch too much, but considering that libraries continue to get new books in, sometimes it is worth it just to have the space and not have to weed for another year or so. The rule I’ve been told is two-thirds full if possible. The shelves tend to look better with one book facing out too. Covers should be enjoyed,right? 🙂 If this helps circs go up, then weeding shouldn’t have to be so drastic in the future because many of the books will be out.

    Libraries have to pander to everyone, so with two-thirds of a shelf full, the browsers and heavy readers will enjoy looking while the displays and faced out books are for those who just want something quick and that looks good.

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      I think my library already weeds about once a year, just so things fit on the shelves. They don’t have much shelf space to begin with, so I have to order a lot of my books from other area libraries or through ILL. What they do have is already fairly trendy and an “older” title might be from five or six years ago. So, while weeding more aggressively could work for some libraries, I’m not convinced it would work for mine. I could see it working really well, though, in K-12 libraries, where children really do browse more (hopefully) and where collections tend to be tailored towards assignments and thus what children are already going to be looking around for.

      Like

  7. Milliebot says:

    Ugh I totally agree with you! Yes, sometimes I use my library for a popular new release but more often than not I turn to them for older titles or ones I can’t easily find at the store. I also use it for books I’m not sure I’ll love, so I’m not ready to buy. I don’t want to to be just a place for the latest best sellers! I picture a ton of YA too lol

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      Exac tly! And this trend raises the question of the library’s purpose. Is it just to drive circ by being trendy? Or will the library serve people also looking for older or less popular titles?

      Also, this is just a trend now. One person seems to have decided this is great marketing, but where is the evidence? Do they even know if weeding all the books has increased circulation? Even if circ goes up, can they demonstrate it was the weeding?

      Like

      • Milliebot says:

        Right, how can they prove that weeding that harshly works? I’d assume they’d have to do it for some time. Meanwhile, the longer it goes on, the more they could be damaging themselves because people looking for older titles are less likely to use their services. I much prefer a library that has a large selection of stuff I can’t easily get on my own!

        Like

        • Krysta says:

          Yeah, right now my library has a fairly limited selection just because of lack of shelf space. I get a good deal of books from other area libraries and through ILL. But most.people don’t like to do that because you have to wait and there is a nominal fee. If my library weeded extensively, there would be little point in my going! I do browse, but I also usually have a list of titles.I know I want. If I go and find none of them are available, I am not going to be satisfied or want to return. Also, getting rid of so many books seems like a waste of my tax dollars. I know libraries are all about science programs and concerts now, but I still go there primarily for the books.

          Like

          • Milliebot says:

            Yeah it makes me want to increase my hoarding and rely less on libraries. If I buy a book, at least I know it’ll be available whenever I want it and won’t become hard to find after a library decides to weed it. That’s prob a bit irrational, but it is kind of how I see things. I deff think libraries should offer more than just books and they need to stay relevant. But at their heart they should be a reading resource, not a copy of my local Barnes and noble

            Like

            • Krysta says:

              I buy mainly classics because my library barely has any. And over the years they have weeded some of the ones I used to check out. I find it sad. I know Dog Man is far more popular than Little Men, but it does seem like a library ought to have some more classics!

              Like

            • Milliebot says:

              Yeah that’d be the first place I’d think you to go for a classic! I don’t read a ton of them and I’m hesitant to buy them cuz they’re so hit or miss for me (lol and cuz I just keep rereading Austen). It’s disappointing to think classic literature wouldn’t be available at a library of all places

              Like

            • Krysta says:

              My library does this thing where they might have P&P but nothing else by Austen. Or Little Women but nothing else by Alcott. I assume they went out less so they were weeded, but that seems wrong. Some of Alcott’s works are not easy to find in print, so I would keep them for the community! But, of course, if libraries are trying to market like stores, you can’t expect them to think of older books as resources.

              Like

            • Milliebot says:

              Even Barnes and noble will typically have a wider selection of classics than that though! I agree that that should be kept for the community. I’d hate to see works like that become so rare that they’re inaccessible to those who aren’t able to just freely buy books. I don’t think any book should go out of print! We have the technology to keep these stories alive and available

              Like

  8. ofmariaantonia says:

    I’ve noticed this as well! And I find it appalling. 😦

    There are books (series even) that the library used to have, but the books are no longer in the system. Some are even classics or Newbery winners.

    I once spoke to one of the librarians about some “older” books they did not have. But it seemed to fall on deaf ears. (Do these people not LOVE books?!)

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      The idea seems to drive circ by housing primarily popular titles. But I don’t need the library to have only bestsellers. I need to be able to find older books, even books that are now out of print. I think having only a really trendy collection is short-lived and raises the question of what the library’s mission really is. Just to drive circ by only having Wimpy Kid and Dork Diaries on the shelf? Or to serve a broader population?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Stephanie 📖 (@Chasm_of_Books) says:

    I love walking into a library and seeing full shelves. I mean, yes, it can be a little overwhelming at first, but once I start browsing I forget about that and I just get excited about all the neat things I find. I often have an idea of what I’m looking for when I go to the library but I hate going in and then not having options.

    I actually was checking out the true crime section at one of my local libraries a couple weeks ago and it was really sparse. I would’ve loved to get a true crime book but there weren’t any I was super interested in at that time. It was just so frustrating to not have very many options when I’m used to walking into a library and having SO MANY.

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      Yes! I love all the options at the library! And the smaller sections often disappoint me. For instance, my library has few audiobooks, so when I look at the shelves, I often see nothing I haven’t read. Or else I don’t want to read it. I’d hate to see that section made even smaller!

      Like

  10. Grab the Lapels says:

    My library system definitely feels like a book store. So many books facing out, big displays, and every title I see being displayed or facing out is NEW! I already get new book fatigue when I read my friends’ blogs (I’ve read at least a dozen Six of Crows reviews). I feel like libraries want us all to read the same thing. I’m lucky because through my husband I have a library card to the University of Notre Dame, which is not only a research library, but keeps loads of fiction (which I could not say about my undergrad institution, which was a large state school).

    I also remember spending HOURS, walking through the fiction shelves at my local library when I was a girl and just reading every title on every spine. I’ve found a number of books I never would have otherwise doing this. I now have the same technique when I go to used book stores. The owners know me well because I’m there for SO long.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Krysta says:

      My library tends to do seasonal displays or else displays really popular books. I don’t read seasonally, so I don’t really care about those displays. As for the others–I don’t really need to be recommended Smile or Wimpy Kid since I’ve definitely heard of them and read them. But when less popular books are displayed, they often seem to sit there. Maybe I’m not the average patron at my library, but I’d rather wander through the shelves and find new things, not just stick with popular authors like Rick Riordan.

      Like

      • Grab the Lapels says:

        I’m now wondering how these displays may help people who are trying to read or get back into reading and don’t feel like they have time or that nothing really interests them. Would they be willing to put in hours wandering the shelves and reading titles like I do? At the end of the day, I’m getting the book I want and likely I’ll know what it is thanks to blogging and Goodreads.

        Like

        • Briana | Pages Unbound says:

          This is one thing the librarians at my old library basically said: that most people who go to a library don’t have a particular book in mind that they want; they’re just looking for something to read. (I assume they were referring to some official library poll or study and not just making that up.) Part of me thinks that’s weird, but that’s also largely how I approached reading and libraries as a kid, when I wasn’t following book news or the book market or whatever. I think it’s hard for some of us in the book market bubble to remember that we’re likely the exception rather than the rule, and a lot of people are not necessarily keeping up with new releases or reading book reviews or anything like that. I think displays do help readers like that, especially if, as you mention, they’re casual readers or new or reluctant readers and have no idea where to start with finding something to read.

          Like

          • Grab the Lapels says:

            I’ve found some people want me to recommend them a book because they know I read a lot, but then they say they are VERY picky readers. And this blows my mind because they read so little. Do they read so little because they’re picky, or do they not know what to read because they read so little that they don’t even know what’s out there?

            Like

  11. Book Admirer says:

    I definitely see more libraries doing displays like in a book store but at least in my library they are using the top of the half shelf units or separate cases to do so. I hope they don’t start weeding 50 percent of their collection. I love my library for the simple fact that I can find books that the book stores don’t sell because they aren’t popular. I like browsing the shelves and have found some hidden gems among those shelves. I agree that if people feel overwhelmed, they can go to the librarian to see if they have a recommendation or if their library has one, go to the recommendation list/shelf that most libraries have on hand.

    Like

  12. theorangutanlibrarian says:

    I’m not sure I like this idea either to be honest. And yeah I’m definitely a “research before you go” type (especially cos I’m lucky enough to be a member of so many libraries, so I usually check so I know which one to go to that week 😉 ) And I didn’t know browsing fatigue was a thing when it came to libraries (I think browsing is part of the fun). I do also get the general weeding- but half filled shelves doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Anyway, great post! Hope this doesn’t become a thing everywhere!

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      I get the impression that one person decided this was a great marketing idea, wrote an article about it, and started a craze. But where is the evidence that this works? Are circulation numbers really rising because of this? Will people check out more books if they see them displayed or do people go in thinking they’ll get three books and the display just becomes one of the three they would have borrowed anyway?

      The idea is libraries should market like stores, but libraries AREN’T stores and what works for a store isn’t necessarily what is best for a library. So I’m interested to see if this trend lasts.

      Like

  13. Dale says:

    Two of the libraries I frequent have books that are stored in the “basement” ( I envision it being some kind of dungeon-like place) where only the librarians are allowed to go. If I need a book that’s in the “basement” (which I often do), I ask the librarian and they go get it. Many classics are stored there. Also, I can just put a hold on that book on-line and it will be available for me to pick up within a day usually. And, yes, the shelves that are available to me are only about two thirds full. In the grand scheme of things, I’m glad they have decided to keep a lot of these books even if I can’t just walk in and find them on the shelves (which is what I would prefer).

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      Some of my area libraries also have storage space like that. I think my library got rid of theirs years ago. But the result is that when I want a particular book, I often find I have to request it from one of those other libraries because mine just doesn’t have the books I want. I don’t mind because I’m always at the library anyway, but I know plenty of people who won’t request books because they don’t want to return. They made a trip to the library and they wanted the book then.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Bree says:

    I had no idea that this was a thing! That makes me sad 😦 I wonder what kind of data they are looking at (if any) that leads them to believe this will work?

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      I’m not sure because I haven’t read any articles that offered any data. I also think this strategy could be library-specific. Maybe it would work if you have a huge collection, but my library’s shelf space is already pretty limited and I usually have to request books from other libraries as a result. It might also work well in an elementary school library where the children tend to browse and aren’t necessarily looking for specific titles beyond the popular ones like Wimpy Kid and Dog Man. But I often use libraries to find older titles or less popular ones, and I’d hate to see my library weed those because they’re more focused on being like a store than they are focused on keeping resources for the community.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. spicejac says:

    I see this happening a lot in Academic Libraries, whereby the push is to make students use the electronic resources, and the space of the library versus physical resources. I really think it takes away the serendipitous moments you get from shelf browsing, finding that book you need for the assignment, on the shelf alongside the books you were meant to be looking at. It’s almost counter productive, as what is it teaching our next generations about finding resources? Great thought provoking post.

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      One of the schools in my area never dedicated time for students to use the library, then declared the library obsolete and turned it into a computer lab. However, contrary to popular belief, the Internet does not yet contain all knowledge and certainly not all academic knowledge. The school would have been better off, in my opinion, if they had made the library not “obsolete” by allowing students to visit it during the school day–especially as not everyone is able to stay after school if they have activities or must catch a bus. But I see a lot of schools chasing technology in order to look up to date–and they aren’t always thinking about how to actually use the technology effectively when they do this. They seem to think just handing people tablets is innovation.

      Like

      • spicejac says:

        So agree with you, it’s this pursuit of technology without the follow through of teaching the student’s basic digital literacy skills that will prove a detriment in years to come.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Small says:

    I work in an academic library and we recently went through this. This is the second academic library I’ve been in where we’ve done this. In both cases, circulation went up significantly. Not only were students taking out more books for their assignments, but data also showed that they were taking out books for enjoyment more frequently than before because titles would catch their eye. Feedback also showed that the “openess” of the shelves was more attractive and encouraged them to pick up and browse through books more than before (we didn’t go as extreme as 50%, which personally I think looks barren. Our shelves are more like 60-80% full). So, in those cases at least the data strongly supported the changes.

    But, in both cases weeding wasn’t the only thing we did. Both came with significant culture and design shifts as well. And, while weeding did play a big part, in both libraries they were desperate for a good weed–the normal cycle of weeding hadn’t been done for years and years. In my current library we used the criteria of no checkouts within the last 10 years and that ended up removing over 1/3 of the collection. So many of the books were outdated (manuals for operating systems no longer in use, stock advice that is no longer relevant, books for programs the college no longer offered, etc.) Of those books, thousands and thousands of titles had not circulated once. Meaning, we had books on the shelves that were originally purchased in the 1990s and they had not checked out a single time in all those years. It was bad.

    Much as I love a room full of books and the idea that an old book could be discovered again, the cold truth of it is that it costs money to keep those books. They take up shelf space, there’s maintenance to owning them, shifting the books as you add/weed takes more effort and time, there’s cataloging fees, etc. All spent year after year on the off chance that someone may at some point some day want one of those books.

    Communities increasingly don’t value serendipidy or archival value. Personally, I think that’s sad, but professionally if I want to keep the doors open I can’t justify costs like that without returns. I think a lot of libraries are taking these truths and going to the extreme with them. Only current books, 50% empty shelves, that seems, to me, an unnecessary extreme.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Briana | Pages Unbound says:

      This is very interesting to me from an academic library standpoint. I totally understand the idea of getting rid of books that are outdated or inaccurate (though I suppose sometimes scholars can use even those for specific purposes), but the idea that people go into an academic library and browse and check out random things is fascinating to me. I only went into my university library when I wanted specific books for research projects. Sometimes other books would catch my eye, but my time to read random academic books instead of the ones I actually needed was limited. (And my university library did not have an offering of current fiction, which I know some do.)

      Like

      • Small says:

        Yeah the increase in browsing was a really cool side effect that were hoping would happen, but weren’t totally expecting! We don’t have a fiction collection (outside of those tied to our English courses), so it’s the non-fiction books that primarily see the increase in browsing checkouts. We also put a lot of thought into our design to try to increase the likelihood that students would see books even if they never intended to check out a book. Instead of rows of stacks that students would only enter if they were looking for a book, we have our books arranged around our seating and computer areas, so even if a student didn’t intend to look at a book, they are just by visiting the space. I think this has helped browsing a lot.

        We thought about some of the “historical perspective” value to the outdated or inaccurate books, but our faculty aren’t assigning anything that would ask our students to do any kind of comparison or research like that (we’re a community college), so we decided not to keep them. I think those would probably have more value in a university academic library. I think that really highlights Krysta’s point about the purpose of a library–and different types of libraries have different purposes. We’re really trying to work with our state/archival, public, and university libraries to create a holistic collection across all our locations so we can each specialize to our specific audiences, but share resources so that together we provide a “whole” library for our community.

        Like

    • Krysta says:

      This is really interesting because I’ve never seen anyone give any data when they proposed weeding. But I think the data is necessary if people are calling for major changes like this. I also think the articles should acknowledge that different libraries are more likely to benefit from this. My public library, for instance, weeds often and fairly aggressively simply because they have limited shelf space. I would say most of the YA books are from the past three to five years. If a book hasn’t gone out in one year, it’s probably gone.

      So, when I see people advocating for all libraries to weed so aggressively, it’s confusing. If I want a book now, I often have to request it from an area library or through ILL. But most people I recommend this to won’t do it because they don’t want to have to come back for it in a few days and they don’t want to pay the request fee. In my opinion, the library would make more patrons happier if they had more books available for them when they wanted them,. Making a small collection even smaller doesn’t necessarily seem like it would do that.

      However, that being said, I think some collections can be weeded more extensively than others. It looks like my library just weeded about six shelves’ worth of early readers to get them off the bottom shelves and I do think that could increase circulation. The books are at eye level and easier to access. And no one really looks for specific early readers, aside from some popular series like Piggie and Elephant or some authors like Dr. Seuss. A lot of early readers are, I believe, just commissioned by the publishing house and no one is really particular about which bath time story or dinosaur book they’re getting. So six shelves can go and I don’t think patrons would even notice, to be honest.

      Like

      • Small says:

        Oh yes, we are very serious about making data-informed decisions in my library. I get weekly reports monitoring a variety of different metrics and if we see something abnormal (good or bad) then we investigate to understand why the numbers are changing. We actually noticed at one point that our database searches were decreasing, but after investigating we discovered that it was because we were becoming more effective in teaching students how to use targeted search terms, so where students used to search five different terms before they found what they were looking for, they now only needed to search once or twice before they found what they needed. Without that investigation, even looking at the numbers wouldn’t necessarily tell us the whole story and we could easily have jumped to conclusions that weren’t accurate.

        I agree with you that so many libraries are jumping on trends without really digging into the data to determine what is right for their library. There are so many factors and one approach that works beautifully for some libraries isn’t necessarily the right approach for every library. You make a great point about the needs of unique patron groups, and that’s what libraries should always recognize and consider.

        Like

        • Krysta says:

          That’s amazing! And it sounds like you’re doing really good work! I haven’t spent a lot of time in the community college library around me, but I do get the sense that it may be under-used and that students don’t think to go there, really, and aren’t sure how to utilize what it has to offer, including databases. But it seems to have a large turnover in staff so maybe they just aren’t currently in a place to rethink how they’re connecting with students and instructors. But it sounds like you have some really dedicated and thoughtful staff–and it’s having a measurable impact on the school community!

          Like

  17. Katie Wilkins (@DoingDewey) says:

    I hate this idea a lot. There really are other options for making a small selection of books more visible for people who want to only do a small amount of browsing and the library having more books available seems much more important to me!

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      I think more display areas would be ideal. Maybe libraries could even get shelves that allow for displays on the end of the shelf, like stores have. But weeding so ruthlessly seems far from idea. I think it might work for libraries with very large collections or for school libraries where students typically are let in simply to browse for fun. But my public library would barely have any titles if they weeded like that because the collection is already fairly small.

      Like

Leave a Reply! We'd love to read your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.