Should Libraries Separate Out Series?

The libraries with which I am familiar have typically shelved all their books by author, then by title.  Series are mixed in with standalones and only sometimes arranged numerically rather than alphabetically.  Recently, however, I visited a library where the series are shelved separately from the standalones, and labeled by number.  Having series organized by number is something I have heard some library patrons desire.  So I was interested to see how the browsing experience would go.

Pros

• Patrons can easily see what books are in a series and what order the books are in, since they are shelved together and labeled with the book number on the spine.

Cons

• The books are shelved by the series name, even if that name does not appear on the cover of the book.  So, to find a book, readers must already be very familiar with the series.  Or they must use the catalog.
• Some series have official series names, but they have been cataloged with a different series designator.  Readers must guess how a book has been labeled, or use the catalog.
• Patrons cannot easily find books by the same author because their series (and standalones) are shelved in different locations.  They may miss out on other books by a favorite author.
• Some books in series are incorrectly shelved in the standalone section.  Patrons who know they are looking for a series may believe the library does not own the books since they are not shelved in the proper location.
• Patrons must check two different locations if they are unsure if the book they are looking for is a series (or just miscataloged–see above). Some patrons new to the library may be unaware of this and perhaps only check the “new” section for a book and not the “new” and “new series” sections, for example.

Verdict

I had always assumed that shelving series together in numerical order (rather than alphabetical) was meant to help browsers in the library.  Those patrons who don’t come in knowing what they want, who the author  is, and the title and number of all twelve books in the series.  However, the way the series are organized in this particular library just makes the browsing process more confusing.  Fans of Rick Riordan, for instance, have to look under “P” for Percy Jackson, “K” for Kane Chronicles, “M” for Magnus Chase, and so on.  If they are not already aware of all Riordan’s series and their names, they cannot successfully browse for more of his books.  They may also have to guess what letter or name the series have been cataloged under, and how that the series are actually in the series section, since some series have erroneously ended up in the standalone section.

Some of the confusion in this process is undoubtedly a product of sloppy cataloging.  Someone, somewhere, did not realize a number of books were meant to be series starters and so did not catalog them as such.  Nor were their shelving locations and spine labels changed as it became clear a series was starting.  (This would admittedly be a lot of work–constantly redoing your cataloging.) Nor is there any consistency in what series name is chosen for the cataloging process.  All this is human error making library browsing a challenge for patrons.

However, the real confusion for me as a browser comes from 1) not knowing the official series names of some series (since not all are on the book cover) and 2) not having series or books by the same author in the same spot.  These problems are just naturally part of the shelving process when books are shelved by series.   So do I like the series being separated out into their own series section?  Absolutely not.  I’d rather have all the books by an author in the same place.

What do you think?  Does your library put book series in their own section of the library?