Dewey Must Die!

[hobbsyoyo]

Seriously though, is there any reason to maintain the Dewey Decimal system anymore other than the fact that it would take libraries a lot of effort to rearrange their books?

Given the advent of modern search algorithms, I just can't find a use for Dewey anymore other than the tremendous inertia behind it. I'm not discounting that and in fact I know it won't go away if for no other reason reason than the inertia but what value does it bring anymore?

What value does Dewey have in our modern world?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Change? We fear change...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The real question is what is the value of removing it?

 

[Evie]

For once, I agree with Manfred.

Besides which, we may have better systems now, but even without the Dewey, books would probably *still* be sorted by categories and then by author within those categories in most libraries, because it makes for greater ease of browsing, and direct visual input (eg, actually seeing the books) still has lots of value that text on a screen cannot deliver. It's just a sensible approach to sorting books in a library.

 

[CKS]

It is way better than Library of Congress for sorting fiction. Whoever thought that you should spread out a single author's fiction all over the place really didn't understand people's reading habits. I've never understood why some fiction is categorized as non-fiction though.

It sounds like you don't want any system, though, hobbs. We need a system because many people like to browse. I like to flip through a bunch of books before deciding which, if any, I want to check out. It is different when doing academic research, of course, but for everyday life, a search algorithm can't beat just poking around.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think my local library system uses the Library of Congress system for non-fiction and "genre->author" for fiction. As a casual user, I think in terms of general category->specific category/author, and the numbers are meaningless to me. I use the computer catalogue to find the number I need at the moment I need it, and then it flies out of my head instantly. If I went looking for the very same book the very next day, I'd have to look it up in the computer again. But if LoC is somehow easier for the library or the staff, then I'm not against it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I've never understood why some fiction is categorized as non-fiction though.

I think a lot of people just genuinely believe he rose from the dead.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The real question is what is the value of removing it?

The main problem I have with it is how it is tied to terrible search programs that libraries use. I've never seen or used a decent one and if they are going to upgrade to say, a google-run search program then they don't really need to organize by Dewey at all anymore because plain text searches are far more intuitive and powerful than dewey-based search system I've ever used. Even the dewey-based systems that allow plain text searches are awful.

 

[red_elk]

It's generally better to remove obsolete systems to avoid confusion. I'm in favor of removing Imperial unit system too.

 

[warpus]

On one hand I am a follower of the Russian philosophy of "If it works, don't change it"

But on the other I know absolutely nothing about the Dewey decimal system. I guess probably mainly because I haven't set foot in a library in forever. So I really have no idea if it's good or bad or if it works well. I prefer to have my fiction sorted by the author's last name, and then either chronologically or by title or a combination of both. My non-fiction collection is small enough for me to not need a system for it

 

[Silurian]

If you are storing books etc you need to be able to find them.
You can either record the storage location of each book etc or store them in an order that is defined by the book etc.
Users are not reliable at putting books etc back at the location they came from.
If a book etc has a number on it the user is more likely to be able to put it back where they got it from and it is easier for a librarian to spot out of place books and return them to the correct place.
If you record the storage location and then re-record daily the location of all the books in a libary it would be time consuming, costly and would drive a person mad. You could put a chip in each book that a robot could scan to record the current location of the books. The users may also not like that the books are moving around the shelves so they can no longer find books by just going back to the same place.

So hobbs you do not like Dewey how are you are going to replace it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification

 

[red_elk]

On one hand I am a follower of the Russian philosophy of "If it works, don't change it"

If it works, don't even touch it!
Don't know whether it's Russian philosophy though - in Russia it's known as a software engineers philosophy.

 

[warpus]

If it works, don't even touch it!
Don't know whether it's Russian philosophy though - in Russia it's known as a software engineers philosophy.

I'm not sure where I heard or read that it was a Russian way of thinking. It might have had something to do with the Soviet space program... or a Russian proverb. Or just certain economic realities.. Or all of the above. I agree that from a software engineering point of view it is sort of vital!

 

[Birdjaguar]

In distribution/mail/internet order companies product is put on a random shelf and that identified location is linked to the item in the computer system. When an item is needed, you just query it and the system tells you where it is at the moment. In a library, books could be shelved anywhere and when you want to find it, you just query the system and it tells you where to go. Of course, browsing the shelves would be more difficult if one were focused on a topic.

 

[red_elk]

I'm not sure where I heard or read that it was a Russian way of thinking.

Well, I like it too, so may be it is

 

[Silurian]

In distribution/mail/internet order companies product is put on a random shelf and that identified location is linked to the item in the computer system. When an item is needed, you just query it and the system tells you where it is at the moment. In a library, books could be shelved anywhere and when you want to find it, you just query the system and it tells you where to go. Of course, browsing the shelves would be more difficult if one were focused on a topic.

But as I posted above what happens when one of the library users put the books back at random.

 

[uppi]

The main problem I have with it is how it is tied to terrible search programs that libraries use. I've never seen or used a decent one and if they are going to upgrade to say, a google-run search program then they don't really need to organize by Dewey at all anymore because plain text searches are far more intuitive and powerful than dewey-based search system I've ever used. Even the dewey-based systems that allow plain text searches are awful.

But that is the fault of the software, not the system. It is certainly not a very good idea to base a search software on a classification system that was designed for putting physical books on shelves. But even when you use some fancy search algorithm (and I actually doubt that Google uses a plain text search), you need to have a field for displaying the location of the book in case you want it. Since library visitors are unlikely to note down the location of a book when they put it back and they prefer to have books about the same topic in the same place, I do not see a way around some kind of classification. And I do not see why the Dewey system is not suitable for the job.

As long as you are able to find the book, the actual system does not matter that much. I just searched for the Dewey system to see what it is about and the inevitable clicking around after that revealed that the university I attended uses its very own classification system. That I never noticed until now, despite the university library supplying almost all books I used during my studies, shows how little the system matters.

 

[BvBPL]

In distribution/mail/internet order companies product is put on a random shelf and that identified location is linked to the item in the computer system. When an item is needed, you just query it and the system tells you where it is at the moment. In a library, books could be shelved anywhere and when you want to find it, you just query the system and it tells you where to go. Of course, browsing the shelves would be more difficult if one were focused on a topic.

A.) Items at those companies aren't actually placed on a random shelf, right? that would be absurd.
B.) I think you'd be hard pressed to either fund such a program at a library or to demonstrate that such a program would be more efficient for librarians and users.

 

[Silurian]

A.) Items at those companies aren't actually placed on a random shelf, right? that would be absurd.

They would be placed on the first available shelf that could take the packet that the forklift came too with exceptions such as fire risk, high value, small items etc

 

[BvBPL]

So they aren't random?