I need to know how many people in the USA have a library card.
January 16, 2010 4:39 AM Subscribe
In the US, how many people have a library card?
I'm working on a video/essay project for which this is a pivotal number. I've done my Googling and talked to a few local librarians, and nobody had this seemingly crucial number.
Any information and/or sources I could cite would be great.
I'm working on a video/essay project for which this is a pivotal number. I've done my Googling and talked to a few local librarians, and nobody had this seemingly crucial number.
Any information and/or sources I could cite would be great.
Response by poster: Thanks, jaffacakerhubarb -- "americans have a library card" seems to be a much better query than I was using, though it seems to lead only to this particular source.
I'd still be happy to hear other numbers/sources, but this could/should work.
posted by fake at 5:00 AM on January 16, 2010
I'd still be happy to hear other numbers/sources, but this could/should work.
posted by fake at 5:00 AM on January 16, 2010
Are you interested only in those people who have cards to local public libraries, or do university students with access to their university's library also count?
posted by saladin at 5:06 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by saladin at 5:06 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: I'm proposing a crowdsourcing idea for mass book scanning. Library cards often cost money -- sometimes as much as $20. If each library had a fast, cheap book scanner next to the Xerox machine, a potential patron could simply scan a few hundred pages instead of paying the fee.
In this way, we could scan all books over the next few years at almost no cost. My proposal pivots around the number of people who have cards, the cost of a card, and the cost of scanning equipment.
Library type might matter -- this idea seems better suited to non-university libraries only because library access is usually granted upon acceptance to the university, so there would be little motivation. If you have sources/numbers I would be very interested.
posted by fake at 5:44 AM on January 16, 2010
In this way, we could scan all books over the next few years at almost no cost. My proposal pivots around the number of people who have cards, the cost of a card, and the cost of scanning equipment.
Library type might matter -- this idea seems better suited to non-university libraries only because library access is usually granted upon acceptance to the university, so there would be little motivation. If you have sources/numbers I would be very interested.
posted by fake at 5:44 AM on January 16, 2010
Library cards often cost money
Where? I've lived in lots of different cities and towns and my library card was always free.
posted by miss tea at 6:03 AM on January 16, 2010 [3 favorites]
Where? I've lived in lots of different cities and towns and my library card was always free.
posted by miss tea at 6:03 AM on January 16, 2010 [3 favorites]
Generally library cards are free unless you live outside of the library's service area, at least from my experience.
posted by Atreides at 6:33 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by Atreides at 6:33 AM on January 16, 2010
"My proposal pivots around the number of people who have cards, the cost of a card, and the cost of scanning equipment. "
...and the competence of arbitrary library patrons -- apparently only those who don't have twenty bucks to spare -- to operate complex book scanning equipment. This is starting to sound poorly thought-out.
In any case, SAY WHAT? Library cards don't "often cost money." I've lived under 8 or 10 different public library systems over the course of my life, and not a single one of them ever charged residents for borrowing privileges. I have never even heard of a public library system charging residents a fee for borrowing privileges! The only time I've ever seen fees associated with getting a card is if you're not a resident of the system's area -- the next town or county over, for example.
It might, maybe, possibly, potentially be correct to say "some infinitesimal, insignificant fraction of library cards cost money," but "often" overstates the situation to the point of being jawdroppingly incorrect. It sounds like your proposal hinges on a lot of misinformation. You might want to check your assumptions before you proceed, here.
posted by majick at 6:38 AM on January 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
...and the competence of arbitrary library patrons -- apparently only those who don't have twenty bucks to spare -- to operate complex book scanning equipment. This is starting to sound poorly thought-out.
In any case, SAY WHAT? Library cards don't "often cost money." I've lived under 8 or 10 different public library systems over the course of my life, and not a single one of them ever charged residents for borrowing privileges. I have never even heard of a public library system charging residents a fee for borrowing privileges! The only time I've ever seen fees associated with getting a card is if you're not a resident of the system's area -- the next town or county over, for example.
It might, maybe, possibly, potentially be correct to say "some infinitesimal, insignificant fraction of library cards cost money," but "often" overstates the situation to the point of being jawdroppingly incorrect. It sounds like your proposal hinges on a lot of misinformation. You might want to check your assumptions before you proceed, here.
posted by majick at 6:38 AM on January 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
I've lived here in US and abroad in Spain and haven't paid for a "public" library card. I have paid for a University Special Permit card for a local University which I did not go to. That is $35/year and is worth it allowing me to check out books from a very nice collection along with other privileges.
But to your idea. Scanning a few hundred pages is a big task even with a fast scanner. A motivated volunteer force could scan a lot of books and I think that is a noble cause but copyright problems restrict the books that can be scanned.
posted by JJ86 at 7:09 AM on January 16, 2010
But to your idea. Scanning a few hundred pages is a big task even with a fast scanner. A motivated volunteer force could scan a lot of books and I think that is a noble cause but copyright problems restrict the books that can be scanned.
posted by JJ86 at 7:09 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: Umm, hey guys, you don't need to educate me about how hard or not hard book scanning is. And I have legal representation.
I appreciate the advice and information about library cards. I've paid for two. In case it isn't obvious here, I am in the research phase with this idea, which means I am doing the research, checking assumptions, and so on.
Most of the arguments against mass digitization (ignoring, for the moment, the copyright issues (which I am well aware of and have legal advice from real lawyers on) are that the equipment is too expensive and the labor is too expensive. Those two factors are what I seek to address.
posted by fake at 7:55 AM on January 16, 2010
I appreciate the advice and information about library cards. I've paid for two. In case it isn't obvious here, I am in the research phase with this idea, which means I am doing the research, checking assumptions, and so on.
Most of the arguments against mass digitization (ignoring, for the moment, the copyright issues (which I am well aware of and have legal advice from real lawyers on) are that the equipment is too expensive and the labor is too expensive. Those two factors are what I seek to address.
posted by fake at 7:55 AM on January 16, 2010
I might note that the number of Americans with library cards may be slightly misleadingly low; anecdotally, I've frequently seen minors using their parents' cards; and sometimes spouses sharing a card, getting glared at by the staff, and getting checked out anyway.
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:58 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:58 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: Generally library cards are free unless you live outside of the library's service area, at least from my experience.
I have paid for a University Special Permit card for a local University which I did not go to.
Just to ward off any other non-answers. These are probably the reasons that I've personally paid for cards.
The "library cards might or might not cost money" part of this idea is not the critical part. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for 20 minutes of someone's time in exchange for access to the library, especially if it resulted in the digital availability of most of their collections.
posted by fake at 8:04 AM on January 16, 2010
I have paid for a University Special Permit card for a local University which I did not go to.
Just to ward off any other non-answers. These are probably the reasons that I've personally paid for cards.
The "library cards might or might not cost money" part of this idea is not the critical part. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for 20 minutes of someone's time in exchange for access to the library, especially if it resulted in the digital availability of most of their collections.
posted by fake at 8:04 AM on January 16, 2010
But what you are missing in these statements, "It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for 20 minutes of someone's time in exchange for access to the library, especially if it resulted in the digital availability of most of their collections," and "If each library had a fast, cheap book scanner next to the Xerox machine, a potential patron could simply scan a few hundred pages instead of paying the fee," is the fact that most library patrons are not exchanging anything for access to the library. IN the state I live in, if I have a library card in my area, I can almost always bet a free one in any other area, and often don't even have to do that (I can just use my card). Add in inter-library loaning, and online catalogs of books, and I'm set. My tax dollars support the library (and if I could, more of them would).
posted by cjorgensen at 8:16 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by cjorgensen at 8:16 AM on January 16, 2010
(1) I have never heard of a library card that charges a fee
(2) Any number promulgated by the American Library Association ought to be considered suspect as it is in their interest to convey the message that public libraries are a vital part of as many Americans' lives as possible
(3) an initiative to scan books has already been done, by Google, and has led to lots of legal problems for them. What makes you think you have either the capital and resources they have or the ability to beat back lawsuits from intellectual property owners?
Very bluntly stated this question is rife with awful assumptions and cannot really be answered as stated.
posted by dfriedman at 8:26 AM on January 16, 2010
(2) Any number promulgated by the American Library Association ought to be considered suspect as it is in their interest to convey the message that public libraries are a vital part of as many Americans' lives as possible
(3) an initiative to scan books has already been done, by Google, and has led to lots of legal problems for them. What makes you think you have either the capital and resources they have or the ability to beat back lawsuits from intellectual property owners?
Very bluntly stated this question is rife with awful assumptions and cannot really be answered as stated.
posted by dfriedman at 8:26 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: most library patrons are not exchanging anything for access to the library
My tax dollars support the library
Access to the library is contingent on tax dollars covering operating costs, so most patrons are exchanging something.
Operating costs of libraries are likely to be negatively impacted by libraries having to purchase digital copies of books they already own and have already spent considerable resources preserving over the years.
My proposal is to distribute the costs of digitization so that libraries don't have to buy these books twice. As the meaning of "access to the library" shifts to "network access to the digital library" these costs will become more and more important to address.
posted by fake at 8:29 AM on January 16, 2010
My tax dollars support the library
Access to the library is contingent on tax dollars covering operating costs, so most patrons are exchanging something.
Operating costs of libraries are likely to be negatively impacted by libraries having to purchase digital copies of books they already own and have already spent considerable resources preserving over the years.
My proposal is to distribute the costs of digitization so that libraries don't have to buy these books twice. As the meaning of "access to the library" shifts to "network access to the digital library" these costs will become more and more important to address.
posted by fake at 8:29 AM on January 16, 2010
fake posted: The "library cards might or might not cost money" part of this idea is not the critical part. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for 20 minutes of someone's time in exchange for access to the library, especially if it resulted in the digital availability of most of their collections.
Obviously you are ahead of the curve on book digitization and your work is greatly appreciated but I have to wonder about this quote. Why do you think that would be reasonable for the average public library user? Generally I go to the public library for two reasons and those are to quickly check out a book or to research reference materials. For me twenty minutes would be unreasonable and I would rather pay than spend twenty minutes scanning for each visit.
Would many people be willing to do that for the few libraries that do charge? From the standpoint of our local library there are a large group of people that donate to the friends of the library and give extra financial support. I could see a digitizing program more feasibly attempted through that approach
posted by JJ86 at 8:29 AM on January 16, 2010
Obviously you are ahead of the curve on book digitization and your work is greatly appreciated but I have to wonder about this quote. Why do you think that would be reasonable for the average public library user? Generally I go to the public library for two reasons and those are to quickly check out a book or to research reference materials. For me twenty minutes would be unreasonable and I would rather pay than spend twenty minutes scanning for each visit.
Would many people be willing to do that for the few libraries that do charge? From the standpoint of our local library there are a large group of people that donate to the friends of the library and give extra financial support. I could see a digitizing program more feasibly attempted through that approach
posted by JJ86 at 8:29 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: Very bluntly stated this question is rife with awful assumptions and cannot really be answered as stated.
Bluntly, the question was about how many people have library cards.
posted by fake at 8:29 AM on January 16, 2010
Bluntly, the question was about how many people have library cards.
posted by fake at 8:29 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: Why do you think that would be reasonable for the average public library user?
I understand/appreciate your argument, but again, this part of the idea is not very important. What if you could earn extended check-out periods by scanning more books (and so, keeping the physical copies available)?
posted by fake at 8:38 AM on January 16, 2010
I understand/appreciate your argument, but again, this part of the idea is not very important. What if you could earn extended check-out periods by scanning more books (and so, keeping the physical copies available)?
posted by fake at 8:38 AM on January 16, 2010
I understand if this gets deleted because I am not answering your question about how many people in the US have library cards, but I do pay for my card. $50 a year! I live in an unincorporated area of my county and have no other library choices. I would totally scan books instead of paying!
posted by shmurley at 9:01 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by shmurley at 9:01 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks, shmurley -- it's good to know there are other edge cases. As I said, I've paid for access several times, just like you.
posted by fake at 9:03 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by fake at 9:03 AM on January 16, 2010
Best answer: According to this page, which cites several studies: Almost one-third of households (31 percent) used a public library (including bookmobiles) in the month preceding the survey. Almost half (48 percent) used a public library in the year preceding the survey. and In September 2008, a Harris Poll from Harris Interactive reported that 68 percent of Americans have a library card, while 76 percent of Americans visited their local library in the past year.
Meanwhile, this press release says As Americans deal with a slumping economy, U.S. libraries are experiencing a dramatic increase in library card registration. According to a new Harris Poll from Harris Interactive, released Sept. 22 during Library Card Sign-up Month, 68 percent of Americans have a library card, up 5 percent since 2006. [...] the poll finds certain groups are more likely to have a library card than others – women over men (73 percent versus 62 percent); and Midwesterners (72 percent) and Westerners (71 percent) over Easterners (65 percent) and Southerners (63 percent).
There's also this fact sheet, saying: 59% of adults in the united states have a library card and Americans check out an average of more than seven books a year. They spend $33.56 a year for the public library - about the average cost of one hardcover book.
Of course, all those statistics come from the ALA, who may be biased; and for surveys where people are self-reporting how much they read, people may err on the side of making themselves sound more educated.
Bluntly, the question was about how many people have library cards.
I think the reason you're getting off-topic answers is because it seems intuitively like scanning and distributing books online would be legally problematic. To use an analogy, my library has a CD collection, but I would be surprised if they could legally put them online in DRM-free MP3 format for me to download, as that would be producing copies, rather than loaning out a single copy; putting scanned books online for download in DRM-free PDF format seems similar.
If you've received sensible legal advice indicating that this isn't the case, I think it's a good thing - I think people are just surprised, is all.
posted by Mike1024 at 9:17 AM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, this press release says As Americans deal with a slumping economy, U.S. libraries are experiencing a dramatic increase in library card registration. According to a new Harris Poll from Harris Interactive, released Sept. 22 during Library Card Sign-up Month, 68 percent of Americans have a library card, up 5 percent since 2006. [...] the poll finds certain groups are more likely to have a library card than others – women over men (73 percent versus 62 percent); and Midwesterners (72 percent) and Westerners (71 percent) over Easterners (65 percent) and Southerners (63 percent).
There's also this fact sheet, saying: 59% of adults in the united states have a library card and Americans check out an average of more than seven books a year. They spend $33.56 a year for the public library - about the average cost of one hardcover book.
Of course, all those statistics come from the ALA, who may be biased; and for surveys where people are self-reporting how much they read, people may err on the side of making themselves sound more educated.
Bluntly, the question was about how many people have library cards.
I think the reason you're getting off-topic answers is because it seems intuitively like scanning and distributing books online would be legally problematic. To use an analogy, my library has a CD collection, but I would be surprised if they could legally put them online in DRM-free MP3 format for me to download, as that would be producing copies, rather than loaning out a single copy; putting scanned books online for download in DRM-free PDF format seems similar.
If you've received sensible legal advice indicating that this isn't the case, I think it's a good thing - I think people are just surprised, is all.
posted by Mike1024 at 9:17 AM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Often you'll be better off doing this sort of thing on a state-by-state basis because the majority of public library funding in the United States happens at a local level. There are eight states in the US [last time I checked] where the funding is actually totally local -- Vermont where I live is one of them -- and most other states fund their public libraries through a combination of local and state funding. There is no real federal funding for libraries in the US but there are a lot of national-level grants both at the governmental level [via IMLS] and granting agencies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that do national-level programs. So, even though two states might be right next to each other, their level of library card "penetration" could be totally different. Some states like Kansas have statewide cards, but most places have local or county-wide cards. We're moving, in the US, towards more state-wide systems.
Mike1024s answers are pretty much the ones I've given you. I'd suggest calling the ALA Library and talking to them directly 800-545-2433, extension 2153 or library@ala.org. They are well-informed and can answer your questions. The reason your number is elusive is mainly because it's a pretty fluid number but also because there is no actual national organization that is not an advocacy organization that keeps track of this sort of thing. The fact that public libraries in the US seem such a part of the fabric of American life is sort of intersting considering how decentralized their operations really are.
posted by jessamyn at 9:31 AM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mike1024s answers are pretty much the ones I've given you. I'd suggest calling the ALA Library and talking to them directly 800-545-2433, extension 2153 or library@ala.org. They are well-informed and can answer your questions. The reason your number is elusive is mainly because it's a pretty fluid number but also because there is no actual national organization that is not an advocacy organization that keeps track of this sort of thing. The fact that public libraries in the US seem such a part of the fabric of American life is sort of intersting considering how decentralized their operations really are.
posted by jessamyn at 9:31 AM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks, Mike1024, for what is by far the best answer in the thread.
You're absolutely correct that scanning and then distributing books electronically is legally problematic in the current legal environment. Obviously that shouldn't prevent anyone, myself included, from asking, thinking, and writing about alternate scenarios where that isn't the case.
I don't mind the off-topic responses, as they can help to form a more complete argument etc. I do take issue with the derisive, dismissive tone of some commenters, though I know from experience that discussions about books and "intellectual property" quickly become emotionally charged.
posted by fake at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2010
You're absolutely correct that scanning and then distributing books electronically is legally problematic in the current legal environment. Obviously that shouldn't prevent anyone, myself included, from asking, thinking, and writing about alternate scenarios where that isn't the case.
I don't mind the off-topic responses, as they can help to form a more complete argument etc. I do take issue with the derisive, dismissive tone of some commenters, though I know from experience that discussions about books and "intellectual property" quickly become emotionally charged.
posted by fake at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: The fact that public libraries in the US seem such a part of the fabric of American life is sort of intersting considering how decentralized their operations really are.
Indeed -- thanks for the high-level overview.
posted by fake at 9:40 AM on January 16, 2010
Indeed -- thanks for the high-level overview.
posted by fake at 9:40 AM on January 16, 2010
FWIW, I live in a major Canadian city and our library cards do cost money.
posted by demagogue at 11:34 AM on January 16, 2010
posted by demagogue at 11:34 AM on January 16, 2010
In Nassau County (Long Island), only the towns/villages that have libraries pay library taxes to the county. I live in a village that does not house a library, even though the school district I belong to and pay taxes to does -- even when I was going to that school as a child, we had to pay $100 per year for a library card. Once I had the card, I could use all the libraries in the county. I'll never understand why we don't all pay taxes and all get to use the libraries, or why they don't do districts like they do with schools.
posted by thebazilist at 1:27 PM on January 16, 2010
posted by thebazilist at 1:27 PM on January 16, 2010
I have a library card - I've lived in eight states on both coasts in the USA in the last 15 years, (13 cities in all) and I've had a library card in every one of them. I've never had to pay for a library card, except to replace one I lost.
If I'm going to take the trouble to go to the library, it's because I couldn't find what I wanted online. Digitizing books for libraries would be of no interest to me.
posted by patheral at 2:13 PM on January 16, 2010
If I'm going to take the trouble to go to the library, it's because I couldn't find what I wanted online. Digitizing books for libraries would be of no interest to me.
posted by patheral at 2:13 PM on January 16, 2010
Response by poster: That's fine, patheral, but it does not answer the question.
As other people have noted, paying for a library card does happen, regardless of your personal experience. And as I noted several times in this thread, the exchange is not a critical part of the idea, which I only posted to possibly get better answers to the question, which was "How many people in the USA have a library card?".
I hope the catch-22 of wanting easy online access to materials but not wanting to contribute to digitization efforts is as obvious to you as it is to me.
posted by fake at 3:16 PM on January 16, 2010
As other people have noted, paying for a library card does happen, regardless of your personal experience. And as I noted several times in this thread, the exchange is not a critical part of the idea, which I only posted to possibly get better answers to the question, which was "How many people in the USA have a library card?".
I hope the catch-22 of wanting easy online access to materials but not wanting to contribute to digitization efforts is as obvious to you as it is to me.
posted by fake at 3:16 PM on January 16, 2010
Best answer: But are the same people that have to pay for cards the same ones that want digital materials? That is the catch-22 I see. A lot of the people using digital materials are not coming in the library at all and just doing without paper copies. What motivates them to expend time/expense to get a paper copy AND also digitise it for someone else to use?
The Public Library is supposed to be a great equaliser, offering extended benefits to some, like waiving fines, extending due dates, or other perks you can think of (what is a better perk then getting books/dvds for FREE?), would NOT fly with a lot of Public Library Boards.
As someone working in a busy urban library, almost every time someone wants to use our very simple photocopier a staff member has to instruct and babysit the patron for several minutes. Because of the cost to the library we aren't really supposed to do that, and management have done everything possible to make it self-serve - if you can make your own copies they are free and it is faster as patrons always have to wait for a staff person as it is the lowest priority for us - but still staff are always being pulled to the machine to point out the big green "print" button.
IMHO, volunteers work really well when they have a strong motivation for doing something for free. Shelving books for fifteen minutes to "pay" a ten dollar fine (something I have tried in one of my libraries) just resulted in a bunch of mis-shelved books that took an hour of paid staff time to fix. As a volunteer co-ordinator, volunteer work can only be acceptable quality if the volunteer has a motivation (almost always long-term) to keep their work high quality (promise of future employment, will also be eating the food they prepare, public acknowledgement for good - or embarrassment if poor quality, play with expensive new toys, believe strongly in the cause etc). So one way to get your volunteers motivated is to let them choose the book to digitise, play a lot with the equipment and be able to tag it with their name for public recognition.
I recently worked on a project that required a lot of people to do something simliar (but much, much simpler) that what you are proposing. They were all long-term library staff that had worked with computers for at least fifteen years, they well trained and well paid ... and the rate of errors was astonishing high. HUGELY high. And the time and cost of fixing the errors was three to six times higher than the original cost if it had been done right the first time. So QA and supervision should be factored into the cost as well.
Also, really your question should be how many people over the age of eighteen have a library card. You REALLY don't want a five year old volunteer, nor some of the older patrons I teach computer classes to. I wish I could find my cite, but I have looked at the statistics and demographically, public library cards skew to the very young (under twelve) and to the older population (over fifty) except for a blip of women in their thirties - mothers without the child-free time to digitise (and believe me, library staff don't want her children running around unsupervised for twenty minutes). Tech-savvy twenty year olds aren't heavy library users (and have the disposable income to pay for a card instead of earning it by volunteering).
posted by saucysault at 6:59 PM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Public Library is supposed to be a great equaliser, offering extended benefits to some, like waiving fines, extending due dates, or other perks you can think of (what is a better perk then getting books/dvds for FREE?), would NOT fly with a lot of Public Library Boards.
As someone working in a busy urban library, almost every time someone wants to use our very simple photocopier a staff member has to instruct and babysit the patron for several minutes. Because of the cost to the library we aren't really supposed to do that, and management have done everything possible to make it self-serve - if you can make your own copies they are free and it is faster as patrons always have to wait for a staff person as it is the lowest priority for us - but still staff are always being pulled to the machine to point out the big green "print" button.
IMHO, volunteers work really well when they have a strong motivation for doing something for free. Shelving books for fifteen minutes to "pay" a ten dollar fine (something I have tried in one of my libraries) just resulted in a bunch of mis-shelved books that took an hour of paid staff time to fix. As a volunteer co-ordinator, volunteer work can only be acceptable quality if the volunteer has a motivation (almost always long-term) to keep their work high quality (promise of future employment, will also be eating the food they prepare, public acknowledgement for good - or embarrassment if poor quality, play with expensive new toys, believe strongly in the cause etc). So one way to get your volunteers motivated is to let them choose the book to digitise, play a lot with the equipment and be able to tag it with their name for public recognition.
I recently worked on a project that required a lot of people to do something simliar (but much, much simpler) that what you are proposing. They were all long-term library staff that had worked with computers for at least fifteen years, they well trained and well paid ... and the rate of errors was astonishing high. HUGELY high. And the time and cost of fixing the errors was three to six times higher than the original cost if it had been done right the first time. So QA and supervision should be factored into the cost as well.
Also, really your question should be how many people over the age of eighteen have a library card. You REALLY don't want a five year old volunteer, nor some of the older patrons I teach computer classes to. I wish I could find my cite, but I have looked at the statistics and demographically, public library cards skew to the very young (under twelve) and to the older population (over fifty) except for a blip of women in their thirties - mothers without the child-free time to digitise (and believe me, library staff don't want her children running around unsupervised for twenty minutes). Tech-savvy twenty year olds aren't heavy library users (and have the disposable income to pay for a card instead of earning it by volunteering).
posted by saucysault at 6:59 PM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Saucysault, thank you for taking the time to share your hard-won insight and experiences. I'm confident (from my experience building book scanners) that the scanning itself can be reduced to page turning, which is something anyone (who is not disabled) can do. It is not nearly as difficult as correctly re-shelving. If you ever run into the demographic data you mentioned, remember me!
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that people digitize things at every library visit. Someone privately suggested books could be scanned to pay past-due fees; that would be a good occasion to ask someone to contribute something back to the library, and an opportunity for someone to turn something bad into something good, boards be damned.
As you and others have pointed out, the problems here are not technological, they are social. Thanks to everyone for laying them bare.
posted by fake at 7:49 PM on January 16, 2010
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that people digitize things at every library visit. Someone privately suggested books could be scanned to pay past-due fees; that would be a good occasion to ask someone to contribute something back to the library, and an opportunity for someone to turn something bad into something good, boards be damned.
As you and others have pointed out, the problems here are not technological, they are social. Thanks to everyone for laying them bare.
posted by fake at 7:49 PM on January 16, 2010
One thing that occured to me after readng your reply was that I thought there were scanners that needed virtually no human work - as long as the book has been despined (so, useless as a book). But many libraries purchase more than one copy of almost all books, even really obscure titles. One copy could be destroyed and digitised, the others remain on the shelf. That may also get around the coyright laws (sorry I don't know US law) because the digital copy had been paid for and the publisher/author is not losing money as long as only one person is accessing the digital copy at a time. This is what overdrive does . But people hate seeing books ruined - really, from a PR point of view, this can't be done in a public area.
posted by saucysault at 10:58 PM on January 16, 2010
posted by saucysault at 10:58 PM on January 16, 2010
As to your comment about shelving ... All I asked was that the books be alphabetised. I had no idea so many eighteen year olds couldn't sing the alphabet song. O_o
posted by saucysault at 11:02 PM on January 16, 2010
posted by saucysault at 11:02 PM on January 16, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jaffacakerhubarb at 4:52 AM on January 16, 2010 [1 favorite]