
CREW: A weeding manual for modern libraries (2012) [pdf] - tokai
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/ld/ld/pubs/crew/crewmethod12.pdf
======
stinkytaco
Something on HN I'm actually an expert in... go figure.

I want to say that librarians really do use this document as a guide for the
de-acquisition process (though not only this guide). It's a good way to create
reports (i.e. show me everything beyond a certain copyright date or that
hasn't checked out in more than "x" years) so it saves having to judge
thousands of items individually, and it provides excellent guidelines for what
to look for when you undertake a weeding project (side note: ideally, weeding
would be an ongoing project, but...).

But each responsible librarian (generally of a subject matter) really does (or
should) look at the titles they are getting ready to weed and decide if it
indeed needs to go, needs to get updated, or still has value and needs to be
promoted in some way. And they do (or should) regularly examine their area for
items that are in poor condition or "MUSTIE" (one thing I always say to
selectors is "If in doubt, toss it and replace it. If it's worth keeping, it's
worth buying new.").

CREW also provides an excellent explanation to lay people like community
members and library boards for _why_ the process is necessary. People have a
strange hagiography of the book, but this report makes it very clear why
libraries get rid of items and that they endeavor to replace them if
necessary. It's very helpful to have a few copies around to hand out.

EDIT: edited for clarity. Just trying to offer some real world experience on
how we use CREW.

~~~
greglindahl
... and that's emphasized by the linked PDF. I think the author's definition
of CREW includes what you think it doesn't include.

~~~
stinkytaco
I didn't say it didn't include that. I have that report more or less
memorized, after all. I just felt it was very important to emphasize that
there really is a practical application by real people on the other end of the
report. Perhaps I didn't make that clear.

~~~
greglindahl
You didn't say it was included, either. When I see someone commenting on a
document, I like to know if they're emphasizing something that the document
already emphasizes, or if they're saying something that wasn't included or
wasn't clear.

------
greglindahl
One non-obvious thing about weeding is that libraries that send books to
commercial sellers like Better World Books are helping the Internet Archive
build our book collection -- if Better World Books doesn't think they're going
to sell a book, and IA doesn't already have a copy, it ends up at our scanning
center.

~~~
stinkytaco
BWB is great. They send boxes when you ask and they come pick them up when you
ask. It's basically a no-brainer for libraries.

------
dang
A related and quite good discussion from a few months ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11586061](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11586061).

------
mwexler
I had to double take... why would a modern library need a "wedding" manual?
Time for new glasses.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Well, you can ask my girlfriend -- she's a librarian.

------
sevensor
It's interesting how librarians have managed to identify large swathes of
published material as ephemeral garbage, and nonetheless recognize that it's
important to have it in the collection.

E.g.:

> weed books by celebrity chefs and television cooks once their popularity has
> waned

~~~
stinkytaco
We're beholden to popular whims as much as any organization, at least if we
want to keep the support of a broad base of our communities.

The simple fact is that space is limited. If it ain't gonna check out and it
ain't of huge culture importance, it can make way for something that's one of
those two things.

~~~
greglindahl
Even when physical space isn't limited, such as electronic books at the
Internet Archive, there's still the crowded space of search results. If you're
looking for a recipe involving a common ingredient, by default, we should
probably show more modern / more popular recipes with that ingredient -- and
save the historical record of recipes with that ingredient for an advanced
search interface.

~~~
stinkytaco
I don't disagree, but I think the burden here is not on the collection
building process, but on the search tools. Generally we do not weed our ebooks
unless they are quite obviously problematic (generally out of date or
demonstrably incorrect). In practical application, you're probably right, but
I would hate for that to become a reason to weed when it should be a reason to
make search tools better.

In addition to physical space, the literature is pretty clear that weeding has
a long term positive effect on circulation. A physical collection that looks
good and seems current is more likely to get used than one that looks beat up
and who's best material is buried among rows of books about the OJ Simpson
trial. We don't really have data or experience yet on electronic collections,
but I'm genuinely curious if the same would be true.

The OJ Simpson story is from actual experience. At a conference I went to a
local library that had no fewer than 5 books about OJ Simpson with copyright
dates in the mid 1990s. They looked like they hadn't been checked out for some
time...

~~~
greglindahl
Sure, I agree that the search tool is the best place to fix that problem. But
when I'm encouraging external libraries to include IA materials, often they
ask me to filter it first, because they can't do anything about how their
search tools behave.

