Re: FW: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists Dan Lester 09 Apr 2007 18:00 UTC
First, note that it said "probably", so no claim that it would always be so. Second, the film may be more expensive to purchase, but the purchase is a simple look up and purchase. The real issue, which was my main emphasis, is the labor involved in dealing with exchange/gift lists. Even if going through the lists is delegated to a low level clerk or student assistant, the hours add up very quickly. But, there's no one right answer for everyone, and some libraries may have more time than money. I will say that when I was director of a 200K volume college library 20 years ago we stopped the list-searching. If I were a library director again, I'd make the same decision. Of course as far as being a library director, yes, been there, done that. Glad I did it, but even gladder I'm not doing it any more. dan Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions dan@riverofdata.com Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Ian Woodward" <iwoodward@MAIL.COLGATE.EDU> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Received: 4/9/2007 6:13:34 AM Subject: [SERIALST] FW: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists >I would take exception to point # 2. In my experience, the invoice >charges for a roll of microfilm will exceed by a considerable multiple >the charges for purchased back issue (should UMI or Gale happen to >traffic in that title). IW >I. Woodward >Serials Office >Colgate University Libraries >Case Library and Geyer Center for Information Technology >13 Oak Drive >Hamilton, N.Y. 13346 >Ph.: 315-228-7306 >Fax: 315-228-7029 >-----Original Message----- >From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum >[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Dan Lester >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:49 PM >To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists >My personal belief is that the days of needing to fill in perfectly are >long gone. >Several reasons immediately come to mind. >1. As your boss noted, it is labor intensive. >2. You could probably buy the microfilm of that volume cheaper and >easier. >3. What are the chances that someone who wants to read The Journal of >Underwater Basketweaving will actually need Volume 5, 1967? >4. Are the journals you're working so hard to fill in even worth keeping >at all? >5. ILL is so cheap and fast with electronic document delivery, it has >become a much more practical solution than it was 20 years ago. >6. No collection can ever be complete, even in a specialized collection. >7. There are some places that will recycle books and journals. You can >perhaps find some locally. >In my personal and professional opinion your boss is right. >dan >Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions >dan@riverofdata.com >Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA > ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- > From: "R Davis" <RDAVIS@STARK.KENT.EDU> > To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU > Received: 4/6/2007 11:15:40 AM > Subject: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists > >In the last year I have completed 82 volumes and now have 15 more >titles > >with complete uninterrupted runs from a discard list. However, our >library > >director has decided it is a waste of time to use discard lists for >collection > >fulfillment. Of course, my belief has always been to keep surplus >issues out > >of the landfills and give them to libraries that could use them. I >thought all > >libraries wanted the most complete collection possible. Has there >been a > >change in library philosophy that I missed? I would appreciate >(off-list) any > >insights or responses to this policy change. > >Roger Davis > >Serials Librarian > >(at an academic college library) > >rdavis@stark.kent.edu