responding to:  no use study is perfect especially in open stacks:  I would
dare to say that my usage has been nearly 'perfect' up to this point.  I
have had closed stacks, III system, everything barcoded and paged(including
fiche, with a checkout message noting how many pieces make up the issue).
It has been quite complete.  In a couple of weeks, due to a change in
library management and philosophy, the stacks will be open and I will never
trust any use study we employ unless I hear about something really good.  So
far, I think that counting returns will show the serious usage.  Browsing
can be done online, anyway, so I like the idea of ignoring browsing usage.

Marilee H. Rouillard, Supervisor
Periodicals Department, Mason Library
Keene State College, Keene, NH  03435-3201

mrouilla@keene.edu  (603)358-2756

---------------------

At 10:39 PM 6/27/96 EST, Steve Black wrote:
 <snip>
>  Mr. Henderson states, "A 'scientific' study of usage would probably use
>some other method to assure a given level of reliability".  I would be
>very interested in hearing some specific, feasible suggestions for how to
>do this.  We all know that no use study is perfect, especially in open
>stacks.  However, counting volumes as they are reshelved is more accurate
>than asking people what they use, and probably the best we can do with
>our staffing and budgets.  I also feel that even though no use study is
>perfect, doing one is far better than making decisions with no use
>statistics at all ...

 <snip>