I have recently moved to a very small rural school in central Texas, after being in the suburbs for over 20 years, first in a public library and then in elementary schools. I either am being sent to needy schools by the library gods, or just have the luck of finding libraries in serious need of weeding. the last 2 schools I've been at had NEVER been weeded, and I became known as the Weed Queen in the district I worked at before this year. This year on the 2nd day of school, I had the collection analyzed by a book jobber, who sent some very nice graphs and pie charts--the average age of our nonfiction collection was 1984. I took the charts to the principal and explained that 20+ year old science and social studies books was unacceptable and they needed to be removed. He actually agreed with me and so I began by removing the 200 worst offenders--if I had removed everything there would be little on the shelf. The previous librarian had been there 22 years and never weeded a thing. There were some gasps from teachers that I was THROWING AWAY BOOKS, but after they sat on a giveaway book truck for 6 weeks, most came around.

Here are some jewels I've thrown away over the years (from 3 different libraries)

George Washington Carver: Negro Scientiest (1958)

a computer book which announced someday people could have computers in their homes, complete with a line drawing of kids playing Pong

a book which predicted that we'd some day go to the moon (as the school was built in 1981, that book was sadly out of date when the library opened)

A book about John Kennedy in which he is still alive

What Mommies Do

What Daddies Do

Where Negroes Live (1971)

Several Little Golden Books--not library bound, the kind you buy at the grocery store

A biography of Shaun Cassiday

Quite of few of those "Let's Read and Find Out" books from the '60s--most have been reissued with updated information and illustrations and will be as soon as I can get some $$$. My budget is miniscule and I'm trying to get new books, but that's a whole other issue...

Anybody else found "treasures" in their stacks?

I took over at our library in March of 2008. It, too, is in need of a big weeding both in the adult and children's collections. We're having a weeding workshop lead by our district consultant in March for our children's collection. This is a perfect situation - we'll get to weed and other librarians will get some hands-on training.

In weeding the adult collection I've come across a few eye-catchers, but nothing really out of the ordinary. There was one computer book in its 3rd edition. When I checked into replacing it, they were on the 9th edition. We also had a John Jakes series that was in terrible shape - two of the books were barely holding together after multiple repairs, the third only had half a cover. I found a few books that hadn't been out since the mid-80's or the early 1990's.

We're working on plans for a new library, so weeding now will produce big benefits later on.

I'm weeding (again) because my special library is out of shelf space (again). I downloaded a list of all the books that have been in the collection since before 2000 and have never circulated and I've been going through them a bit at a time. My last big weeding project was in 2008 - I cleaned out the computers section of everything published before 1985. I really should have got rid of everything published before 2005, but I chickened out.

I worked in a business library for a small college and I found a keyboarding book on keyboarding with disabilities that had a picture of how to type certain keys if you were missing fingers (the book was from 1970), and I found a human resources book from early 80 (??) that seemed to say that you wouldn't want to hire gay people to work for you because you may risk AIDS coming into your building. There was a no weeding policy in our library, but these offended me so much I snuck them out of the library then declared them lost and I kept a pile of books under my desk that I wished I could weed. This was a library that also wanted me to count individual volumes of a magazine as items in the collection, instead of the subscription as a whole.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Vasario 3, 2009, 9:16am.

At the first school I worked at, in 1987, I did some weeding during the school holidays. One book I removed stated 'When man goes to the moon, he may find....' It was published in 1954!
I recently removed a 1959 Education Department Bulletin from a secondary school - one of the library staff protested at it's removal, even though it hadn't been issued since the 1970s.

While integrating the maps reference collection into our main collection I had to discard a gorgeous Automobile Association map book with these beautiful hand-drawn pictures.

I've also pulled a couple "When man goes to the moon" books, as well as books on the 48 States, a picture book based on Carmen that hadn't circed since 1946 (this was in 2005; I was sorely tempted to leave it on the shelf for another year and have a diamond anniversary party), and a book titled something along the lines of "Geography of the Future" that quite extensively detailed how much Africans want to be ruled by whites.

So far I'm 2/3 on coming into libraries that badly need weeding. And given the fact that every single seminar I've been to has had the mandatory(?) "weed your collection" lecture (Yes, I mean every. This includes seminars on baby lapsits, database use, etc.), I've got to imagine that the percentage of librarians who aren't weeding responsibly is in the 90-95% range.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Vasario 3, 2009, 2:20pm.

In February 2007 I became the director of a small, rural library which hadn't been weeded in at least 19 years...probably more. Besides introducing a reasonable method of assigning call labels and making sure all books had them (that's a whole other story!) I began weeding...and weeding and weeding. It took the better part of a year and I removed about 500 books. Directories from the 1980s, biographies of more than one forgotten "star", out of date computer books, politically irrelevant (books on how Reagan would change our lives), and the uninteresting were all discarded.

After a highly publicized weekend booksale, what was not bought went to various organizations and eventually a few boxes went to a dumpster...in the middle of the night or course. People just do not understand that some books, past their usefulness need to be destroyed!

I work in a high school library that first opened in 1959 and apparently had never been weeded until a few years ago when we underwent renovation and a large portion of the collection went into storage. As we unpacked, the librarian and I weeded out the most egregious offenders.

Some of my favorites: the "someday Man will land on the moon" books; the book on Mars that contained no photographs, just drawings, many of which showed the infamous "canals"; books on Alaska published before it became a state; office and business manuals that assume a secretary will be female and explain how to keep her boss happy; anything with a final chapter titled "A Look Ahead" or "In the Future" (often hilarious); young adult novels with cheesy covers from the 50s and 60s; books published during WWII about the perils of doing business with Hitler; craft books from the 70s with hideous macrame projects (my favorite craft book included directions for making a coffee table out of old beer cans -- like THAT belonged in a high school library); and many many more I am forgetting.

We have had some great laughs going through the discard piles!

Hi! Just to say that I work in a library that doesn't weed, on purpose. We're a heritage library, so we actually get many of the books that get weeded out by the public library and others. We're selective of what we accept, we don't usually add doubles, and we don't add books that don't fit in our profile. Other than that, bring 'em on! :-)

The library I work in had to weed thousands of books last year, because our catalog was too big for our library type (we're a specialized library).

I've never had a problem throwing books away, and luckily my boss isn't affraid to ruffle a few feathers either, so we got rid of over 3000 books, videotapes, cassettes, cds and cd-roms. Now, some people were a bit baffled when they came into the library and saw empty shelves and several actually complained, even though the books we weeded out either hadn't been read in over 30 years, or were simply not current anymore, such as a Windows 3.2 User Guide. We were even finally able to weed out a very controversial book that states that the Holocaust never really took place.

But you know what? We actually increased our reader and visitor numbers, because now people find what they're looking for a lot faster. All in all, it was a very rewarding experience, not only to be able to build a better catalog for our readers, but also because we managed to donate many of those books to smaller libraries and university departments.

Instead of 13 000 books gathering dust in shelves, we now have 10 000 books, dvds and cds that everyone uses. We weed out regularly, and hope to keep our catalog fresh for our users.

Adding to #10, I work in a research center for an historical society which also may collect just the sort of items being discarded--I especially noticed the map mentioned in #6!

I'm helping my division chief with weeding our fiction collection. We've gotten rid books that hadn't circulated from 1979 to early 2000.

Just found a book in my biography section about George W. Bush, Governor of Texas!!!

This collection has 3 books on Sammy Sosa and NOTHING about George Washington! Should be interesting for the teachers to try to find something for Presidents Day! I do have 4 books on Lincoln, 2 of which I just bought this fall. In fact the only other book about presidents we have is Franklin Roosevelt (which I also just bought) I asked my principal for $5000 minimum to update this collection. He looked...bemused. LOL, I'll faint if I actually got a percentage of that amount!

I am currently weeding the picture book section--getting rid of all things Disney and Little Golden books; any paperbacks that are duplicates of hard covers, and ratty looking primers from the 60's. All going adios!

I'm feeling better about some of the branches I've done weeding at - none of them were nearly as bad as the examples here! The best ones I found (in reference!) were an encyclopedia of superstition from the fifties, and an encyclopedia of rock and roll from 1973.

My branch is so tiny we're constantly weeding - our ordering is done centrally, and they don't seem to realize we don't need nearly as much as most other branches! I recently took out all the fiction that hadn't circulated in 1 year. And a good portion of the non-fiction more than 5 years old. And this is after weeding about 12% of the collection the first year I was here (5 years ago).

My daughter also found a "someday men will go to the moon," book in her school library. I took more of an interest in the library after that episode. I later found a biography of Hank Aaron that had a picture of him throwing a football on the cover! Apparently, he played football and baseball in college and was quite good at both. The book preceded his record-breaking home run year by many years. I also found a copy of the 1945 Newbery winner, Rabbit Hill. Any copies printed after 1970 have been altered to remove certain passages offensive to African Americans. The copy my son brought home was from the early 1960s. Despite calling these books to the attention of the school media specialist, I believe they are all still on the shelves.

I pulled a biography of Roy Rogers out of an elementary school a few years ago that encouraged the children to watch out for news of Roy and Trigger performing in their town.

Forgot to add: I kept the Roy Rogers book - I'm a big fan from my childhood, but this book even predated my birth. ;)

I see noone's been on this thread for awhile but I just wanted to add that I am off to weed the children's section of my library.Its a mess and I'm sick of looking at it. I pulled a book out yesterday and it literally fell apart in my hands.I think its time!

Nothing fun to add, but I am weeding at the moment, so this caught my eye! Those are some great finds, gang!

It seems no matter how much I weed, the collection always looks as though I never do! I had a clerk ask me to weed the junior fiction the other day, because the shelves are tight, and I had just done it in mid-September! I do tend to be sentimental about books that are out of print or that I looooove, but I do try to get rid of out-of-date stuff. I'm getting more ruthless. Our library is just too small and also we don't have enough money to replace everything that needs it.

I went to a workshop on weeding this summer (using the CREW method, available on Texas State Library website; check it out if you need help). I actually didn't learn anything (but I did get my exchange hours!). I'm really very comfortable weeding nonfiction...however fiction is another story. I find myself asking, "what if?" and being reluctant to throw out old Newberys and Bluebonnet award books; or books that I just know are good. I did weed about a hundred fictions last month, but it was really hard unless the book was just physically in bad shape.

However...there is a set of truly dreadful novels, self-published ...over a hundred titles. The writing is didactic, bad, the artwork amateurish. I know my predecessor probably spent a lot of money on them...(people here tell me the authors visited the school some years ago). There is also a set of truly dreadful easy reader primers by the same authors/publishers. I hate these books with an almost visceral loathing...I think because I know that there is so much BETTER stuff out there (even easy readers). Here's the thing, though: the kids LOVE these books; the teachers like these books. They all are Accelerated Readers (don't even get me started on THAT travesty...)They check out frequently. So, how can I justify getting rid of them? Or, do I just grit my teeth and keep them? Because maybe it's just my own personal prejudice against them.

But wait!, I have a secret sinister underhanded plan...I plan to keep buying new, well written, well-reviewed books. See, with the choice of newer, better books, those other books will stop circulating and THEN I can justify getting rid of them! Is that a Cunning Plan or what??

We frequently have to weed quality-but-older fiction simply for space reasons. But it's pretty painless because we have a statewide library listserv and use that to offer the material up to the other libraries in the state. We have many tiny rural libraries that basically run on donations so the items we pull are still appreciated (and read!) by their patrons.

We recently found a book called, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" in our collection. *headsmack*

Well I got the picture books done some hadn't been checked out in 20 years made room for some new ones that were donated.Pulled almost 50 books I now have shelf space to buy new ones YAY!
There was one I thought I better get off the shelf before some parent sued me it was called "How Far Will This Rubberband Stretch" and it showed a little boy hooking a rubberband onto a door knob and stretching it across town LOL.In this day and age you can just never tell!

Someone just showed me an unbelievably racist history book she had weeded from a high school library in 1998, that was published in the 1920s. She kept it to use in a class about the history of civil rights in the U.S.

I read a fantastic blog (http://awfullibrarybooks.wordpress.com/) that posts terrible books the writer weeds and books that others send in that definitely ought to be weeded. Always entertaining. But scary if you recognize something in your library's collection.

I've been helping my head of circulation weed. Our catalog system (run by two of the state's regions together) has a delightful reports program. So far we're doing it by books that haven't gone out in a period of X years (depending on the collection--fiction, nonfiction, DVDs, music). So much wonderful shelf space.

A good public library should not have this, I agree. But I hope somebody is saving one or two copies somewhere for historical purposes. Because in 50 years nobody would believe it had be published if they didn't see it.

>21 I love your cunning plan. I did the same thing a few years back (I was very lucky to have an exceptionally large budget for books -- those days may be gone forever) and happily slipped the offending titles off the shelves a year and a half later and no-one noticed.

I was "fortunate" twice in my life to be the librarian who replaced a pack-rat predecessor, and need to keep applying those skills to my own at-home overstuffed shelves!

I'm from a public library and pretty recently we've pulled computer books that have sections on this new technology called "the internet" and gives instructions on FTP and Gopher.

I've also pulled decorating books from the 80s that have everything painted mauve and teal.

I had fun today and pulled All the Sweet Valley High books off the shelf Babysitters Club will be next LOL.

I may have mentioned my favorite weeding strategy from when I wasn't supposed to be weeding the collection (because we didn't get rid of "perfectly" good books).. I hid the books I wanted to weed under my desk and used the space for other books. I worked in a library that had only had a librarian for a few years and before that stocked the shelves with "for review purpose only" textbooks.

#30.. Heard a movie rumor that Diablo Cody is turning Sweet Valley into a movie.

>30... I tried to pull Sweet Valley High in my last library but they still circ like crazy. So I left them, to the joy of many a middle school girl. They're tatty and have dated covers but still have a lot of appeal. Lord knows why. Meanwhile I tried to push some other books on them.

Oh sure ...it figures..maybe I'll keep them in a corner of the storeroom...and see if anyone asks for them because they haven't been checked out in years it was over 10 and thats my policy!So I'll stick to it but ....

SVH is long gone from my (public) library -- they didn't circ, so off they went! I'm sure they'll re-issue the books if the do a movie, at which point we will probably have to buy them again.

Interesting how some books, like SVH and Babysitters Club are still popular in some libraries, and not in others. In my last school, American Girls were still very popular--at least 2 copies of every title--BSC, also circ'd fairly regularly. Likewise the Boxcar Children. None of those books check out here. I just weeded all the BSC last month; most had not checked out in 3 or more years. I don't think I've checked out a Boxcar Children yet (this is my 2nd year here)

I understand the need to weed out-dated books or titles that are falling apart, but the weeding of decent works is unnerving, especially when space is not an issue. At the library where I work, books I wanted to check out have been weeded from the system before I had the chance. They were fine books that were just not circulating. Given the huge abundance of space on the shelves, weeding titles like Alfred Doblin novels or histories of the Metropolitan Opera is horrible policy. This is a library system where even great works like Moby Dick are fair game if their circulation numbers aren't up to par.

37: How would you suggest librarians weed beyond circulation? Keep in mind that opinions on quality vary with the person.

38: I think inaudible is more concerned with what they see as unnecessary weeding. If the library has open shelf space, why weed materials that do not obviously become outdated? I tend to like such weeding, but for the purely selfish reason that such perfectly good books get sold cheap at library sales and I can scoop them up, but I can certainly see the converse point of view.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Spalio 21, 2009, 2:59pm.

We definitely wouldn't weed things based solely on lack of circulation. Weeding a book doesn't take as much staff time as adding one, but it's still incredibly time consuming. So that library in 37 seems to be wasting money if there's not more to it than they're revealing.

# 35...I was a huge fan of SVH growing up. I'm only 25, so it wasn't really that long ago I suppose. But they actually are reprinting the SVH series, but they've modernized the SVH world, while keeping most of the original storylines. Out of curiosity, I read the newer version of the first book in the series. Now, the twins have cell phones! Some of their slang is more current. They also went from a size 6 to a size 4. How sad...

I'm sorry to all the SVH lovers out there but I am a little library and if its not circualting its gone!If there is renewed interest in the updated series I may buy them but these were so outdated that they had to go...

Let's see how many more people I can rile up...Juvenile Biographies...Mary Lou Retton last check out 1996...Refrigerator Perry last check out 1994...Walt Frazier last check out 1991.

Yes these are athletes from alot of our time period but while I was weeding I asked some kids in the library and none of them had heard of any of these people!

Or How about Wonder tales of cats and Dogs not checked out since 1976!Don't know how that ones gotten by so long!

43: Well, now how would they, since all of the books about them are gone. ;)

LOL ya I agree ..but I have to make room for todays biographies..I was having fun some really crazy books still on the shelves...The Clinic pub. date 1958 showing the nice new clinic with all the male doctors and female nurses with big beehives..

38> It would depend on the library and the collection. Some books obviously need to go (old computer guide books, time sensitive non-fiction, books that are in bad shape, books that do not circulate and have no redeeming value, and so on). Of course, "redeeming value" is relative to a collection and the taste of whoever is weeding.

40> The given purpose for the weeding is to create lots of extra shelf space so some books can be displayed with the cover facing forward rather than the spine. It also seems to be done largely as an end in itself. I think time would be much better spent promoting the collection we do have rather than getting rid of a third of it (yes, you read that right).

I have read many of the posts here with some concern. Some books, of course, may be past their prime and readers may not read them anymore, and there are books which will offend some people. However, from the standpoint of a reader, I feel a bit worried that my library may only have books deemed suitable for keeping by one or two individuals in that library. If a book offends someone, I think that is their problem, regardless of race, religion, gender preference, etc. Every day there is something to offend each of us, yet it is our choice in how we allow this to impact our lives. Will we soon deem 'Huckleberry Finn' as too racist for children and remove all copies from libraries? I have seen this very issue come up from across the pond, and it scares me.

From this perspective, it is a type of censorship, and even books that show the stereotypical thoughts of the past should still be available, so that young people can see the mistakes of the past in print, instead of just hearing about it from those teachers who will take the time to tell them about the past. Taking into consideration shelf space, is it not possible to designate an area in the library marked as 'Outdated Materials?' This would allow writers, such as myself, the opportunity to read older texts and quote from sources that may no longer be available to me, should libraries continue to weed in such a manner. It is, after all, to the libraries that authors turn for research, and if they continue to weed out books they feel are 'inappropriate' to whom will we then be able to turn?

10> Excellent!

K.J.,

Most University libraries archive rather than weed materials, while public libraries simply do not have the space to maintain collections of long out dated books. If you do not have a University library near you, I'm sure the public library would be happy to find titles for you through inter-library loan.

You are misunderstanding I am not censoring anything or deciding whats suitable for anyone.I am weeding to make room for newer books that will circulate I don't weed classics only books that are horribly out of date or that haven't circualted in over 10 years.If I have weeded a book you want I can as #49 says get it through ILL from a library that has more space than I do.I am a small town library with less than 1000 patrons and must keep my collection up to date.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Spalio 22, 2009, 1:23pm.

#48 would you like me to keep the book Games for Retards???( Yes this is a real book)Is that censorship??

#48 -- Most public and school libraries just don't have space to keep outdated or unused materials on the shelf. Weeding based on circulation, condition, and timeliness is standard practice. While there is value in keeping outdated books in a research collection (for example, an academic library, or an archive of children's books), it is much more important (in the view of most public libraries) to have books in good condition with accurate information on the shelf, than to maintain books about, for instance, the U.S.S.R. or the possibility that someday man will land on the moon. It's particularly important to have current books on the shelf for children, many of whom are not able to discriminate between a book containing outdated information and a book containing current information. Your point about adults needing these materials for reference purposes is valid, which is why those academic collections are important -- those materials are then available through inter-library loan.

A good public library will have criteria for weeding books, developed by a number of people and not just "one or two individuals" as you are concerned about. Many libraries use the CREW method for weeding, developed by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. There are other guides for weeding that exist, published by other organizations, including the American Library Association. Some libraries come up with a policy in-house, designed by a committee of staff members. Most libraries are dedicated to avoiding censorship and making a wide range of materials available, but there will always be constraints as to what is purchased and maintained in the collection (time, space, money being the biggest ones). Often, when a librarian gleefully recounts how s/he removed stacks of outdated, worn, or under-used materials from the collection, s/he is excited because of the amount of shelf space that is now free for new materials to occupy. I know that's the case with me.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Spalio 22, 2009, 5:02pm.

51: Maybe not, but I'd love to read it just to see what games are supposedly appropriate for the disabled.

53> I'm sure there are good titles about the Special Olympics that would be more edifying.

We pulled dozens of books with titles like "Training Your Retarded Child" four years ago.

In regards to nonfiction, it's certainly worth retaining historical context on some subjects. Although you do not need ten different titles from a five-year span to provide that context. This is also more relevant for a university library collection than for a public library collection.

And it's very rare that removal comes down to the opinion of one person. That's one reason weeding is so time-consuming here. 8 different people have to sign off on each thing we pull. And everyone has a no-question veto to put it back on the shelf.

Hear Hear Foggi dawn!!Very well said!..Well for the book I mentioned above it offended me and my mentally handicapped son!It was bad like they all have the mentality of a 1 year old and would never change.

I'm a MLIS student helping a non-profit that does career training for disabled youth develop their library. No, they didn't have any "Crafts for Retarded" books, but most of their books were not useful at all - for example a book on careers with computers from 1991. The first thing I did was to go through their collection (cataloging on LibraryThing) and get rid of more than half of it.

The Director forwarded me an email the other day from one of his staff members who was happy to be using books from "the new library."

We have not bought any new books yet. All we did was get rid of the books which were overshadowing the useful ones. Weeding makes a collection more usable.

And >26 I love Awful Library Books! Cracks me up every day.

51> Having spent a few wonderful years with a sister who was emotionally and physically handicapped, I am not offended by the ignorance published years ago. To me, it is much like the letting of blood, to cure illness - all based on the best medicine of the day, as well as steeped in ignorance.

If someone called her that awful name, I would be offended, of course, and likely to inflict mild bodily harm about his/her person. As for the book, I would not know of its existence, if they were all removed from libraries available to me, and because of this I would be unable to review the ideologies of the past. My question to you would be, was this volume passed up to a medical research/university library, where they specialize in the study of those afflicted? Or, was it thrown away?

49> Thank you, and I have availed myself of this inter-library service in the past, although I found smaller libraries not always able to pull from a sizable list.

52> Thank you for an articulate and detailed explanation of the process. I followed the link, as well. Merci.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Spalio 24, 2009, 11:17am.

n/m, too harsh (re bowdlerizing Rabbit Hill, The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle, etc.)

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Spalio 25, 2009, 12:36am.

On the subject of weeding, as a reader, i have a love/hate relationship with it.
I’ve scored some great books for ridiculously low prices from library sales, for example books like the compact oxford dictionary, The Voyage to Terra Australis by Matthew Flinders and The Histories by Herodotus.
It’s great to have access to them at home, but the library no longer has these important books in their catalogue and if they’re not on the shelf, people might not even know they exist.
They are all ‘outdated’ in a sense, but important for just that reason, to see how people thought and what they did in the past. Weeding must be hard job, I couldn't do it (i struggle with the separation anxiety when i give away one of my own books!) ;)

>60 If it helps, when we pull classics, it's because we have three or four copies of the title. So it's still on the shelf.

In the past, we needed multiple copies but now that we have a good sharing network with other libraries in our region, we can get rid of them and make more room.

60> The OED got weeded?!?! That's crazy.

>62

Not if the library had a newer copy.

As for multiple copies, I just don't know. There's the Shorter Oxford on shelf at some of the branches (but not all) in the reference section, but I haven't seen an OED either on shelf or in the catalogue. Maybe they're got the new ed. on order or an online subscription.
Herodotus was a real surprise, not that it's a bestseller, but it's a significant work, and used in several high school certificate subjects.
Still, i do realise it's a big job, their catalogue reports 500+ books were added in the last fortnight. I just hope someone's always there to give the good weeds a home.

Žinutė pakeista jos autoriaus, Spalio 29, 2009, 2:55pm.

There's one library in my county that carries the OED, and it takes up three or four full shelves. Small libraries just don't have room to dedicate that kind of space to a dictionary.

My question to you would be, was this volume passed up to a medical research/university library, where they specialize in the study of those afflicted? Or, was it thrown away?

I've started a reply to this comment several times, but I always delete it because I don't want to come across as harsh. Also, I'm only a library assistant, not a real librarian. But I have to say this:

Do you really think that small libraries have the staffing to find an adoptive home for every book they have to weed? Or the space to store them indefinitely until a home can be found?

The small public library where I work just finished non-fiction weeding at our library, part of a major "shift" in shelving plan. We tried selling the books, but when the boxes of weeded books became a safety hazard all over the floor, we had to take some to recycling. This upset people, but they'd be upset more if someone got hurt tripping over the boxes of books and sued us; or if our staff stopped serving patrons, cataloging, or shelving books in order to have time to research donation sites for specific books that are outdated and/or not of general interest.

66> I am not attacking you, nor the profession, and yes, I do think that there may be some missed opportunities inherent in the process of this weeding. Does your library have a website on which you could list the books being removed? Do you have volunteers, who might help with loading up the books to your website for folks around the world to find? Do you have contacts with libraries internationally? Do you work your contacts with other national libraries to not only ship out the books you do not want, but to also bring in books? It should always be a two-way process, when possible. Have you contacted booksellers in cities and offered your boxes to them? Have you contacted people who set up garage sales and flea markets, to get a list of vendors who deal regularly in printed material? All of this is work that volunteers can do, and require no technical training in the fine art of library administration.

I remember being at Woodstock, as a young boy, and an older person making a suggestion, regarding the unfinished chicken still on my plate, and which I was about to relegate to the dustbin: "There is always someone who would want that which is no longer of interest to you." He was right, and it is a lesson I have never let leave my consciousness.

Do I believe that your work is difficult and the choices no less so? Yes. Do I believe there are viable solutions waiting to be found by those who will expend the effort? Yes.

Many of the libraries in my state have a single employee, are open fewer than 40 hours per week (often under 20), and do not have a website. Some are in communities that don't even have internet access yet. It is not immediately clear to people in larger, more prosperous areas just how many things must come first.

When I discard books, I have to tear out the pocket and then the security device below it. Sometimes box cutter surgery is required to remove the bar code. By the time we finish these tasks, the book is in much worse shape than it was when we decided to pull it from the shelf. I couldn't even think of offering it for any price. We do offer them to classrooms if they are not too badly mangled, but if they were not used here in the library, why should we think they would be used in the classrooms? These days, with budgets being as dismal as they are, I am sure that retiring books can be almost as tough a decision as retiring a flag, but sometimes you just have to because keeping it is taking up space and one ugly book can make a whole shelf unappealing.

IANAL (I am not a librarian), but it seems to me that academic and medical libraries can likely maintain their own collections without relying on castoffs from small public libraries. In fact, if something that's of any academic interest is sitting on a small public library shelf about to get weeded, it's probably already in an academic collection that does not need a battered, surgically-altered small-public-library copy.

It's easy, but foolish, to think of physical books as sacred things that must not be discarded.

70> I don't think 'sacred' was part of the point I was sharing, although individual authors may view their books as such. I would also respectfully suggest that a book's importance is neither magnified, nor diminished, by the size of the library in which it is housed.

My point is that there may be some entity/person who can make good use of the about-to-be-discarded work, and it would seem to be an appropriate step to determine if all avenues available had been explored.

I was speaking with an avid reader by telephone last evening, across the ocean, and was told of her visits to the library in her small community. They have a small area where 'weeded' books are assembled and offered to anyone who wants them, at no charge. She is one of the visitors who takes home boxes of books, and when she is done reading them, she passes them on to a person who sells them at flea markets and such. She is also passing on my suggestion about putting the books online to those in charge, to help them dispose of books they no longer wish to have. At no time, she informed me, do they ever throw books away, and their space is limited, as well.

>69

As a result of my eBay acquisitions, I have quite a few books still bearing library catalogue data, which I must assume have been weeded and discarded legitimately ('And that is the case for the defence, M'lud ...').

Can I suggest that it might be easier for a weeding librarian to add information, rather than subtract that which is already there? In the sense of adding a note (dare I suggest hand-written) in indelible ink to the effect that the item has been released from its library servitude, giving date, rubber stamp, signature as deemed appropriate? Sounds to me a lot less hard work ...
.

I used to work in a suburban public library until about 12 years ago. They seldom weeded, although they needed to (IMO) very badly. One reason was that it was illegal to resell the books...The Friends of the Library had a book shop full of donated materials, but no discarded library books. The city ordinance forbad the resell, or giving away of any city materials, which included library books. Discarded materials had to be put in the dumpster in the dead of night.

The school district that I used to work in discouraged giving discarded books away. I did it anyway, particularly fiction and picture books.

Here I give books away to teachers and students; what is left over I take to the public library for their big FOTL book sale, or one teacher takes them to her pediatritian husband's office.

It may seem like I take a gleeful outlook in getting rid of books...but it's only b/c I know they are not useful, outdated, ratty-looking, non-circulating, etc. and to make room for new books.

I think it's sort of like the feeling you get when you finally clean out the closets at your house and have a garage sale.

I was going to say too that frequently libraries are given "donations" of books that are ratty, old, inappropriate for the collection, an author trying to sell their book, etc.. and they don't necessarily want those materials either. There has to be some standard for what is in the collection, and librarians have to be trusted to use their professional judgement regarding both purchasing decisions and when it is time for materials to leave the collection.

>67

Do I believe there are viable solutions waiting to be found by those who will expend the effort? Yes.

Do I believe that there are any librarians who have the time to expend such effort? No.

Surely you are aware that all jobs involve having to accomplish goals within a certain timeframe. Given how much librarians have to accomplish during their workweek, expecting them to put in this kind of effort to "place" weeded books is unreasonable. If someone from the Friends of the Library is willing to do it, wonderful. If you think placing the books for sale will accomplish it, well, my branch usually throws out any sale books which have been out for more than two months. We throw out a lot of books.

75> However difficult the job may be, I do not believe it is filled with more challenges than any other profession, and I believe that it is one in which the public has placed its trust: the trust to disseminate informative materials without prejudice. Having worked 90 hour work weeks to fulfill my sense of performing my duties to the best of my abilities, I do not accept that those who truly wish to find results will not find them, after having expended the energy to do so. It has not been my experience that this is the case. Do the librarians themselves have the time to do it always? Of course not. No more than any other person is, within the time allotted to fulfill their responsibilities. Can they take on extra tasks by learning to enroll others and to delegate? Yes, they can. If the library does not have volunteers, why not? Every community has avid readers, and they are always willing to help out, when called upon to do so. Can a librarian call upon visitors to the library to help out with the disposal of books no longer used within the library? Of course he/she can - if he/she chooses to exert the effort to do so.

I say none of this with diminished respect for librarians. I only suggest that those who wish to find results with any challenge usually can. It is a matter of commitment.

Can librarians do all these things if they're willing to work 90 hours a week or find legions to do it for them for free? Sure. Is it worth it? Is Your High-Tech World of Telecommunications, copyright 1989, really worth herculean human investment to save it from the recycle bin? Or perhaps The Love Bug, for all your V.D. prevention needs, copyright 1976? The consensus would appear to be no.

I think putting out books for sale (or for free to a good home, for that matter) is a perfectly reasonable expenditure of effort. The longer a book can sit on a "free" shelf without being taken, the more work it's going to be to find that one person, somewhere, sometime, who actually has any use for it, and the less likely it is to be worth it.

76> the trust to disseminate informative materials without prejudice.

That is impossible and... not a worthy goal even if it were possible. To use an extreme example: Moby Dick should not be treated the same as a computer guide from 1989.

78> As you stated, your example is extreme, and my statement is possible, when librarians have open minds. This is a bit off the current topic, but I'll pursue it just a bit further, to provide an example of why I believe this should be:

When I was a boy, getting some of my early education in Upstate New York, I was met by a stony silence, when requesting books that might help me understand gay life. Yes, this is an extreme example, as well, yet it is important when considering the responsibility of librarians to serve all people - even those with whom they disagree. This, in the consideration of many of us, is a very worthy goal. In the small villages around the lakes where I was living, I was not able to find one book to help me understand myself, and no local librarians were interested in assisting me with the search. When I spent a summer in Albany, New York, I was then helped by a very understanding librarian. It made all the difference, in my life.

77> I did not suggest that anyone work 90 hours a week, nor do I remember suggesting that they bring in 'legions' of staff to assist.

What I did suggest was that we all use the many options available to distribute books, instead of tossing them. It was a suggestion meant to help, not to attack a profession. I still submit that when a person is committed to finding results, he/she will find success. If the librarian doesn't care about that particular book, i.e. 'Your High-Tech World of Communications,' then he/she will not likely expend much effort in its preservation.

My suggestion is just being open to the possibilities, and one never knows the good that may come, when one does so.

#79 -- Yes, but there's a vast difference between having books on a range of subjects, and having books both current and out of date. I strongly believe that librarians should collect "without prejudice" in the sense that you seem to mean: having books on hand regardless of whether the individual librarian agrees with the views expressed in that book. However, I don't think that your childhood problem with your local libraries was caused because a librarian weeded out books that would be useful to you, but because those books were never purchased in the first place. As you say, it's a completely different issue, one that I remember spending hours discussing in more than one of my library science classes in grad school. I don't think any of the librarians who have posted about weeding on this thread have been excited about weeding books that didn't agree with some personal agenda. (Nor do I think that's what you were trying to say.) All of the librarians that I've talked to recently are passionate about access to information, and oppose any form of censorship.

In my experience, most libraries at least attempt to find homes (by selling or giving away) for the books they remove from the collection, unless there is some ordinance against it, as mentioned in post #73. Some have a very active Friends of the Library group that can put the needed time into listing books online, organizing well-publicized sales, and finding other means of getting the book to an owner who will appreciate it. Others lack those resources, and find that staff time is too valuable to spend trying to find homes for used books when there are already a lot of demands for staff to spend that time helping patrons, purchasing new materials, planning programs, or any of the other myriad tasks involved in providing library service.

80> Your response to my suggestions was most interesting and well stated. And, I understand that many libraries lack the resources - and even the mechanical means - to implement the suggestions I offered. I also believe that when there is a challenge, those who are committed will find a solution. It is how the universe works.

An alternative to the Friends of the Library group might be to enroll students in a Junior Friends of the Library group, to assist with posting books online, and helping in that way. Most of the young people today have access to a computer, and many even have one of their own. There are many ways to set up such a program, and I could 'spend a page' just describing options, right here. However, it all comes down to whether or not the decision-maker wishes to expend the energy to do this.

I've done a lot of charitable book sales and there are some books that just don't sell. After a certain point you get a feel for what will and won't sell and it is not worth saving some things.

In some cases it is downright dangerous and irresponsible to sell discarded books, if the information contained in a book is out-dated (e.g. pesticide manuals, some medical books).

In my experience, the willingness to find alternatives to recycling books has little to do with "whether or not the decision-maker wishes to expend the energy to do this." Most libraries work within the context of a larger organization, and such organizations may have rules about the disposal of surplus material, and the use of volunteers that the library has to live within.

Different libraries have different client bases, too. A special library with a client base of professionals, or an academic library serving busy students, has no pool of volunteers to draw upon. Even public and school libraries have fewer bodies available - these days, the demands on the time of parents and students are extensive and they may have higher priorities than posting used library books on E-bay.

I should add that I think it is very important for every library to have a collection policy to define the kind of material and range of subjects that they collect and to explain when and by what criteria weeding takes place. Library users should have the right to see that policy.

82> I wouldn't think Ebay would be viable anyway, as the fees often outweigh the profits, when it comes to that venue.

83> With this point, I agree.

For me, the toughest part of weeding is to force myself to think of the books as inches on a limited number of shelves, rather than focusing solely on the content of he books.

I work for a large University Library, and for us, most of our weeding means that the books are shipped to one of three off campus Annex Warehouses. It remains in the catalog & patrons can request annexed items and get then in 2-3 days.

However, if there are multiple copies at various campuses or copies that are already annexed, we withdraw items, remove the covers and put teh pages in the recycling bin.

This does make it much easier. This year, I knuckled down and sent a lot of German language architecture books that haven't been checked out in 15-20 years to be annexed. Even with the visual arts, foreign language is still a big drawback.

Having just shipped my titles from our subject library to teh annex, I am now in the process of removing the covers and recycling the pages. Part of me feels like a sinner taking communion as I'm ripping apart books.

On a side note, what ever company did our rebinding in the 40s, 50s & 60s, did a darn fine job. Most of these old puppies are impossible to tear apart. I'm having to hack off the covers with a utility knife.

Just got rid of a bunch of paperback picture books (almost 200 of 'em!). My shelves look so much better! Those things were tattered, were hard to find, most seldom circulated. They now have new homes with teachers and children. New policy: NO paperback picture books!

Hurrah for better looking shelves! And I definitely agree with that new policy of yours. Paperback picture books are just fine for home/family libraries or for individual classroom libraries, but they aren't the best format for a public/school lending library.

You might be surprised at how many kids/people prefer paperbacks. I wonder if they might be afraid of losing or damaging an expensive hardcover. I know that sometimes I just feel lazy and don't want to hold up a hardcover and can hold a paperback with just one hand.

> 88

I can definitely understand a preference for paperbacks. A large portion of my personal library is comprised of paperback books, and I tend to lean towards paperbacks when it comes to the book(s) I carry with me on a daily basis.

However, the books in my personal library aren't getting nearly the level of use and handling that even a modestly circulated book in a school or public library will receive. There are very few, if any, paperback books which can hold up well under even moderate use at the hands of multiple individuals without quickly appearing worn and ragged. When that paperback book is a picture book the worn and ragged condition seems to appear even faster.

Additionally, paperback picture books are a pain to shelve. They tend to be skinny things, the covers are prone to bending, and the spines typically aren't much thicker than that of an average magazine. Shelving them the same way you would other books makes it quite difficult to see the titles, which makes them harder to find. And I have yet to find a library with enough space to display all picture books in the collection with the covers fully visible.

"Blog names world's worst books
Metro Detroit librarians get unexpected fame"

http://www.freep.com/article/20091113/NE...

In response to message 69:

As already mentioned in some other posts, it is easier to stamp or mark the book "discarded" than to rip out the pocket. I have never volunteered or worked in a library that ripped out the pockets. To me, this would indicate that the book had been stolen from the library -- a presumption that was also, actually used recently on the tv show "the Mentalist"

Just on the subject of volunteers - our library worker's union does not allow us to have volunteers for anything except driving books to the homebound. People would love to volunteer for the library, but there is simply no way it would be allowed by the union. And I completely agree about simply not having the time to find homes for books. I'm currently weeding my picture book collection singlehandedly because my "children's department" is me and my assistant, who does all of our school tours and spends most of the rest of her time at the info desk. Plus, I'm the librarian, I'm responsible for the collection. But if I had to place the books, I'd have no time to do ordering, storytimes, sit at the desk, eat lunch, go home.... Our circulation department is part of that die-hard union and there's no way they'd do anything that wasn't part of their job description. So, we sell them 3 for $1 and when that doesn't work, we make a Free box until we're sure we can't get anyone to take it off our hands. That's the best that we can do.

Also, I completely second the poster who commented about the crap people donate to libraries - why they think anyone wants to borrow a book that's been sitting gathering mold and dust in someone's basement since 1972 is beyond me.

why they think anyone wants to borrow a book that's been sitting gathering mold and dust in someone's basement since 1972 is beyond me.

Probably because they're too much book lover's to throw the books away and figure that if anyone knows how to find a book a good home it must be a librarian.

Yes, but these aren't "good books" - we're not talking about first editions of WH Auden here. We're often talking about things like yellow, torn, stinky, moldy (health hazard!!) paperbacks and encyclopedias from the 80's and, as this thread started out, often dangerously outdated ideas that are no longer relevant to the 21st century. Most public libraries are not depository collections. Every library isn't the Library of Congress or the British Library. I adore books, but they're things. They get damaged, they become obsolete, they eventually are past their prime. Buggy whips, Model T's and whalebone corsets are fascinating pieces of history, but you wouldn't expect anyone but a specialized museum to hang on to them. And if the corset was tattered, yellow, stained, smelly, NOT the only corset left on the planet, and no-one ever looked at the exhibit....well, even the museum shouldn't be expected to keep it in their limited space.

"dangerously outdated ideas that are no longer relevant to the 21st century"

Thanks to the religious right, there are plenty of new books avaiable which fit that description.

Rania37 - We put our security devices behind the pocket. I tear them out so that any discarded books carried in the library won't set off the alarm. I do also write - removed from collection with date - in each book.

#94: Well said. If our library kept every out-of-date encyclopedia or 1994 programming book, our building would collapse from the weight of it all. And I don't care what you collect, our 1984 copy of "Does AIDS hurt" is not a exactly a collector's item; nor do I think it was ever checked out. Thank goodness, considering the information it was putting out.

One of our students was arguing for the removal of a book about marijuana yesterday because of information in a report he read about saying that marijuana wasn't bad. The librarian asked him to go through the book and put sticky notes on the parts that were incorrect and basically go through the challenge procedure. Good learning experience for him.

98> And, perhaps, a good one for the librarian, when he comes back with his results.

>95 Sooooo true.