Comment by jerry1979 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerry1979 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The author wants to weed out an old sewing book from the '60s. Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it? Also, the author's willingness to weed out the book seems very influenced by the book's dated aesthetics:

"Note the “groovy” cover."

"I want to weed this one based on the home decorating in the last picture below."

Here's how amazon reviewers felt about the book:

"Just what I needed to use my vintage sewing machine feet more effectively which was original intent when I bought the book but wow'd by the great info for sewing and illustrations. Great resource book to have whether beginner or advanced"

"This book is great if you have any older vintage Singer machines."

"It's the complete guide. Good for beginners to experienced. 72 yrs old male. father was upholster, mother drapery and seimstress, Good for helping me out for what I forgot"

- https://awfullibrarybooks.net/sewing-fundamentals/ - https://www.amazon.com/Singer-Sewing-Book-Complete-Guide/dp/...

Also, the groovy cover is awesome.

Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it?

For most libraries, I think so. By which I am referring to general purpose community libraries. They have limited space, and keeping books on hand that nobody looks at is not a good use of that space. I wouldn't expect any of the public libraries in my area to keep obscure titles that are rarely touched.

Some other libraries purpose to be more of an archive, a repository of knowledge; I would expect such libraries to be slower to discard things.

Really, though, this seems like a great opportunity for scanning and digital preservation... copyright woes aside...

> Really, though, this seems like a great opportunity for scanning and digital preservation...

Now you've traded your problems of having one collection with having two. Not to mention the choice (and constant migration!) of hardware media, data formats, etc. Are you going to be able to even read these digital files fifty years from now? Who's going to maintain this? Are you going to add a whole IT dept to your local library to keeping this system running?

None of this is impossible, of course. But it's not free and it's not trivial.

Well, no, it's not a great opportunity for every local library to do this. As you suggested, they really don't have anything remotely like the staff and infrastructure.

But it shouldn't be a job for every local library. All that is needed is one copy of the book; not every copy of the book. And for more recent books, there shouldn't even be a need to scan it; there should already be a digital version (whether if it was made publicly available or not).

Granted, long-term storage and viewing of digital files seems like an open-ended problem in itself, regardless of who is handling it. But so is long-term storage and viewing of physical books. The books take up space, must be handled with care, and will deteriorate eventually (though hopefully slowly as preservation methods have advanced).

Donate it to the Internet Archive. Their Open Library initiative can take care of those details.

I think they're overloaded. I donated some books 18 months ago, and they still don't show up on Open Library. And many were popular books published in the last few decades, not obscure old books.

I think it is reasonable for group of libraries to have some central storage where they move 1-2 copies of old books and then get rid of rest. I think that is not excessive requirement. Ofc, that does mean need to have larger group of them working together.

I wonder if anyone has ever put a name to this viewpoint: "I don't intend to use it, nor do I intend to contribute to its upkeep, but I expect it to be available."

I'm not sure, but I think your comment is meant to be be sardonic.

I get that angle, but IMO there are some things that legitimately fall into that category, to a degree. Things that benefit others, or "society in general", but not me in particular.

For instance, I get no direct benefit from paying for public education (I'm done with school myself, no children), but I like to live in a society that is generally educated. So, I happily pay my taxes.

I suppose this might somehwat go against your "nor do I intend to contribute to its upkeep" provision, but I don't particularly track down and intentionally discover just every which way my tax dollars are spent, yet still I think its a good idea to pay that money, for the various things it provides for various people, even if it's not me directly.

Or to bring it back to the discussion at hand: It seems reasonable to wish (though not expect, per se) that a library has certain books available to the community, even if I don't personally read them. It's the fact that nobody is checking them out that makes them a waste of space in this particular instance.

Just my 2¢.

The term is "inclusivity" -- supporting minority interests against the tyranny of the majority.

Theoretically entitled?

Hoarding?

> Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it?

That is precisely why a public library should get rid of it. There's a limited amount of shelf space; a 60-year-old book which nobody is reading is a waste of that space.

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL6917895W/Singer_sewing_book

I wonder if they're just trolling with scanned books they've found online?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com