Library Creates Fake Patron Records To Avoid Book-Purging (heraldnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Chuck Finley checked out 2,361 books from a Florida library in just nine months, increasing their total circulation by 3.9%. But he doesn't exist. "The fictional character was concocted by two employees at the library, complete with a false address and driver's license number," according to the Orlando Sentinel. The department overseeing the library acknowledges their general rule is "if something isn't circulated in one to two years, it's typically weeded out of circulation." So the fake patron scheme was concocted by a library assistant working with the library's branch supervisor, who "said he wanted to avoid having to later repurchase books purged from the shelf." But according to the newspaper the branch supervisor "said the same thing is being done at other libraries, too."

Comments

Its not a fictional name, just an alias

[Anonymous Coward]

His real name is Sam Axe.

Good for them

[willoughby]

Displaying initiative and ingenuity in order to work around idiotic managerial policies & decisions. Give 'em a raise!

Re:Good for them

[dangle]

This is one possibility, but the "That way I wouldn't have to repurchase them again in the future" argument seems pretty weak, given that once most books have their day, circulation drops to zero for years (which is why it does make sense to purge books from smaller libraries). I think the more likely possibility is that it was a scheme to boost circulation numbers to protect their budget, as suggested in TFA.

Re:Good for them

[v1]

If they were just trying to bolster funding, one would expect that they would inflate checkout rates for more popular titles then so as not to draw suspicion. Despite there being other possible options for "ulterior motive", "looking for a fix to offset a stupid decision by upper management" (or what someone passionately believed was a bad decision) looks like the frontrunner.

The policy's primary reasoning/justification was probably "clearing shelf space to make room for new books", so ultimately the need for that will end up getting re-examined. That's the risk you take when going behind management's back. You have to be sure that when your actions finally get exposed (and they almost always DO), you not only need to be right, but you need to be show to be unambiguously right. (and sometimes that's not even enough - they're management after all, and just like you they're allowed to make mistakes occasionally) Sometimes managers have a caretaker above them that will shelter them from fallout due to ineptitude, so either it doesn't matter or they don't care if they're wrong.

So it's difficult to defend what may have been a very well-intentioned act without substantial evidence to show that it was justified or perhaps necessary. I just don't think we have enough evidence at this point. Maybe later.

Re:Good for them

[meerling]

You may be right, but librarians have a nearly genetic imperative to prevent the loss of any book, even if nobody has read it in centuries.
It's also a point of professional pride and the loss of books is at odds with their stated goals.
If you really want to see what it's like, hold a book burning in front of your local library.

Re:Good for them

[Dutch Gun]

By holding onto clearly unpopular titles (not one checkout in a year or two), they were ensuring that potentially newer and more popular titles had no space in their library. I'm not sure how anyone could believe this was in the best interest of the library.

I can only think of a few motivations. An arrogant: "We know what's best for you." or "Everything new is crap" attitude, or perhaps purging books simply means more work for the librarians, and so this seemed easier to them. I'm leaning towards the latter explanation, as a kid's book titled "Why Do My Ears Pop?" doesn't exactly seem like high literature worth preserving for all time.

George Dore, the library’s branch supervisor who was put on administrative leave for his part in the episode, said he wanted to avoid having to later repurchase books purged from the shelf. He said the same thing is being done at other libraries, too.

And this makes no sense. If the books were not being checked out for years at a time, why would they have to later re-purchase the book?

Re:Good for them

[Dutch Gun]

Ah, of course! It's clearly a plot by the DNC to promote their "fake books." I have a suspicion of what deviltry we'd find in that innocent-sounding "Why Do My Ears Pop?" book:

Susie: "Hey Mom, why do my ears pop?"

Mom: "Because Republicans are bad and want to hurt you. What you're feeling is the concentrated evil of failed Republic policies leftover from the Reagan era."

Susie: *cries*

Re:Good for them

[lucm]

The policy's primary reasoning/justification was probably "clearing shelf space to make room for new books"

Yes get rid of that Steinbeck crap so there's more room for extra copies of "The Secret" and "Fifty shades of Grey". It's called the Blockbuster Syndrome.

Re:Good for them

[Locke2005]

"They have control of the public schools"??? You know most schoolbooks are the ones approved in that bastion of liberal thought know as Texas, right?

Re:Good for them

[drinkypoo]

That's not how weeding works. Last years' "blockbusters" are the ones that get weeded out and replaced with this year's "blockbusters."
Classics will tend to stay around,

Unless nobody happens to rent them for a year. Maybe they get them from other sources, like project Gutenberg, so the demand is filled some other way. And then someone comes into the library in the middle of January and tries to check it out, and it's gone, because...

It isn't like librarians aren't actually professionals who have been thoughtfully working this stuff out for centuries.

...sometimes they get subjected to stupid policies that make it harder to do their jobs.

Re:Good for them

[mysidia]

Someone will be along to checkout 'It takes a village' any year now. They just know it.

Why are they using checkouts as the metric to decide on purges, anyways?

I pull books all the time, mostly non-fiction materials, and read from them, maybe take the notes and record the details I need for later reference for what i'm working on, and then put the book back on the shelf in the same slot I got it from.

At no point is it necessary to check most of the books out and take it out of the library.....
I sometimes do that, but it doesn't mean the books I didn't need to check-out were not useful.

Especially the periodical volumes, which for some reason... we're not allowed to checkout, anyways.

Re:Why purge?

[Darinbob]

But this process means they keep new mass market fluff, and not old out of print books.

Re:Why purge?

[tsa]

Most books are corporate approved, or they wouldn't be sold. Only very few people sell their books themselves.

Re:Why purge?

[tuxgeek]

In a more civilized time we would just expand the library.
Bonds usually are the means to pay for them. The people you elect are the ones you pay to do this stuff.
This process tends to make for jobs which tends to keep money flowing around an area.
It's a part of capitalism that seems to have been lost.
From a more civilized time.