|
|
|
|
|
by x1798DE
3460 days ago
|
|
Says he was suspended, not fired. Also, he was deliberately messing with their metrics. Presumably they want to sell or otherwise discard books that no one is checking out in favor of ones that have useful and relevant information. By pretending that the ones no one cares about are actually popular, you're preventing the library from acquiring books that people actually want to read. Their metrics may be flawed, but it's not like all discarding of books is a bad idea. |
|
But you create a false dichotomy between books no one checks ou' and books with useful and relevant information. if a book doesn't get checked out for, say, a year, is that an indication that it contains no useful information? on what basis?
i'd go further and say this is not a case of flawed metrics but flawed ideology. i don't want my tax dollars to fund the book-equivalent of redbox. i want my tax dollars to fund the preservation and archiving and availability of knowledge, regardless of how 'popular' an algorithm says it is.
granted, a library cannot hold infinite books. but i'd take the curation of a librarian over an algorithm any day of the week.