[thefastlane]

good call, thanks for clarifying the librarian was suspended, not fired.

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.

[x1798DE]

It's not a false dichotomy, I'm saying that some books need to be culled and that they need to make decisions about it. One of the metrics they have to use to make those decisions is what is being checked out and, like I said, regardless of how they use the metrics, this guy was manipulating them. It would be better if he made the argument that they shouldn't use the metric than to just manipulate the metric into doing what he wanted.

[JoeAltmaier]

I'm guess that, like me, he's appalled that a library should choose to discard useful books on the basis of popularity. I'd manipulate goofy metrics like hell to preserve the collection too. Else you end up with a popular-culture library with a memory of a year or so. Instead of a true library.

All that's been said. I'm just agreeing with the strategy to defy the Philistines at all costs. The librarian was a hero.