1GraceCollection
Those of us who are familiar with, or even worse, use Dewey Decimals... What are your biggest gripes?
I know this is a common point of contention, but the 400s..... what were you thinking. The 900s (although they have their issues) have a nice division in the tens place based on continental region, then are subdivided thereafter. And yet. Every Non-European language (and quite a few European ones, esp. Eastern Europe) are relegated to the 490s? Same complaint for the 200s, although I would argue this is worse! At least German and Spanish are completely different languages; Christianity has a near complete monopoly on the 200s!
This is a lesser-talked-about one that really gets my goat. I understand why Dewey did it but it makes me so crazy. Wolves. 500s, right? Science, nature. Wolves are 599.773. Their direct descendant, the dog? 636.76. Completely different class. Having a dog is animal husbandry, which is agriculture, which is technology. Apparently. And sure, you can shoehorn it into the 500s. Which I have done, in every instance of an animal book in the entire collection. However, the default is still Wolf -> Science, Dog -> Technology. Tiger -> Science, Cat -> Technology. Buffalo -> Science, Cattle ->Technology. Wasp -> Science, Honeybee -> Technology.
Personally, I also resent computer science being in the 000s. I get that it's an information science, but C++ for Dummies isn't quite the same meta-information as a book about books or a book about information classification, and it certainly isn't as general-knowledge as your average dictionary or encyclopaedia. Computers sound an awful lot like technology to me, but what do I know? I've never touched or seen one, ever. In fact, I am not using one right now.
As you can see, I don't consider anything too big, too small, or too petty. What are your bones to pick with Melvil's Numbers?
I know this is a common point of contention, but the 400s..... what were you thinking. The 900s (although they have their issues) have a nice division in the tens place based on continental region, then are subdivided thereafter. And yet. Every Non-European language (and quite a few European ones, esp. Eastern Europe) are relegated to the 490s? Same complaint for the 200s, although I would argue this is worse! At least German and Spanish are completely different languages; Christianity has a near complete monopoly on the 200s!
This is a lesser-talked-about one that really gets my goat. I understand why Dewey did it but it makes me so crazy. Wolves. 500s, right? Science, nature. Wolves are 599.773. Their direct descendant, the dog? 636.76. Completely different class. Having a dog is animal husbandry, which is agriculture, which is technology. Apparently. And sure, you can shoehorn it into the 500s. Which I have done, in every instance of an animal book in the entire collection. However, the default is still Wolf -> Science, Dog -> Technology. Tiger -> Science, Cat -> Technology. Buffalo -> Science, Cattle ->Technology. Wasp -> Science, Honeybee -> Technology.
Personally, I also resent computer science being in the 000s. I get that it's an information science, but C++ for Dummies isn't quite the same meta-information as a book about books or a book about information classification, and it certainly isn't as general-knowledge as your average dictionary or encyclopaedia. Computers sound an awful lot like technology to me, but what do I know? I've never touched or seen one, ever. In fact, I am not using one right now.
As you can see, I don't consider anything too big, too small, or too petty. What are your bones to pick with Melvil's Numbers?
2MarthaJeanne
You can hardly blame Melville for where computer science ended up.
A 19th century librarian in New York figured out a system that worked for the libraries he was responsible for, and others liked it and used it, too.
OK, so why would you expect his system to be ideal for your needs in the 21st century. If you don't like where he put things, or where other people shoehorned new subjects in, create a system that works for you.
Actually, books about wolves are likely to be very different from books about dogs.
My biggest problem with any one dimensional system is that many of my books are multidimensional. Where do I pit books on sewing vestments? Theology or needlework?
A 19th century librarian in New York figured out a system that worked for the libraries he was responsible for, and others liked it and used it, too.
OK, so why would you expect his system to be ideal for your needs in the 21st century. If you don't like where he put things, or where other people shoehorned new subjects in, create a system that works for you.
Actually, books about wolves are likely to be very different from books about dogs.
My biggest problem with any one dimensional system is that many of my books are multidimensional. Where do I pit books on sewing vestments? Theology or needlework?
3GraceCollection
>2 MarthaJeanne:
Oh, of course I don't really blame him, I know it's an older system and all, I just wanted to commiserate with others on the limitations/issues!
I've considered, in this collection, doing some cheeky renumbering on the 200s/400s. I could generate a little infographic explaining the differences, but first I would need to do the work of actually assigning the numbers myself... Easier to throw stones from the outside, as it were. But even Melvil's original system wasn't developed in a day, I suppose... I'll add it to the list of projects around here. Not everything here uses Dewey, though. The reference section, for example, is under a unique library classification, although after 10 years and a lot of new materials, it could use some reworking and expansion...
That is true, but in this collection, instructional & self-help books (which would include, for example, guidebooks about how to train dogs) are housed separately from informational books (like books about wolves in the wild, dog breed information, etc.) Although in any case, I personally would probably be inclined to consider a book about reducing aggression in domesticated dogs to be more similar to a book about the Yellowstone pack dynamics than it is to a book about tractor upkeep, for example.
I cannot agree more about multidimensional books!! Even outside of trying to fit it in a one dimensional system like Dewey, should you place that book with other books about religion, or with other books about sewing? Right now I'm reading Braiding Sweetgrass (so far it's a great read) which is about indigenous culture, and also about sustainability/natural history... which shelf to put that one on! I despair.
Oh, of course I don't really blame him, I know it's an older system and all, I just wanted to commiserate with others on the limitations/issues!
I've considered, in this collection, doing some cheeky renumbering on the 200s/400s. I could generate a little infographic explaining the differences, but first I would need to do the work of actually assigning the numbers myself... Easier to throw stones from the outside, as it were. But even Melvil's original system wasn't developed in a day, I suppose... I'll add it to the list of projects around here. Not everything here uses Dewey, though. The reference section, for example, is under a unique library classification, although after 10 years and a lot of new materials, it could use some reworking and expansion...
That is true, but in this collection, instructional & self-help books (which would include, for example, guidebooks about how to train dogs) are housed separately from informational books (like books about wolves in the wild, dog breed information, etc.) Although in any case, I personally would probably be inclined to consider a book about reducing aggression in domesticated dogs to be more similar to a book about the Yellowstone pack dynamics than it is to a book about tractor upkeep, for example.
I cannot agree more about multidimensional books!! Even outside of trying to fit it in a one dimensional system like Dewey, should you place that book with other books about religion, or with other books about sewing? Right now I'm reading Braiding Sweetgrass (so far it's a great read) which is about indigenous culture, and also about sustainability/natural history... which shelf to put that one on! I despair.
4MarthaJeanne
I think I've read that, but I don't seem to have entered it. In fact, I actually acquired a plant of sweetgrass that did not survive in my garden. But if I owned a copy it would be with my craft books.
5MrAndrew
>2 MarthaJeanne: Needlework. If it was about blessing of needles used to make vestments, theology. Easy.
How about robotic wasps? Technology or science?
How about robotic wasps? Technology or science?
