> I don't believe so - but I can't recall the last set of statistics I
> saw which were guaranteed correct with no margin of error. For
> example, every so often books come back to the library (and this has
> been the case with every library I've worked in over a period of
> almost 20 years!) which haven't been issued but have had their
> security deactivated so we know they were checked through the issue
> desk even though the computer swears otherwise; some library users
> come into the library, read voraciously but never actually borrow
> anything to take home; readers borrow their favourite book to reread
> it once a year; books are shared around between families so come back
> after 3 weeks having been read 3 times each.
>
> We could all blow gaskets for the sake of statistics - we don't know,
> short of taking surveys on every returned item, how many people have
> read the book in the time it's on loan. Personally I feel the
> simplest option for the sake of our sanity is to count each loan as a
> loan, whether first time, renewal or someone re-reading something they
> loved last year. If I pay to see the same film twice at the cinema
> they count two visits, not one with a break in the middle for a hot
> dog and a dash to the Ladies', even if they have my debit card details
> to prove it's the same person (this isn't something I've ever done btw
> - at least, not twice on the same day!).
>
> Regards,
> Angela
>
> On Thursday, August 14, 2008, at 07:23 pm, Frances Hendrix wrote:
>
>> Just had a thought.
>>
>> Have the statistics on lending been skewed for years? If every
>> renewal of a book (maybe even to avoid fines), has been counted by
>> public libraries as a new loan and a new borrower, hasn't it been a
>> case of misleading information?
>>
>> f
>> Frances Hendrix
>> Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6
>> 7QR, UK
>> tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488
>> email: [log in to unmask]
|