Re: CSU library finds 40% of collection hasn't circulated

That kind of thing is encouraging -- but _one_ last copy is totally not 
enough. Especially if it's a circulating copy! (I think it is in that 
policy?)  I think a report somewhere was suggesting that 2-3 copies was 
sufficient when not circulating, and when actually manually checked to 
make sure every page is intact (something we don't actually have the 
resources to do). (Can't remember what this report was, and don't have 
time to try and hunt it down).

So one non-checked circulating copy does not fill me with confidence.

B.G. Sloan wrote:
> Jonathan Rochkind mentions last copy retention of paper copies. Here's one example of a consortial last-copy-retention policy (from the CARLI consortium in Illinois): http://bit.ly/c4tixI
>  
> Bernie Sloan
>
> --- On Thu, 10/7/10, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] CSU library finds 40% of collection hasn't circulated
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Thursday, October 7, 2010, 12:39 PM
>
>
> KLINGLER, THOMAS wrote:
>   
>> have designed decision processes to move the paper to the recycle bin, the depository, or elsewhere based on state-wide principles of weeding/retention.
>>    
>>     
> That's the important part. It _is_ important, at least I think so, collectively, that some library somewhere (and ideally more than one) keep paper copies of stuff like this -- stuff we have online, stuff nobody ever looks at, etc. 
> But it's _not_ neccesary for _every_ library to keep a duplicate copy of the same thing that nobody ever actually uses.
>
> Cross-library state-wide or what have you arrangements to make sure _somebody's_ keeping it are the way to go.  I know there's been lots of talk and planning around that over the past few years, I don't personally have a sense of how well it's working, because it's not my area of work.
>
> Jonathan
>
>   
>>    
>>     
>
>
>       
>
>