What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog • Hacker News Board

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#11

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

losteverything wrote: post #4

Anyone remember taking Library Class? Learning card catalogue, Dewey decimal system, how to use microfiche, film strips, difference between fiction and non-fiction? Part of cycle: home ec, industrial arts and keyboarding (elec piano)

No, that was stuff we just learned as part of general coursework (at secondary level, integrated into the English curriculum) starting in elementary school, not a specific class.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#12

Post by moftz » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

norea-armozel wrote: post #2

I think the problem I have with modern election search is that often presented with what I don't want and I have to craft my query to get a decent list of sources. Mind you, this was way back in 2009 at Wichita State but the experience always seem to come up even when I use Google Scholar or equivalent modern search indices. They always seem to be off in terms of accuracy and relevance on the searches (especially now…

But going back to a card catalog system, you can really only search in ways that someone else has created. You can't search by words within an article, you can't search using regular expressions (or at least some boolean operators), and you can only find things as fast as you can thumb through a stack of cards. At least with a search engine, if I type in a query that isn't going to find me what I'm actually looking for, I can quickly change my query and try again. Also, I'm relying on a librarian to know what I'm asking for. Someone can be very helpful in pointing you towards a stack that contains books about my subject but I will still need to do the work of searching through the books to find relevant ones and then still search through them individually to find the bit on info I need. I'm going to encounter a lot of information I don't care about. With a Google Scholar or University library search engine, I'm going to find the exact keywords I'm looking for and maybe some other related terms that I didn't think of. Search engines can be very helpful but you need to know what you are looking for otherwise you are just going to end up doing the same browsing you would have been doing 30+ years ago.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#13

Post by losteverything » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

E6300 wrote: post #9

losteverything wrote: post #4

Anyone remember taking Library Class? Learning card catalogue, Dewey decimal system, how to use microfiche, film strips, difference between fiction and non-fiction? Part of cycle: home ec, industrial arts and keyboarding (elec piano)

> difference between fiction and non-fiction Wait, was that actually part of a curriculum? Surely if you know what "fiction" and "non-" mean you can understand the difference between the two.

Yeah. Not like definition but when and where to find a book

F by name, located in a separate area; NF by number. Etc.

Sample assignment. Diary of Anne Frank. List all areas of the library that have information about the subject (and give name title author(s) etc. And list why you would use that source.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#14

Post by lr4444lr » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:05 PM UTC

sharkjacobs wrote: post #10

> A national card catalogue system was the original “search engine” — one that ... was truly democratic. I don't think I get how a digital library catalogue is less democratic than an analogue one? Is this just a poorly thought out and tossed off claim or is there something I'm missing.

I think the implied point is that somehow telecom business or software design wizards are meddling with what the user sees in digital catalogues, in contrast to the Dewey Decimal, LoC, or other supposedly more neutral topical classification.

It's still a tossed-off claim, and I wouldn't even agree anyway under the best good-faith understanding of what he's trying to say.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#15

Post by Analemma_ » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

Most of these comments seem to read more into the guy's article than there is. Nowhere did he advocate throwing away digital searches and returning to card catalogues. You can be nostalgic for something old-- especially just the aesthetic, which is mostly the case here-- without demanding it be brought back.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#16

Post by fallous » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #3

Remember, technology is only good after it's old and been around for a while. When it's new, it's scary and bad. I look forward to being 90 and reading about people wistfully remembering the simpler and more cultured bygone days of smartphones and Facebook.

The inverse of course is to remember that new technology is hot, cutting edge, and cool... thus good! Old technology is just tech that has managed to solve problems for years, survived many users, grown through numerous changes in application and expectation, and has an established base of understanding and knowledge both within its very implementation as well as those who work with and on it. I look backward on the 40+ years of predictions to the ends of paper, internal combustion, hydrocarbon fuels, and general ignorance since I've been reading and chuckle remembering the hubris of those who were certain the hot new thing would clearly displace older technology simply because something was new.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#17

Post by pleasecalllater » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:12 PM UTC

Well, years ago I was implementing the marc21 file format, which is the format used for the paper cards. What's more, when the card systems, in the libraries I was using, had been moved to computers, I could search the cards, and I even had a view which looked exactly like on the paper cards.

So in reality the computers just made the searching faster and parallel.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#18

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

galonk wrote: post #8

What an incredibly stupid article. The author is supposed to be talking about card catalogues, but then keeps talking about books and libraries. We're not getting rid of those, we're getting rid of card catalogues. Somehow I don't think we should force librarians to keep hand-writing or typing cards for every book, or deprive users of search functions, just for this idiot's BS Wes Anderson aesthetic.

[deleted]

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#19

Post by pleasecalllater » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

Well, years I was implementing the marc21 file format, which is the format used for the paper cards. What's more, when the card systems, in the libraries I was using, had been moved to computers, I could search the cards, and I even had a view which looked exactly like on the paper cards.

So in reality the computers just made the searching faster and parallel.

Re: What libraries lost when they threw out the card catalog

#20

Post by Finnucane » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 7:15 PM UTC

One of the first jobs I had out of school was transcribing hand-written catalog records for a then-new digital catalog. The big worry (this was well before Google, Worldcat, etc. existed) in those days was that much of the bibliographic metadata that had accumulated in the card catalog would be lost, because the effort to digitize it all would be too great. The new digital catalog only had a very simplified version. Over time, of course, the systems improved to the point where I don't think even librarians want to go back to the old way.