The Kindle Monologues

libraryjournal:

librariesandlemonade:

Incredibly frustrated at people who blame libraries for not having readily available and accessible content for their e-readers.

It’s not the libraries standing in the way, kids. Generally, the libraries would love to be able to provide you with content. It’s the publishers.

This post from librariesandlemonade seems like an apt response to this.

In what way does it seem like an apt response?

I accessed my local authorities library catalogue, to reserve a copy of John Greens’ Looking For Alaska. My local library system doesn’t offer eBooks [nor should they, for the moment] - I did so, to reserve a physical copy. The local library system, which encompasses fifteen libraries - consisting of three “main libraries” and twleve smaller ones, had two copies available, both paperbacks, that were out on loan to other patrons.

[At no point, in my initial post, btw, did I criticise them, for “only” having two copies.]

I reserved myself a copy, then checked the details of both copies, to see when they were due to be returned. According to the library catalogue - and remember, this was after I’d reserved a copy:

• Copy #1, was due to be returned on January 31st, 2012.
• Copy #2, was due to be returned on February 2nd, 2012.

Which was fine - were I super desperate to read it, I’d have bought a copy [physical book, or eBook] from Amazon. As I was [and still am] merely interested in reading it, I figured it was worth the wait.

At that point - again, based on the information from the OPAC - I was position #1 of 1, in a queue of people who had reserved a copy of said title.

My complaint / query, comes from the next point in the story.

Seven days after reserving a copy, I again accessed the libraries online reservation catalogue, to see if either one of the copies had been returned early.

Why? Because, for some reason, despite being signed up for email alerts, which are supposed to notify me when a reservation is available, they never work. I get emails reminding me when my book is due back, but none to say theyr’e actually availible to pick-up.

Seven days after placing my reservation I checked the OPAC, to see if the status had changed.

It hadn’t. I was still position #1 of 1, and both books still had their original return dates. Again - please note, this is seven days after placing my reservation.

Last night - nineteen days after placing my reservation - and more importantly twelve days after confirming it - and more to the point, noting that the original details still hadn’t changed - my position in the “queue” AND the original return dates - I logged into the OPAC again.

And found the following:

• Copy #1, which was due to be returned on January 31st  - and which still had that return date SEVEN days after my reservation - is now due back on March 19th.
• Copy #2, which was due to be returned on February 2nd - and which still had that return date SEVEN days after my reservation - is now due back on March 2nd.

Given that once a patron places a reservation on a title, then at least one copy of it shouldn’t be renewable [and I can attest to this, from having borrowed books in the past, going to renew them for an additional month, and finding myself unable to do so, as the title had been requested by other patrons] I’m stuggling to understand why BOTH titles, have clearly been renwed again.

At least seven days after the initial reservation - which should have prevented one - or both, copies being “renewable”.

I fail to see why my questioning of this confuses soo many people?

(via surroundedbybooks)