aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Anyway-the DDS is according to topic:

000 Generalities
100 Philosophy & psychology
200 Religion
300 Social sciences
400 Language
500 Natural sciences & mathematics
600 Technology (Applied sciences)
700 The arts
800 Literature & rhetoric
900 Geography & history

and though it does need to be tweaked, it's still very useable-as is the Library of Congress classification method:

A GENERAL WORKS
B PHILOSOPHY. PSYCHOLOGY. RELIGION
C AUXILIARY SCIENCES OF HISTORY
D HISTORY: GENERAL AND OLD WORLD
E HISTORY: AMERICA
F HISTORY: AMERICA
G GEOGRAPHY. ANTHROPOLOGY. RECREATION
H SOCIAL SCIENCES
J POLITICAL SCIENCE
K LAW
L EDUCATION
M MUSIC AND BOOKS ON MUSIC
N FINE ARTS
P LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
Q SCIENCE
R MEDICINE
S AGRICULTURE
T TECHNOLOGY
U MILITARY SCIENCE
V NAVAL SCIENCE
Z BIBLIOGRAPHY. LIBRARY SCIENCE. INFORMATION RESOURCES (GENERAL)

There is a movement in the public library world to market library services as if libraries were retail outlets. It has its adherents and its detractors. Sounds like the Gilbert library is following in those footsteps.

I like to think of it as the LCD school of librarianship myself.

Rosefolly, MLIS

I've spent a lot of time in libraries, and the Dewey Decimal system is good at helping you find exactly the book you want in a large collection. The library of Congress system is even better. However, neither of them are sacred and IMO both are overkill for most small public libraries.

The problem isn't that the systems aren't based on topics, it's that the topics are too fine-grained. Let's say you want to pick up a couple of classics like Great Expectations and Absalom, Absalom!. In a bookstore or a library that has organized all prose fiction together, a patron would: find the fiction section; find the authors beginning with D and get the fist book; go down the row a bit to the authors beginning with F and find the second book.

Under the Dewey system, the patron would almost certainly first have to look the books up; browsing won't work. However, let's say they know that fiction is in the 800s. To get the Dickens, they'd go to section 823 and find the DIC section and select the book, then they'd head back to 813 and find the FAU section, thus traversing the alphabet twice. Now that process makes perfect sense if you are in an academic mindset, but for someone just looking for a book, it's a bit much.

For most small, public library, I imagine a modified Dewey system with different signs would be sufficient. After all, the difference between how a bookstore shelves history books and how a library does is pretty minimal.

I couldn't disagree more. Classification of knowledge is the key to finding what you need, and then using it, in whatever field. Horticulture, as just one example, was a vast thicket until Linnaeus devised his system of binomial nomenclature, usable by everyone around the world, in whatever language.

Tossing the Dewey Decimal System is another example of bibliophobic librarians keeping themselves busy. Many tons of books and periodicals--our irreplaceable cultural heritage--have been pulped in the last fifteen years or so by the librarians who should have been on the front lines of those protecting them. As a research historian, I have watched this happen and it has significantly affected my ability to do what I do. This is just more bad news.

I am definitely against fiction books being classified according to topic instead of alpha order. Both our local Public library and the small library in my retirement village have gone that route. As some books could go into several classifications, I have to hunt around to find the authors I want. It's an aggravating time-wasting muddle!

I think all libraries that I have used have only used Dewey for the non-fiction.
I agree that classifying fiction by genre is not helpful - one person's romance is another's fiction. We used to have Literature, Australian Literature and Fiction at work but have combined these into the one category of fiction. We still have Crime, and Sci-Fi/Fantasy sections and even these can be controversial. Classics is another section but this is for authors dead for over a hundred years, so it is easier to categorise.

As a former library assistant, I agree with Ginny. I happen to like the Dewey System. I think once you learn to work with its fine points, I becomes logical and easy to figure out. Libraries are not retail book stores and I don't like to think of libraries being dumbed down. But then, maybe I am just a traditionalist....

I teach 4th graders to use the DDS-and they pick it up quite quickly-for the Gilbert library to infer that the library patrons can't figure it out, so we need to make the library look like a B&N, is demeaning.
As a side note, the 800 category contains a lot of non-fiction about literature-lit. crit., as well as poetry collections, but I too have found that most libraries do fiction by author's last name. Our little town library does shelve mysteries in isolation-the explanation given to the volunteers of what makes a mystery vs. a suspense novel a la Daniel Silva is: (for what it's worth...I think it's a bit dicey....)
If you know who-done-it near the beginning, and the plot is the chase and the capture/escape, then it's a thriller-if you don't know who-done-it until the end, and you see the clues as the police do, it's a mystery.
I'd rather see them all shelved together, since some authors write both.

i always thought that the dewey system grouped the books into topics. most libraries put fiction all together in one area, reference in another area and non-fiction into a third area-- alot of times reference books start the non-fiction section. i usually don't have trouble finding what book i want or sort of book i'd like. (oh, wait a second, i forget that when i went to school they actually taught you-- sorry different issue)yes dewey could be improved upon-- like they could but signs up in the non-fiction areas that
list the topics on the row of books-- what i hate is that my library puts all the oversized non-fiction books in a special area after all the other regular sized non-fiction so you have to search the collection twice if you are just strolling thru the stacks and not seeking a specific book.
diggerb

To answer this quickly, "NO. KEEP DEWEY!"

To answer it in the long version:
It saddens me to see the changes in the library systems over the past few years. Libraries are expected to not only carry books, mags, and newspapers, but now they must also carry DVDs, CDs, audio books, internet service, and plan a huge host of programs just to keep people coming in the door - and do all of it whilst our "esteemed" governmental leaders on all levels cut funding. I see any change in the book section of the library as a means of weeding out books to make room for all of the other crap..er, I mean stuff. Keep Dewey, keep Dewey, keep Dewey.

PAM

It really doesn't matter what classification system is used in a library, as long as there is a system, it is consistent, easy to understand, and it's easy to find the books you are looking for, even if it means checking the library catalog/database. What I love about Dewey is how it can be adjusted to the needs of each library. A small municipal library may only use the basic classifications, while a research library can be as precise as it wants to be.

The Reykjavík public library uses a modified genre-based Dewey system for fiction in English, and while I approve of adjusting the system to the library's needs, it's so inconsistent that it is driving me nuts. Crime novels are kept separately and so are science fiction and fantasy (together!) and romance. They say it is done to make things easier for genre fans, but what is the use of such a system when one librarian files, say, Nora Roberts under romance and another under general fiction and the third under crime and Kurt Vonnegut appears both in the sci-fi and the general fiction section? (I think the problem is that no-one knows what to do with genre-crossing novels). Not all the branches use this system or use it differently, so you have to learn everything all over again if you go to a different branch. Additionally, the computer database does not tell you if a book is classified as general fiction or under a genre (they all have the same Dewey number), so you never know where to look. Furthermore, this system is not used for Icelandic literature or translated literature, or indeed for the literature of any other language than English. It's confusing and I wish they would use the same system all over and be more consistent in their filing.

One thing about the Dewey Decimal System or DDS, it is a standardized system of classification. Go into any library that uses it, and it is the same from library to library.

Okay. Drop DDS and use topics to classify books. Is every library that uses topics to classify books, going to use the same topics? And if they use the exactly same topics, is every book filed under one topic, going to be filed under the same topic at another library? And in the same place under that topic?