I probably shouldn’t comment any more on this because (a) this is a public library issue and I have never held a real position at a public library (shelving books in the children’s section for 8 hrs/week doesn’t count); (b) after commenting in two separate locations earlier today I shouldn’t beat a dead horse; and (c) I’m straying into “if you don’t agree with me, you are wrong” territory. But here I go. You have been warned.

Jessamyn West linked to This is Broken – Denver Library notice, a blog post about how the Denver Public Library sent the poster an email overdue notice after the book was already 10 days overdue. The poster noted that the Colorado Springs Pikes Peak Library District sends the email the day before the item is due. (PPLD is my hometown public library. It is a really excellent public library, from this patron’s perspective.)

I wasn’t familiar with This is Broken, but the tagline is “A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it.”

So here we have a guy saying not “I don’t think libraries should have fines” or “I don’t want to pay fines,” (though he does draw the surely erroneous conclusion that the library does this to increase revenue from fines), but that it would be better for him and for the library and for anyone else who wants the books he has checked out if the library could email him before the books are due.

In the comments, though, a circulation manager and a person who says that he or she has been “running public libraries for over 20 years” take the opportunity to lecture the poster on personal responsibility. The comments on librarian.net similarly feature two commenters claiming the poster is ducking his responsibility.

This, in my personal opinion, is just nuts. (And I said so in the comments. Here is my comment on librarian.net; my This is Broken comment is the one by “hatchibombotar”).

Here is a person saying that his experience using the library would be better if the library changed their email notifications, and the representatives of the library community tell him he is an irresponsible twit. (I should note that the commenters aren’t from the Denver Public Library, whom, I’m sure, would handle the complaint/suggestion with more tact.)

The point is that our beloved Integrated Library Systems should know better than anyone who has what checked out and when it is due. Why expect patrons to hang on to those irritating little receipt print-outs from the circulation computers when the system could just send them a courtesy email? Sure, before the age of computers and email, I probably would have had to carefully keep the dozen almost-identical books on rockets that my son currently has checked out in little piles depending on what day they are due, but why make the patron do that when the computer can do it better?

A more serious problem is mentioned by commenters at both This is Broken and librarian.net: some ILSes don’t do this properly. In some cases, patrons can choose email, phone, or mailed notices. Obviously, libraries don’t want to snail mail thousands of courtesy notices at cost to the library, when most of those books will come back on time anyway. But their ILS can’t differentiate between print and email notices. I.e., they can’t set up a system where “email patrons” get courtesy notices, but “snail mail patrons” only get the overdue notices.

This is worse than nuts. This is pathetic.

Doing a little logical exercise such as “IF the patron gets email notices THEN send a courtesy notice; IF the patron gets snail mail notices, THEN wait to send overdue notice” is the kind of thing a computer should be great at. That a library would have to wait for a future release or custom programming strikes me as ridiculous.

Anyway, I’m right, they are wrong, and get off my lawn. (Right? I mean, it’s not me, it’s them. Right?)