The Home Library Problem Solved 328
Zack Grossbart writes "About 18 months ago I posted the following question to Ask Slashdot: 'How do you organize a home library with 3,500 books?' I have read all the responses, reviewed most of the available software, and come up with a good solution described in the article The Library Problem. This article discusses various cataloging schemes, reviews cheap barcode scanners, and outlines a complete solution for organizing your home library. Now you can see an Ask Slashdot question with a definitive answer."
Pictures?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Dead tree format is dead (Score:2, Insightful)
The big advantages of reading e-books:
I read "the god delusion" a while back which was (at least at the time) not available in e-book format, so I had to buy the dead tree edition. I was really surprised, after not having read a dead tree book for a long time, how annoyed I was by the limitations of paper books.
Re:There's this great new system (Score:3, Insightful)
Delicious Library + shelf labels (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this tagged richbastard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what the hell?
Doesn't everyone here have a hobby or two they spend a fair bit of money on? Perhaps it's your computer gear, maybe it's model airplanes, maybe it's your car or your audio system. Last I checked, an awful lot of geeks had a particular hobby they enjoyed and spent money on, and they don't have to be 'rich bastards' to do so. They just have to value enjoying themselves over... What? Hording money? So this man's hobby is reading and his library, and he enjoys organizing it in a creative way.
Sheesh.
Not a rich bastard (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone tagged this rich bastard, but I don't think that's extreme at all. I've kept nearly every book I've ever bought in my life, and I probably have around 800. And I'm only 21 years old (thankfully my parents have an empty garage and I was reading from age 2). Depending on the submitter's age and if he/she is married to another book lover it would be very easy to get to that number.
This is slashdot, right? As in news for nerds. Do nerds no longer enjoy reading?
Re:Dead tree format is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dewey you fool! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kind of ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more to cataloging books than just finding them. We've probably got only a couple thousand, but my wife catalogs them using LibraryThing [librarything.com] and also stores them in a local file. To my knowledge, we've never used either to find a book in our house, but these things give us:
I agree that you don't need a computer to find a book in a collection of less than 10,000 books. If you can't organize those physically well enough to find them without a computer, a computer is just going to make it harder. Sorting by fiction/non-fiction and then by author is sufficient for us (with a special computer books section) to find anything pretty quickly. But it's pretty difficult to remember if you already have book sixty-two in the "Accordion of Fate" series or whether you have the third or fourth edition of O'Reilly's "Programming $ELITIST_LANGUAGE_OF_THE_MONTH" when you're out and about. And if you lose your whole collection, the chances of remembering the whole thing are virtually nil unless you have perfect photographic memory, in which case, why do you need to keep books around in the first place? :-)
And the flamebait mod for the parent post was unfair and I hope it's M2ed as such.
Re:You don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dead tree format is dead (Score:4, Insightful)
A friend of mine can come over and borrow one of my ~1,500 real books.
They cannot do that with an e-book. They cannot transfer one of my "e-books" to their reader. I guess publishers want everyone that reads a book to pay? Hmmm. Am I the only one that has ever borrowed a book?
I personally was never into vampire books until my dad gave me a book of his to read. Guess what, since reading the one borrowed book, I bought about 12 vampire books.
Lending books without restrictions creates more profit. End of story. My aunt is big on classic works, works in the public domain. After she lent me two books, I paid for copies of several books that I can download free since they are in the public domain.
I am not trolling, e-books currently suck. The readers are crap, sorry kindle-fans, and the DRM/lock-down is not acceptable to avid readers. When an electronic book comes along that I can lend to a friend without it being tracked, then I might consider it. For now, I still want a physical book. I can lend out a physical book without some book company tracking it or putting a time limit on it.
Re:You don't (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read a book just for entertainment, there's no point in keeping it around once you know how it ends (unless it's really a classic that you want to keep for quoting passages, but that's not a high percentage of books for an average reader).
Re:Dead tree format is dead (Score:0, Insightful)
Able to be read, reread, marked up, compared...E-books are, quite frankly, a joke when it comes to serious academic usage. There is no gain in having them compared with a well-organized library, and, in fact, there is a lot to lose by using them. The utility of the e-book is incredibly limited; effectively, only geeks like you who only read Heinlein or Rand can ever find use for it. For everybody else, the tried-and-true technology that has lasted thousands of years will suffice.
Re: Why is this tagged richbastard? (Score:3, Insightful)
The submitter does sound like a very rich man: intellectually and emotionally, which I would always take over an Escalade [cadillac.com].
* Note to the humor impaired: this is a joke.
Re:You don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do you _need_ 3500 books? (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as we're making value judgments for strangers, here's my suggestion for you: why don't you sell those last 50 books of yours and give the money to the homeless? If they're valuable, they're worth a lot! If they're rare, then those are the ones that it's most important that you not hoard, right? </smart-assery>
No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their possessions. And who are you to say he'll never read them? Even so, a book's value isn't only in being read cover-to-cover. Maybe he refers to them every so often. Maybe he wants to keep them for his kids. Maybe he parades his friends through the house and they all borrow books all the time. He's going through great effort to catalog them. That implies that they see some use. If they just sat on the shelves, untouched, he could type up a list as a text file--hell, with a typewriter--and be done with it.
Besides, on a practical note, I don't think there's a terrible shortage of books in the world. I visit my local library often and the shelves are literally 99.9% full at any given moment. If you look at his profile, he's in freaking Cambridge, Mass. I think they're pretty well set for books in that town. And before the "send them to Podunk, IA!" responses come in: go back to my original argument--it's not up to you to decide what someone else should do with their stuff.
Re:IP business model (Score:3, Insightful)
What's fair about someone else having a say in how often I do something that doesn't affect them in the least? If they want to keep what they've done private, I have no problem with that. Once they release it into the wild, for whatever reason, they have lost control of it.
Should the worker in the plate factory be able to tell you what you can or can't eat off of "his" plates?
Ok, so you spend a day installing a beautiful new bathroom for me, and plan to recoup your time investment every time I use the toilet, wash my hands, take a shower (do I have to pay extra if their are two people in the shower? Do you get to watch?) ... what if I decide I don't like it after a week, so I get someone else to come in, knock it all out and put in a different one. Guess you're going out of business!
Per-use charges only make sense when each use actually "costs" something, and even then is inefficient if the costs of tracking and collecting the per-use charges are more than a very small fraction of the actual cost. The people who complain about "having to pay for" cable channels they don't watch are foolish - for most people, they'll end up paying MORE for the channels they do watch, even if the cable company doesn't make any more money. Making it pay-per-view would be even worse, at least from the standpoint of quality and creativity.