My photo
Racine, Wisconsin, United States
We (my wife and I) are celebrating the 11th Anniversary of HAPLR, and more importantly, our 38th Anniversary. The HAPLR system uses data provided by 9,000 public libraries in the United States to create comparative rankings. The comparisons are in broad population categories. HAPLR provides a comparative rating system that librarians, trustees and the public can use to improve and extend library services. I am the director of Waukesha County Federated Library System.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Reference and/or Electronic Resource measures

Why does the LJ Index not use reference data? Don’t we deserve more than the off handed “that’s for another article” as they put it in this LJ Index article? We need to be clear. ‘Users of Electronic Resources" as a category is included in the LJ Index but not Reference. There should be some very unhappy reference librarians out there. The federal data on which both the LJ Index and HAPLR are based has included Reference queries since it’s inception.

The “users of electronic resources” number is new this (2006) year, although it has been in the ‘testing phase’ for a number of years. How can the LJ Index reject, without any real comment a measure that has been around for decades and embrace one that is brand new, also without comment?


  1. I think that the LJ rating and your rating are both good for the library world. In many ways the compliment and validate one another. It is good to be able to show the public and the elected officials that two different ranking systems both like what the library is doing. It is also nice that LJ, a respected peridocal that is not affiliated with any organization, recognizes thae hard work that libraries do. It is i great boost for the staff and for the elected officials.

  2. Doug,
    I agree. As noted, I welcome the LJ Index into the library rating world. Still troubled by LJ using the new electronic resources while rejecting reference; both without comment, though.



Blog Archive