Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: [Meta] Wait, you sort your books how???
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 08:52:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v7dnj5$3062d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v738di$n4rq$1@dont-email.me> <lfknm2F2dnU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v73m1i$phqk$1@dont-email.me> <v75s0q$19fdl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v76rea$1f4dn$1@dont-email.me> <v78her$1rp7a$1@dont-email.me>
 <lfqgtuFr1a6U1@mid.individual.net> <v79iqb$21vkg$1@dont-email.me>
 <rcii9jpvrv7rvd318h3ee2lf4t15hsb2la@4ax.com> <v7cf4p$2lrbl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 14:52:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f31ec21c93cccbb2ad477099f6543e0d";
	logging-data="3151949"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gvauxLAjuHh4gV3nSUeIDzI82yDKztwg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GiyNB0W60M4q7wtOcipOH7fQPlw=
In-Reply-To: <v7cf4p$2lrbl$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6242

On 7/18/2024 9:22 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 7/18/2024 12:58 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 19:06:51 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/17/2024 2:30 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-17, BillGill <tonisdad215@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/16/2024 5:15 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 9:19 AM, BillGill wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 12:25 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:48 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <v738di$n4rq$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> Tony Nance  <tnusenet17@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More signs of madness in this crazy world:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just ran across the results of a poll that asked 29,000 
>>>>>>>>>> Americans
>>>>>>>>>> about their book-owning habits, and friends, I am shocked — 
>>>>>>>>>> shocked! —
>>>>>>>>>> to report that there are people who have absolutely no 
>>>>>>>>>> organizational
>>>>>>>>>> system whatsoever. Worse — worse, I tell you — there are some 
>>>>>>>>>> who sort
>>>>>>>>>> their books by color. Color!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here’s a link to the main source (published in October):
>>>>>>>>>> https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/47712-how-many-books-americans-own-and-how-they-organize-them
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could read the link, I suppose, but I wonder how many people 
>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> have a sufficient number of books such that they need to be 
>>>>>>>>> organized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a general observation, the viability of various organizational
>>>>>>>> systems depends on the number of books to be organized. What works
>>>>>>>> reasonably well for a few hundred books -- e.g. sorting by the
>>>>>>>> author's last name -- may be problematic for a collection with a 
>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>> thousand books and completely unworkable for a collection that
>>>>>>>> contains tens of thousands of books.
>>>>>>> Have you checked your local library lately?  They do have
>>>>>>> thousands of books.  They use a system that separates the
>>>>>>> books by class, first fiction and non-fiction.  Then
>>>>>>> they separate the non-fiction according to the Dewey Decimal
>>>>>>> Code.  The Fiction is separated into a number of sub
>>>>>>> classifications, such as General Fiction, Mysteries,
>>>>>>> Science Fiction, and of course Children's.  Then within
>>>>>>> those categories they are sorted by the author's last
>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a viable system for certain types of use cases. 
>>>>>> Unfortunately, any
>>>>>> system that sorts books "by the author's last name" comes with 
>>>>>> inherent
>>>>>> limitations. Suppose you have N bookcases dedicated to authors whose
>>>>>> last name starts with an "H". Everything is fine as long as your 
>>>>>> library
>>>>>> is static or close to it. Then you discover that you absolutely 
>>>>>> love D.
>>>>>> K. Holmberg (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?200173) and/or 
>>>>>> Nathan
>>>>>> Hystad (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?249647) -- to pick two
>>>>>> random prolific authors -- and suddenly you have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm don't understand what the problem is.  Are you suggesting that
>>>>> the books are packed in, so that there is no room to insert that
>>>>> many more?  If that is the case all you have to do is to move
>>>>> books on down the shelves to make room.  I have been known to do
>>>>> that.  Or, best case, build new shelves and spread the existing
>>>>> books out to make room.  I have been known to do that.
>>>>
>>>> "All you have to do"?? I have 88 shelves of alphabetical by author
>>>> mass market sized sf paperbacks (probably another 7-8 shelves of sf
>>>> paperbacks sorted by other criteria such as anthologies, Star Trek,
>>>> and then my Favorite bookcase is mixed with hardcovers).  When I
>>>> "discover" a "new" author like Elizabeth Bear and have to fit in 
>>>> another
>>>> 10-15 'B' books, it poses a problem!
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Indeed. I started using removable labels and word processor-based
>>> catalogs some decades ago. As an added bonus, you can fit more books
>>> into a bookcase if you separate hardcovers/trade paperbacks from mass
>>> market paperbacks, then double-stack them. A balanced mix of bindings
>>> can accommodate 700-800 books per bookcase.
>>
>> Provided, of course, that it (and each shelf) is able to bear the
>> weight.
>>
>> When the shelves start curving into a "u", that is /not/ a good sign.
>> IMHO. YMMV.
> 
> I built my shelves from poplar, and have had no problems. Pine would be
> a different matter.

The "balanced mix of bindings" that I mentioned earlier helps. 
Hardcovers do better on bottom shelves while mass market paperbacks can 
be stacked all the way to the ceiling without causing any issues.