I would also add, the percentages in the table are very misleading and lack consistency and clarity. The overall percentage for 2005-13 is particularly misleading.

Whatever practitioners might wish to think the library service is useful for, the public think that the primary use of libraries is centred on books – and so long as the selection of books to read continues to fall in quality in the way that has been described, the public will decline to use the service

Ian’s graph shows with crystal clarity that up to 2010 the library service had ever increasing funds and yet use declined . It would be utterly irresponsible to use public money to increase funds unless and until those responsible for deciding how it should be spent can demonstrate that they know how to increase use – and they don’t .

No worries, my friend. I do have trouble with less and fewer (I must have missed that lesson at school) and of course I research and dash off these articles when I can which means there’s no quality control! Glad you found the post interesting.

1) Taking Part’s “visits to the library” – I think this question has changed over the years and whereas once it was made clear what a visit to the library includes (mobile library, online etc), now it isn’t so explicit (I think previously the interviewer explained to the interviewee what was meant by visit to the library, no the interviewer only imparts that information if asked. Any change to the way the survey is conducted means trends over time need to be treated with care.

2) CIPFA’s active membership only focuses on book borrowing.

3) Number of annual visits is also problematic (someone who previously renewed items in the library or ordered books, for example, might now do so online – resulting in a decline in visits in terms of the physical space, but they are using the library as much as before).

As I said, I’m not saying that there isn’t something in the conclusions, but I do think such statistics need to explored more fully rather than simply looking at them at a rather superficial level and drawing meaningful conclusions from them.

If anything, I’d suggest such figures demonstrate that there is no effective way of measuring the importance of a public library to its local community. If we can find more substantial methods to measure the delivery of library services, maybe some effective evidence can be gathered. Our problem is that politicians rather like superficial numbers on a page. I guess we can play their game or explain why these figures are not that helpful. Some choose the former, some the latter. Either way, quantitative data alone is not telling us the whole story.

Otherwise it’s very well written sorry for the pedantry none of are 100% on grammar.

Thanks David. Quite a few have mentioned that to me.

Find my general experience of visiting the library some what disturbing and traumatic most of the time, its a library not a mental health unit.