My observations as a page seem to imply most such inconsistencies are data-entry errors (e.g., digit swap and off by one) rather than cataloging inconsistencies. There are also technically correct classifications which are not consistent with the collection’s historical practice or the common/likely use by patrons (one example that comes to mind was a cookbook associated with a television show being catalogued in 791 rather than 641).
I have also heard that abbreviations can be improperly expanded (without checking), leading to bizarre classifications; there is more than one organization abbreviated AMA.
Foyles in London used to shelve books by publisher. It was a strange shop in those days.
I’ve visited French comic shops like that — very hard to navigate.
I love Foyles (haven’t been to the new one yet though).
I think it is Kinokuniya in the US that shelves manga by publisher. Challenging.
My observations as a page seem to imply most such inconsistencies are data-entry errors (e.g., digit swap and off by one) rather than cataloging inconsistencies. There are also technically correct classifications which are not consistent with the collection’s historical practice or the common/likely use by patrons (one example that comes to mind was a cookbook associated with a television show being catalogued in 791 rather than 641).
I have also heard that abbreviations can be improperly expanded (without checking), leading to bizarre classifications; there is more than one organization abbreviated AMA.
what about by colour, then spine height?