More generally, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of judging libraries by four impersonal criteria. Program attendance, for instance, does not speak to the quality of the program. On Thursday I offered a program on how to apply for jobs online. Only six people showed. The numbers were disappointing, but I’d like to think it was a good program. I’d also like to think that libraries that make a concerted effort to help the community during rough economic times are better serving their mission than libraries that aren’t doing anything special.

Or– sorry to be long-winded– what about things that you simply can’t measure statistically? People who find me at the reference desk and ask for a good book will get good service. This is because I read a lot, and because my library actively supports and promotes readers advisory. Other libraries, through lack of funding, or indifference, or whatever, don’t make RA a priority.

At any rate, I think the most important measures of a library’s worth are too abstract to reduce to simplistic statistics.

Also: we have lots of laptops accessing our wireless network at any given time, and we don’t have a way to include those numbers in our overall internet usage.

I’m still not trying to poke holes in the study, I just want to identify the limitations of the data so the next report can be more comprehensive and accurate.