Service area populations: Paring down the open list – DONE!

Final Update, Tuesday, August 14: There’s nothing like combining blog posts with selective email…I now have confirmations or changes from every library that was an open question. Thanks to all of you!


Thanks to several who responded to this earlier post and a little time spent with the NCES site, I now have what “good numbers” for most of the libraries on the list–and I’ve sent email to all of the others (and received responses from some of them already, and from the patient library director of Waterloo Public Library in Iowa, who’s also director of the Cedar Falls Public Library–and who does interesting blogs for both–noting that Waterloo Public in Iowa is not Waterloo Public in Ontario…oh, and now I’ve also received a response from the director of Waterloo Public in Ontario). Parse that sentence and…well, no, don’t even try.

So anyway, rather than keep annotating that already–too-often-changed post, here’s the short list of libraries that I’m still awaiting responses from. This time, the number in brackets is what I’ll use as a service area population if I don’t hear otherwise by the weekend…and so far, with two exceptions, those numbers appear to be pretty good.

  • County of Prince Edward Public Library, Picton, Ontario K0K 2K0. [Confirmed 25,000]
  • Kingston Frontenac Public Library, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 1X8. [152,000 137,000]
  • Bradford West Gwillimbury Public Library, Bradford, Ontario, Canada L3Z 2A7. [24,000 25,000]
  • John M. Cuelenaere Public Library, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada S6V 1B7. [34,000 41,000]
  • St. Albert Public Library, St. Albert, Alberta, Canada T8N 3Z9. [56,000 58,000]
  • Galway Public Libraries, County Galway, Ireland. [confirmed 231,000]

If you’re at one of those libraries and my email didn’t get through, and if the service area population is considerably different from that shown (say at least 5% one way or the other), I’d be grateful if you’d send me a note with the actual service area population, waltcrawford@gmail.com

Oh, and thanks again to all who responded so rapidly to Saturday’s post! Particularly those who expressed an interest in the book.

As for the one two respondents who asked whether their blogs were a good or a bad example…well, maybe I need to do a post about that. (The answer, in this case, is that I was explicitly not looking for “bad examples”–but it might be worth discussing what would constitute a bad library blog. It’s not an easy question. Let’s just say that there aren’t any of the 252 blogs in the book that I believe to be bad blogs.)

Comments are closed.


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 104742 Spams eaten and counting...